CAR_Public/191115.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 229

                            Headlines

3236 BAINBRIDGE: Jimenez Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
ACACIA COMMS: Notices of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger Suits
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
ALL FREIGHT: Remove Labor Case to C.D.California
ALLEGIS CORP: Lind Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Fogle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R) Antitrust Suits Underway
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs' Response to Dismissal Bid Due Nov. 19
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway
BAKER HUGHES: Faces City of Providence Shareholder Class Suit

BAKER HUGHES: Tri-State Joint Fund Suit Underway in Delaware
BANK OF AMERICA: Durrani Seeks OT Pay for Relationship Managers
BEARING CASES: Cert. Bid for Bearing Purchasers Class Renewed
BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Alleges Race and Gender Bias in Hiring
BLUE APRON: Ferrandini Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California

BRASILAGRO: Calif. Suit Against IRSA and Cresud Still Ongoing
BRASILAGRO: E.D. Pa. Suits Against IRSA & Cresud SACIFyA Dismissed
BRASILAGRO: Nov. 28 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
BRAVO GROUP: Shelby-Williams Sues Over of Unlawful Use Biometrics
BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Cyber Security-Related Suit Deferred

BURSEY & ASSOCIATES: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CELLULAR SALES: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Tyus Asserts
CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Class Action Suit Stayed
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Class Action Ongoing

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Thimmegowda Class Action Stayed
CHW GROUP: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
CLEAN ENERGY: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Represents Milk Products, Salzhauer Says
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Hahn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert

CRISTY'S PIZZA: Underpays Pizza Pro Employees, Riffle Suit Says
DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Hoyos Sues over Overdraft Fees
DCP MAINSTREAM: Klitzke Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DD INNOVATION: Preece Seeks Overtime Wages for MWD Operators
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois

DOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
DOMO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit
ENGINEERING SERVICES: Mallory Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma

EQUIFAX CANADA: Class Suit Over 2017 Breach Tossed Out of Court
EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks OT Wages for Healthcare Workers
FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action
FMC CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Bisser Class Suit Due Nov. 18

FMC CORPORATION: Discovery in Livent Corp. Securities Suit Stayed
FOSSIL STORES: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUNKY'S BUSINESS: Unlawfully Kept Employees' Tips, Pearson Says
GEN 1: Rader Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Underway

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Underway
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Tri-State Class Action Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Class Suit

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Stayed, Awaits Hachem Ruling
GEORGIA POWER: Has Implemented Franchise Fee Schedule
GOOGLE LLC: Chrome & Gmail not Accessible to Blind, Lefkowitz Says
HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Taken under Advisement
HGW AT SLW: Ramsey Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA

IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Amended Odeh & Choi Complaint Due Nov. 18
JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
JBS USA: Pacific Agri-Products Files Class Action vs Big Beef
KELLOGG CO: Settlement Reached in Calif. Class Suit

KEMPS LLC: Vinales Sues Over Misleading Packaging of Ice Cream
KEYBANK: Shanahan Seeks Overtime Pay for Personal Bankers
KROEGER COMPANY: Mullins Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers
LANCE CONN: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
LIVANOVA PLC: Settlement Balance in 3T Suit to be Paid Jan. 2020

LOGMEIN INC: Faces Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit
LOUISIANA: Certification of Medicaid-Eligible Youth Class Sought
LSB INDUSTRIES: No Liability Remains Outstanding in Wilson Suit
MDL 2913: C. B. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2913: Cobb Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated

MDL 2913: J.W. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2913: La Conner Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2913: Tekulve Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2915: Baisden Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Bowen Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated

MDL 2915: Greenberg Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Settlement Class
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Action
MOLSON COORS: Colorado Class Suits Consolidated
NCS PEARSON: Shacke Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

NEAL COMMUNITIES: Devivo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
NEW YORK: Rosenberg Sues Over Unlawful Fees for E-ZPass Customers
NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ORLEANS PARISH: Moran Seeks to Certify Class
PARETEUM CORP: Vargo Alleges Artificially Inflated Stock Prices

PARETEUM CORPORATION: Singh Says Financial Statements Misleading
PARSON-BISHOP: Headen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
PETCO ANIMAL: Wu Sues Over Sale of Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
PETSMART INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
PETSMART INC: Silberstein Sues for Failing to Notify Plan Members

PG&E CORPORATION: Vataj Says Business Statements Misleading
PHOENIX: Court OKs Damage Class Certification
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Silverberg Says Merger Docs Misleading
PLURALSIGHT INC: New York Class Action Transferred to Utah
PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Moved to S.D. California
QUICKEN LOAN: Illegally Sent Telemarketing Texts, Lopez Claims
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hollywood Firefighters Suit in Minn.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: MSP Seeks Damages Over Purchase of Zantac
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit

SOUTH HOLLAND HOME: Webster Sues over Biometric Data Collection
SSCP PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Polk Says
SUMMIT COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Martin Says
SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces Kennebunk Anticompetitive Suit in Illinois
SURESCRIPTS LLC: Monopolizes E-Prescribing Services, Whitman Says

TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Class Action
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
TEXAS PRIDE: Scheve Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
TIMO SUSHI: Faces Tem Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
TNT CABLE: Holts Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA

TSUNAMI RIG: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TWT 2016: Zhao, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Esa Says IPO Documents Misleading
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manzini Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Tomlinson Sues Over 2017 Care Guidelines
UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
UNITED STATES: Faces Infusino Case in District of Columbia
UNITI GROUP: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Safadi Suit Says
UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Tenn. Class Suit Underway

USA: Oztimurlenk Files Suit in Fed. Claims Ct.
V LIVE DALLAS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says
VWR INTERNATIONAL: Website not Accessible to Blind, Reid Says
WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces Camacho Suit in Eastern District of New York

WHOLE FOODS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
XPO LOGISTICS: Villatoro et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Velayos Sues over Zygel Reports, Share Price Drop

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 37 PI Cases vs. Harsco Corp. Pending in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39,900 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $24MM Aearo-Related Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $620MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,770 Claimants at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit v. J&J Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Asbestos Claims Are Not Material
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Suit v. J&J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,829 Pending Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Sept 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $161MM Gross Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $562.5MM Liabilities at Sept 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Nix 2 ERISA Actions over Talc Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Unit Has 1,591 Exposure Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 700 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,413 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $330MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30


                            *********

3236 BAINBRIDGE: Jimenez Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elida Jimenez and Maria Santos Martinez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. 3236 BAINBRIDGE AVE. FOOD CORP.
d/b/a MAR & TIERRA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, and AURA E. FERNANDEZ,
individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-10492 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the
applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and other
non-exempt employees with overtime premium for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs
and restaurant workers are not exempt from the overtime pay
requirement under the federal or state law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a server and as a
cook.

The Defendants operate a restaurant located in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-344-9022
          Facsimile: 212-344-0301


ACACIA COMMS: Notices of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Acacia Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the class actions related to the merger deal with Cisco Systems,
Inc. have filed notices of voluntary dismissal.

On July 8, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (the "Merger Sub").

On July 8, 2019, Acacia Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (the "Merger Sub"), providing for the acquisition of the
Company by the Parent through the merger of the Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent.

On August 5, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Jiang v. Acacia
Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07267 (the
"Jiang Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the
Company's directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants
for allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed merger
of the Company with the Parent and Merger Sub.

On August 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
O'Brien v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01463 (the "O'Brien Action"), was filed against the Company
and each of the Company's directors in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
agreeing to the proposed Merger without taking steps to obtain
adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances
and engineering the proposed Merger to improperly benefit
themselves, Company management and/or the Parent without regard for
the Company's public stockholders, and that the Company and its
directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger.

On August 6, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Rosenblatt v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01470 (the "Rosenblatt Action"), was filed against the
Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware alleging violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly
disseminating a false and misleading preliminary proxy statement in
connection with the proposed Merger.

On August 7, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Mac v. Acacia
Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11706 (the
"Mac Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the
Company's directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a materially
deficient and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection
with the proposed Merger.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek various forms of injunctive
and declaratory relief, as well as awards of damages, costs, expert
fees and attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2019, the Company and the plaintiffs in the O'Brien
Action, the Rosenblatt Action and the Mac Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding in which these plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss with prejudice their individual claims and to dismiss
without prejudice the class claims asserted in those actions, in
return for the Company's agreement to make the supplemental
disclosures set forth under the heading "Supplement to Proxy
Statement" in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 27, 2019 (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

On August 27, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff in the Jiang
Action agreed in principle that the plaintiff would dismiss with
prejudice his claims asserted in that action, in return for the
Company's agreement to make the Supplemental Disclosures; that
agreement was memorialized in a memorandum of understanding between
the Company and the plaintiff in the Jiang Action entered into on
August 28, 2019.

Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in all
four actions filed notices of voluntary dismissal on September 11,
2019. Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in
these four actions and their counsel reserved their right to file
applications seeking attorney's fees and expenses based upon the
purported benefit they believe was conferred upon the Company's
stockholders by causing the Supplemental Disclosures to be
disseminated, and the Company reserved its right to oppose such fee
applications.

Acacia Communications said, "The Company intends to continue to
engage in a vigorous defense and pursuit of Company favorable
judgments of the ongoing litigation matters described above. The
ultimate resolution of these proceedings may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash
flows, potentially in the near term. In addition, the timing of the
final resolution of these proceedings is uncertain. The Company
will continue to incur litigation and other expenses as a result of
these proceedings, which could have a material impact on the
Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows."

Acacia Communications, Inc., incorporated on June 2, 2009, provides
high-speed coherent interconnect products. The company is based in
Maynard, Massachusetts.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the "Flaccus Class Action Suit" in Chester
County, Pennsylvania.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in various class action suits. Past suits have been
brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the
following jurisdictions: (i) 2009, Circuit Court of Macon County,
Alabama (the "Tiger Pride" suit), (ii) 2011, Duval County, Florida
(the "JWG" suit), (iii) 2013, Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour
County, Alabama (the "Bach" suit), (iv) 2014, Chester County,
Pennsylvania (the "Flaccus" suit), and (v) 2015, Gwinnett County,
Georgia (the "Sims" suit).

The plaintiffs in these cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental
charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages for unspecified amounts.

The 2013 Quitman County, Georgia complaint was dismissed in March
2014.

The Company has reached a settlement for $9.0 (inclusive of
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs), resolving the Tiger Pride,
JWG, Bach and Sims suits.

As of September 30, 2019, $5.7 of this settlement has been paid and
the remaining amount is expected to be paid in the fourth quarter
of 2019. The Flaccus suit has not been settled and is still
pending.

Advanced Disposal said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of the Flaccus case, the
unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues
in dispute, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted and a
range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name
to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Ponte Vedra, Florida.


ALL FREIGHT: Remove Labor Case to C.D.California
------------------------------------------------
All Freight Carriers Inc. et al. removed the case styled as WAYNE
YARIAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALL FREIGHT CARRIERS INC., an Illinois
Corporation; AFC LOGISTICS INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28735
(Filed Aug. 16, 2019), from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09172 to the proceeding.

The class action complaint asserts claims against Defendants' wage
and hour violations under the California Labor Code including
failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide
required rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
pay minimum wage; failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees; failure to maintain required records; failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of
duties; and unlawful deductions from wages.

All Freight is a licensed and bonded freight brokerage. AFC
Logistics is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Remington,
Indiana.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are

          Craig G. Staub, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213.443.4300
          Facsimile: 213.443.4299
          E-mail: cstaub@littler.com

               - and -

          MAGGY ATHANASIOUS, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Telephone: 310 553 0308
          Facsimile: 310 553 5583
          E-mail: mathanasious@littler.com

ALLEGIS CORP: Lind Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Lind, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ALLEGIS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01657 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 12,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages,
liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived current and former Customer
Service Representative, Inside Sales, and Warehouse employees of
their wages earned for all compensable work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Ms. Lind alleges. She
contends that the Defendant improperly classified these employees
as "exempt" for compensation purposes under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative employee.

Allegis Corporation is an access hardware company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Fogle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Fogle, David P.
Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Coradius International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06227 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019).

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

American Coradius International, LLC also known as ACI is a
financial service agency representing banks and finance companies
on a nationwide level, they are a first and third party debt
collection agency. ACI debt collection agency will collect on
student loan debts, credit card debts, charge offs, retail debt,
etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R) Antitrust Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company filed its motion
to dismiss both the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated class
action complaint and the indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs'
complaint related to Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions.

On July 31, 2019, the multidistrict litigation panel entered an
order consolidating in the Delaware District Court the four class
action lawsuits brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class
of direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar(R) against Amgen and
various entities affiliated with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.

On September 13, 2019, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and
on October 15, 2019, Amgen filed its motion to dismiss both the
direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint
and the indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs' complaint.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs' Response to Dismissal Bid Due Nov. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs response on
the defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated antitrust action
suit related to Humira(R) Biosimilar is due on November 19, 2019.

Twelve purported class actions against Amgen, along with AbbVie
Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Illinois Northern
District Court). On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint in the Illinois Northern District Court.

On October 11, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint (as well as brief individual motions),
challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations to
state any claim for relief under the law. No argument date has been
set and plaintiffs' response to the motions is due on November 19,
2019.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.

AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from a
court decision in the case, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al., remains pending.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period
that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that
the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.

The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action. On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order
granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case
with prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief and the Company filed its answering brief, on May 8, 2019.

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

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


BAKER HUGHES: Faces City of Providence Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company faces
shareholder class action suit initiated by City of Providence.

On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of Baker
Hughes Incorporated (BHI) against GE, the former members of the
Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging
substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions.


The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a
declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an
award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Baker Hughes said, "At this time, we are not able to predict the
outcome of these claims."

Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


BAKER HUGHES: Tri-State Joint Fund Suit Underway in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a shareholder class action suit initiated by
Tri-State Joint Fund in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric
Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and
certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the
Transactions.  The relief sought in the complaint includes a
request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


BANK OF AMERICA: Durrani Seeks OT Pay for Relationship Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Durrani, Julia Stuhltrager, Melvin Rodriguez, Jacob Savage,
and Melissa Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 513752/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
Kings Cty., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, but did not receive any overtime pay for any hours worked
over 40. The Defendant was aware that the Plaintiffs worked more
than 40 hours per workweek, yet the Defendant failed to pay them
any overtime compensation by preventing them from recording all
hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current and former non-exempt employees, who
worked for the Defendant as Relationship Managers.

The Defendant is a nationally chartered banking association
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Deidre Aaron, Esq.
          Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 245-1000

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831


BEARING CASES: Cert. Bid for Bearing Purchasers Class Renewed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (Bearing Cases), Case No. 2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM (E.D.
Mich.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs DALC Gear & Bearing Supply
Corporation, McGuire Bearing Company, and Sherman Bearings Inc. ask
the Court on Nov. 11, 2019 for an order:

   1. granting their renewed motion for certifying case as a class
      action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

      (b)(3) on behalf of class defined as:

      "all distributors in the United States that purchased
      bearings directly from one or more of the Defendants, SKF
      USA Inc., or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or
      joint ventures, from and including April 1, 2004 through
      December 31, 2014. Excluded from the class are Defendants,
      SKF USA Inc., and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
      and joint ventures"; and

   2. designating them as the class representatives, and
      appointing their counsel as Class Counsel.[BN]

Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are:

          David H. Fink, Esq,
          Darryl Bressack, Esq,
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq,
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500pa

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

               - and -

          M. John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bright, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230

               - and -

          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980

BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Alleges Race and Gender Bias in Hiring
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYREESE WICKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT, LLC, JERSEY PLAZA,
LLC, MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN, and DHAVAL JAIN, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-19053 (D.N.J., Oct. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants
engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawfully considering the race
and sex of applicant, and refused to meaningfully consider
African-American or male applicants for certain position pursuant
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants' unlawful consideration of
race and sex has been applied to all African-American or male
applicants who have sought certain positions with Defendants.

Ultimately, Defendants discriminated against and retaliated against
Plaintiff on the basis of his sex and race, and because Plaintiff
complained or opposed the unlawful conduct of Defendants related to
the above protected classes.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages
to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being
discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of his sex and
race, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff & Proposed Class are:

          Daniel J. Altaras, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC.
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760

BLUE APRON: Ferrandini Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Keefe Ferrandini an individual;
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
 Plaintiff, vs. Blue Apron, LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32164, was removed from the Superior
Court of California - Los Angeles County, to the United States
District Court for Central District of California (Western Division
- Los Angeles) on Oct 23, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09140 to the proceeding.

Blue Apron Inc. is an American ingredient-and-recipe meal kit
service. It exclusively operates in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Blue Apron, LLC are:

          Rita Mansuryan, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 500-2090
          Facsimile: (310) 500-2091
          E-mail: rita.mansuryan@faegrebd.com

BRASILAGRO: Calif. Suit Against IRSA and Cresud Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its
Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2019, that IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA), Cresud, and
certain managers and directors continues to defend a class action
suit that has been re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On February 23, 2016, a class action was filed against IRSA
Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA), Cresud, and certain managers
and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The complaint was amended on February 13, 2017. As amended, the
complaint, filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Global Depositary Receipts of IRSA between February 11, 2015 and
December 30, 2015, claims alleged violations of U.S. federal
securities laws. In addition, it argues that defendants have made
material misrepresentations and omissions related to the Company's
investment in IDB Development Corporation Ltd. ("IDBD").

Such complaint was withdrawn on May 4, 2016 by the plaintiff and
re-filed on May 9, 2016 with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a
corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of
Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company
focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of
agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant
potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The
company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


BRASILAGRO: E.D. Pa. Suits Against IRSA & Cresud SACIFyA Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its
Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2019, that lawsuits against IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A.
(IRSA) and Cresud SACIFyA in Pennsylvania have been dismissed.

IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA) and Cresud and certain of
their managers and directors are defendants in a class action filed
on April 29, 2016 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The complaint was amended on February 13,
2017. As amended, the complaint, filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or acquired Global Depositary Receipts of Cresud between
February 11, 2015 and December 30, 2015, alleges violations of U.S.
federal securities laws. In addition, it argues that defendants
have made material misrepresentations and omissions related to the
investment of the Company's subsidiary, IRSA, in IDB Development
Corporation Ltd. (IDBD).

On September 24, 2018, the plaintiff in the class action against
Cresud filed a brief acknowledging the dismissal of the complaint
filed in the class action against Cresud for the same reasons as
those stated by the Court on September 10, 2018 in the class action
against IRSA, subject to its right to appeal.

On October 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the United
States Court of Appeals in the class action against IRSA. On
December 12, 2018, the plaintiff in the class action against Cresud
filed a notice for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, which the
Court ordered on May 15, 2019.

On December 13, 2018, the plaintiff waived the appeal filed in the
class action against IRSA, subject to an agreement with IRSA and
Cresud that the parties would bear their own legal costs and fees,
including those incurred in the appeal proceedings, and that no
charges would remain outstanding. As a result, the United States
Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on December 18,
2018.

On May 15, 2019, the Court ordered the voluntary dismissal of the
plaintiff in the class action against IRSA. Both cases have been
fully adjudicated and dismissed with prejudice in relation to IRSA
and Cresud SACIFyA.

BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a
corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of
Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company
focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of
agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant
potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The
company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


BRASILAGRO: Nov. 28 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its
Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2019, that the preliminary hearing on plaintiffs' amended motion to
approve the claims as class action is scheduled on November 28,
2019.

In June 2015, an application to approve an action as a class action
was filed with the Central District Court in Lod, Israel, against
IDBD, Dolphin Netherlands BV (IDBD's controlling shareholder),
C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd. (IDBD's former controlling shareholder,
or "CAA"), and current and former directors, including alternate
directors (including, among others, Messrs. Eduardo Elsztain,
Sholem Lapidot, Saul Zang and Mauricio Wior) (the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges that they hold shares in IDBD and that they
are creditors of a debt arrangement with IDB Holdings Corporation
Ltd. (the "Plaintiffs" and "Debt Arrangement," respectively)
raising, among others, claims regarding the conduct of IDBD's
controlling shareholders and of its board of directors in
connection with the expiration of a transaction for the sale of
IDBD's holdings in Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings Ltd. ("Clal
Insurance") in May 2014 and in connection with a rights issuance by
IDBD in July 2014 and February 2015.

In March 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the class
action application and, in June 2016, the Court partially accepted
the motion and ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended class
action application that would include only the allegations and
remedies with respect to the Clal Insurance transaction. In August
2016, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal (regarding the part
of decision that did not dismiss the allegations concerning the
Clal Insurance transaction) and the Plaintiffs filed an appeal
(regarding the part of the decision that dismissed the allegations
concerning the rights issuance) both with the Israeli Supreme
Court.

Following the dismissal of the appeal proceedings by the Supreme
Court, the Plaintiffs filed, in January 2018, a motion of appeal to
summarily dismiss the appeal filed by the Defendants, in which the
Court ordered the striking of the motion for causes of action that
fall under an exemption condition included in the amendment to the
Debt Arrangement pertaining to damage that was allegedly caused due
to prejudice of rights by virtue of the undertaking of the
controlling shareholder and the former controlling shareholder to
perform a tender offer for IDBD's shares in accordance with the
Debt Arrangement. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to approve
the claim as a class action.

Dolphin, IDBD and IDBD's directors filed a detailed joint answer on
May 7, 2018. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for November 28,
2019.

In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion (in partial agreement)
for withdrawal from the proceeding against the Defendants. In light
of CAA and IDBD’s former controlling shareholder refusal to agree
to the Plaintiffs’ withdrawal without an order for expenses, the
Court has set a time for filing arguments on the expenses.

BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a
corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of
Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company
focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of
agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant
potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The
company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


BRAVO GROUP: Shelby-Williams Sues Over of Unlawful Use Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cora Shelby-Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BRAVO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a ROSEWOOD
CARE CENTERS, BRAVO CARE OF JOLIET, INC. d/b/a ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER
OF JOLIET, and DANIEL L. MAHER, Case No. 2019CH13047 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought against the Defendants to
redress and curtail their unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
data.

The Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time
cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation,
Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendants disregard employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collect, store, disseminate, and use their
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff
alleges. Specifically, the Defendants violated and continue to
violate BIPA because they did not and continue not to: properly
inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length
of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored,
and used, as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the
Plaintiff to collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints,
as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the
Plaintiff and others to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by
BIPA, says the complaint.

Cora Shelby-Williams is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Illinois.

Bravo Group Management owns and operates 11 Rehabilitation and
Skilled Nursing Facilities in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com


BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Cyber Security-Related Suit Deferred
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2019, that a court has
deferred its ruling on the company's motion to dismiss the class
action suit related to the 2018 cyber security incident.

On May 12, 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter.

Based on the investigation of the company's third-party forensic
experts, the company believes most Company-owned Chili's
restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that
vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no
earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22,
2018.

The company expects to incur legal and professional services
expenses associated with the cyber security incident in future
periods, which could be material. The company will recognize these
expenses as services are received. Related to this incident,
payment card companies and associations may request us to reimburse
them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and
may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the cyber
security incident, and regulatory authorities may also impose fines
or other remedies against the company.

While the company do not acknowledge responsibility to pay any such
amounts imposed by any third parties, the company may become
obligated to pay such amounts or incur significant related
settlement costs. The company will record an estimate for losses at
the time when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and
the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.

To limit the company's exposure to cyber security events, the
company maintain cyber liability insurance coverage. This coverage
and certain other insurance coverage may reduce the company's
exposure for this incident. The company's cyber liability insurance
policy contains a $2.0 million retention that was fully accrued
during fiscal 2018.

Since the incident, through September 25, 2019, the company have
incurred total costs of $4.2 million related to the cyber security
incident. This includes the $2.0 million retention recorded in
fiscal 2018, an additional $0.4 million during fiscal 2019 for
expenses not believed to be covered by the company's insurance
coverage recorded to Other (gains) and charges in the Consolidated
Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited), and $1.8 million of
receivable for costs incurred that the company believes are
reimbursable and probable of recovery under our insurance
coverage.

The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30,
2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively,
the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident.

In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from
the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs.

Since the initial filing of these cases, the Nevada plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this case and joined the Florida lawsuit.
Counsel for all parties subsequently agreed to the transfer of the
California cases to Florida, and they have been consolidated into a
single matter with the case already pending there. On January 4,
2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs'
claims asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the
lawsuit and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

Following completion of briefing by the parties, the court
conducted a hearing on the company's motion on June 24, 2019. On
August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as
to the remaining plaintiffs.

The court deferred its ruling on the company's argument that
plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted
pending further briefing. In the meantime, the parties are engaging
in written discovery and the exchange of documents.

Brinker International said, "We believe we have defenses and intend
to defend the Litigation. As such, as of September 25, 2019, we
have concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable,
therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the
Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new
information as it becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.



BURSEY & ASSOCIATES: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bursey & Associates, PC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05508-DWL (D. Ariz., Oct. 25, 2019),
seeks to redress conduct by Defendant in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another.

In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent
Plaintiff written correspondence dated August 16, 2019.

Defendant's August 16, 2019 letter is based on a form or template
designed to be used with a windowed envelope so that the consumer's
name and address appears through the envelope's window, and where
Defendant's account number for the consumer appears above the
consumer's name and address.

According to the complaint, Defendant has used the Template, along
with a windowed envelope, to send collection letters to over 40
individuals in the State of Arizona within the year prior to the
filing of the original complaint in this matter.

Congress enacted the FDCPA in order to eliminate "abusive debt
collection practices by debt collectors and to insure that those
debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection
practices are not competitively disadvantaged."

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt. The Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction
in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes -- namely, a personal vehicle loan.

Bursey & Associates is a professional corporation that specializes
in creditors' rights and asset recovery.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

CELLULAR SALES: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Tyus Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO TYUS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, LLC,
A Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-02664-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), asserts claims
against Cellular Sales for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act of 1970.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for violating
his federally protected privacy rights by procuring consumer
reports on him and other putative class members for employment
purposes, without disclosing to them that it may obtain their
consumer report for employment purposes, before obtaining a copy of
their consumer report, and by obtaining consumer reports on him and
other putative class members without their written authorization,
in violation of the FCRA.

Cellular Sales provides telecommunication products and services,
and is a user of consumer reports as contemplated by the FCRA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, No. 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-223-5505
          Facsimile: 813-257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW PENNINGTON Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CGH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A Foreign
For Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02056 (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendant did not compensate
the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt workers
at the proper overtime rate of time and a half as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Pennington was employed by the Defendant as a "Technician,"
performing basic computer and security services at airports
monitored by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) throughout
Florida. He alleges that he and other similarly situated co-workers
customarily worked more than 40 hours in a work week but the
Defendant paid them straight time for each hour worked regardless
of whether the work performed was in excess of 40 hours in a week.

CGH is an information engineering and management support company
located in Washington, D.C., with satellite offices in Virginia,
and North Carolina, and a workforce throughout the United States.
CGH provides its customers multiple services, including Security
Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
          533 Versailles Drive, No. 200
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622-6545


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Class Action Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington has
stayed in its entirety the class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other
claims, that the Company’s "Big Fish Casino" operated by the
Company’s then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish
Games violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its
virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and
roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among
other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney’s fees,
treble damages, and injunctive relief.  

On November 19, 2015, the Washington District Court dismissed the
case with prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big
Fish Games to Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation
("Purchaser"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat
Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the
Company, Big Fish Games and the Purchaser.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify
the Purchaser for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater
litigation for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock
Purchase Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation."

On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the Washington District Court's dismissal of the
complaint against the Company. On June 12, 2018, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Company’s
Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the Company on May 11,
2018.  

On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Status Report and
Discovery Plan in the Washington District Court. On July 20, 2018,
the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Washington
District Court, which was denied on November 2, 2018. The Company
filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on November 16, 2018.

The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games,
Inc., as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional
plaintiff, Suzie Kelly.  On May 10, 2019, the Company filed an
answer as to the claims asserted by plaintiff Kater, and joined Big
Fish Games in moving to compel arbitration as to all claims
asserted by plaintiff Kelly. Big Fish Games also moved to compel
arbitration against plaintiff Kater.  

On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay discovery pending
resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. On August 21, 2019,
the Washington District Court partially granted the motion and
stayed discovery pending a ruling on the motions to compel
arbitration against plaintiffs Kater and Kelly, except as to
discovery requests plaintiff Kater served on the Company before
amending the complaint.

On September 12, 2019, the Washington District Court ordered that
the case would be stayed entirely (except for the aforementioned
discovery requests), pending the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues raised in other
cases which may be relevant to the arguments raised in the pending
motions to compel arbitration.

Churchill Downs said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the
Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the Washington
District Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the
Company believes that there are meritorious legal and factual
defenses against plaintiff’s allegations and requests for
relief."

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, John L. Soileau,
et al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill
Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District
Court").

The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker
Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain
monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies
earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse
monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds'
live thoroughbred horse meets.

La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse
monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds’
live quarter-horse meets. The petition requested that the District
Court declare that Fair Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S.
27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair
Grounds Defendants to pay all future supplements due to the
plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the
plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the
value of the sums due to the plaintiff class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants
filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No
Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the
Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. On July 13, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed their brief with the District Court and Fair
Grounds Defendants filed its brief on August 12, 2016.

A hearing was held at the District Court on September 15, 2016 and
the District Court affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's
ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7, 2016. By Order dated August
23, 2017, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
the plaintiffs' appeal without prejudice because the District
Court's Judgment did not contain the necessary decretal language.
To correct this deficiency, the District Court entered an Amended
Judgment on September 19, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the
plaintiffs appealed the Amended Judgment to the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 13, 2018, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the
matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings.
On June 27, 2018, the Fair Grounds Defendants filed a Motion for
Rehearing with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which
was denied on July 12, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Fair Grounds
Defendants filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision; the writ was denied on November 14, 2018. The parties had
previously attempted to mediate the matter in October 2018.

The Company is engaged in ongoing settlement discussions and have
established an accrual for an immaterial amount.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Thimmegowda Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suit entitled, Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games,
Aristocrat Technologies Inc. ("Purchaser"), Aristocrat Leisure
Limited, and Churchill Downs Inc., has been stayed.

On February 11, 2019, a purported class action styled Manasa
Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Aristocrat Technologies Inc.
("Purchaser"), Aristocrat Leisure Limited, and Churchill Downs
Inc., was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among
other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish
Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies
lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and
punitive damages.

On May 10, 2019, all of the defendants moved to compel arbitration
of the claims, and the Company, the Purchaser and Aristocrat
Leisure Limited also moved to dismiss the action for lack of
personal jurisdiction. On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay
discovery pending resolution of those motions.  

On September 12, 2019, the Washington District Court ordered that
the case would be stayed entirely, pending the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues
raised in other cases which may be relevant to the arguments raised
in the pending motion to compel arbitration.

The Company is working to vigorously defend this matter, and
believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses
against plaintiff's allegations and requests for relief.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CHW GROUP: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WINTERS, JR.,individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHW GROUP, INC. D.B.A.
CHOICE HOME WARRANTY; HOME WARRANTY ADMINISTRATOR OF ARIZONA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05509-SPL (D. Ariz., Oct. 25, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants.

Beginning in or around July of 2019, Defendant contacted Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678, in an
attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services.
Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services.

Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678 has
been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since at least October 5,
2018.

The Plaintiff received multiple solicitation calls from Defendants
within 12-month period, the lawsuit says.

Defendants are home service contracts advertiser and seller.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 800 400-6808
          Facsimile: 800 520-5523
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

CLEAN ENERGY: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WINTERS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC,
D/B/A SOLAR RESEARCH GROUP; MIX MEDIA 365 LLC D/B/A SOLAR RESEARCH
GROUP; NICOLE LEONARD-LONG; NICHOLAS LONG, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02030
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes
and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited
telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of
2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -6678, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services.

Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services.

Defendants contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone numbers (716) 508-7139 and 480-739-0374 confirmed to be
Defendants' number.

Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit
says.

Clean Energy Experts provides high quality real-time customer
leads, appointments, performance marketing and software solutions
to solar, energy, and home improvement companies. MediaMix 365 is a
marketing services company that delivers high-intent, qualified
consumers to companies seeking to scale Nicole Leonard-Long is the
owner and operator of MM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Represents Milk Products, Salzhauer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eliana Salzhauer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, and FAIRLIFE, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07170 (N.D. Ga., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to put a
stop to the Defendants' marketing practices regarding the
representations of the cows that produce their milk products.

The Defendants produce, market and sell a brand of milk products
under the "Fairlife" label that are marketed as premium products.
Central to the Defendants' marketing of the Products is the
representation that the cows that are part of producing the
Products are treated humanely.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' representations are
false because the Products are not derived from cows that are
treated "fairly" or "with extraordinary care and comfort." Contrary
to the Defendants' representations, the dairy cows are not treated
"fairly" at all--rather, they are victims of horrendous animal
abuse, the Plaintiff asserts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class suffered
financial injury because they bought the Products they otherwise
would not have bought, or for which they would have paid less. But
beyond that, they were forced, through the Defendants' deception,
to unknowingly contribute to and participate in the infliction of
cruelty on the Fairlife cows through their purchase of the
Products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendants' Products for the past two
years or more.

The Defendants produce, market and sell a brand of milk products
under the "Fairlife" label.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1725
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 881-8900
          Email: kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Adam Pom, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 aprom@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 389-0600
          Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                 jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

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


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Hahn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN HAHN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01656 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the John Hahn, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com

CRISTY'S PIZZA: Underpays Pizza Pro Employees, Riffle Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON RIFFLE, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. CRISTY'S PIZZA, INC., JASON D. BIGGS, and
CHRISTOPHER L. HAMMACK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04750-GCS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, Oct. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act by underpaying and failing to pay their employees at
the federally mandated minimum wage rate.

The Defendants systematically pay employees below the minimum wage
rate by deducting cash shortages, uniforms, miscellaneous
deductions, and other deductions, and failure to properly reimburse
their employees for costs and expenses, Mr. Riffle contends.

The Plaintiff worked as a "pizza pro" for the Defendants from
October 2015 to August 2015 at their restaurant located at 1029 S.
Court St., in Circleville, Ohio.

The Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in Ohio under the
names Cristy's Pizza and Papa Boos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: 847 644 3425
          Facsimile: 847 673 1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com


DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Hoyos Sues over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------
JOSE HOYOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. DADE COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant,
Case No. 97762502 (Fla. 11th Jud'l Cir., Oct., 23, 2019), seeks
monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from the
Defendant arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of overdraft fees which DCF charges when it pays certain
items.

Mr. Hoyos and other DCF customers have been injured by DCF's
practices. On behalf of himself and the putative class, Mr Hoyos
seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for DCF's breach
of contract and violation of Florida's consumer protection law, the
lawsuit says.

Mr. Hoyos has a personal checking account with DCF.

DCF is one of the largest credit unions in Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350 4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

DCP MAINSTREAM: Klitzke Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer J. Klitzke, Individually and For Others Similarly
Situated v. DCP MAINSTREAM, LLC and BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03207 (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other
workers to whom the Defendants have paid
straight-time-for-overtime.

The Defendants did not pay their hourly workers overtime as
required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendants
paid their hourly workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked
in a workweek, including those in excess of 40
(straight-time-for-overtime). The Defendants'
straight-time-for-overtime plan violated the FLSA because all
employee paid in an hour basis are owed overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half
tomes their regular hourly rates, the Plaintiff points out.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Safety Inspector from
October 2017 to June 2019.

DCP is one of the largest producers of natural gas liquids (NGLs)
and one of the largest natural gas processing companies in the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                 mburke@brucknerburch.com


DD INNOVATION: Preece Seeks Overtime Wages for MWD Operators
------------------------------------------------------------
Braydon Preece, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
DD INNOVATION LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04434 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 11,
2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the other MWD Operators worked for the Defendants
regularly for more than 40 hours a week. But these workers never
received overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek, the Plaintiff contends. Instead of receiving
overtime pay as required by the FLSA, the Defendant classified the
Plaintiff and others as independent contractors and paid these
workers a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate) without
overtime compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an MWD Operator from
January 2017 to July 2017.

The Defendant is an oilfield services company providing measurement
while drilling and directional drilling services to oil and gas
exploration and production companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit in the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On September 20, 2019, a putative class action was filed against
the Company in the Northern District of Illinois alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff
alleges the Company placed telephone calls to wrong or reassigned
cellular telephone numbers without consent.

The plaintiff seeks an injunction, statutory damages, treble
damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiff."

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and
electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit
cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings
products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts.
Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine
networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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


DOMO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
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 Domo, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOMO) (i) from June 26, 2018
through September 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or (ii)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and related prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering") commenced on or
about June 29, 2018. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Domo
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Domo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1699.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) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and
international businesses; (2) Domo's billings growth had
dramatically slowed; (3) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely
to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial
results; and (4) as a result, Domo's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1699.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

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
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of DXC Technology Company
(DXC). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

DXC Technology Company (DXC)

Class Period: persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired DXC Technology Company ("DXC") common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus or
other documents issued in connection with the April 2017
transaction by which Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company's
Enterprise Services segment was spun off and merged with Computer
Sciences Corporation, Inc. to form DXC.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019

Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dxc-technology-company-loss-form-2?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: DXC Technology Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the planned "workforce optimization" plan involved implementing
arbitrary quotas; (2) the plan would cut thousands of jobs at the
Company; (3) jobs that were particularly at risk of being cut were
held by longer-tenured, knowledgeable, and highly compensated
senior personnel; (4) these job terminations were selectively timed
to artificially inflate reported earnings and other financial
metrics; (5) at the time of the formation of DXC Technology
Company, J. Michael Lawrie (the incoming President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Chairman of the Board at DXC) had forecasted plans for
a $2.7 billion workforce reduction in the first year; (6) as a
result of these workforce terminations, the Company was unlikely to
deliver on client contracts; (7) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's clients would be dissatisfied and the
relationships would be impaired; and (8) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the DXC Technology Company class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Contact:

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


ENGINEERING SERVICES: Mallory Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Mallory, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00248-CRH (D.N.D., Nov.
12, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges.
Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek,
says the complaint.

Troy Mallory worked for the Defendant as a Commissioning Manager.

ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC staffs employees to the power
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as DARRELL REEVES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE
PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02670 (Filed
July 19, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) on Oct 25, 2019.

The Northern District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00570-JED-FHM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Chief Judge John E. Dowdell.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Darrell Reeves brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from Enterprise Products Partners. He and other
workers like him regularly worked for Enterprise in excess of 40
hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the
lawsuit says.

Enterprise is an oil and gas and construction staffing company.
Enterprise employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          William Richard Liles, Esq.
          Michael A Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 74406
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq.
          Jordan Lyn Warshauer, Esq.
          Neal Avishek Sarkar, Esq.
          AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS ALAVI & MENSING, PC
          1221 McKinney St., Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 655-1101
          Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
          E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Cowen, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          444 W Lake Ste 4000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 372-2000


EQUIFAX CANADA: Class Suit Over 2017 Breach Tossed Out of Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Braun, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that who says there are
no cultural differences between Canada and the United States?

If you were one of 20,000 Canadians whose information got hacked in
the 2017 Equifax breach, your class action suit has been tossed out
of court.

South of the border, however, Equifax paid out $700 million to
settle the same claims with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The Canadian class-action lawsuit was dismissed by a Quebec
Superior Court.

"The fact there was a U.S. settlement by the defendants of a
parallel class action does not change anything," wrote Justice
Donald Brisson, according to a story in Blacklock's Reporter.

"The risk of developing future harm is not an injury that can be
compensated in Quebec law."

Two years ago, hackers got access to Equifax file information,
including names, addresses, birth dates, social insurance numbers
and credit card information for almost 20,000 Canadians.

In the U.S., up to 145 million clients were affected.

Some 730 Canadians petitioned the Court to approve a class-action
lawsuit for millions in unspecified damages. The claim was called
purely hypothetical by Brisson, who dismissed the claim of  "mental
distress" as nothing more than the garden variety inconvenience and
anxiety of everyday life.

There was no evidence anyone in Canada had been the victim of
identity theft.

Equifax executives apologized in testimony at the Commons privacy
committee in 2017. They said Canadian customers had been issued
identity theft insurance, gratis, for a year.

At the same time, members of the Senate banking committee laid the
Equifax breach at the feet of the Canadian Bankers Association -
banks being the true customers of Equifax, according to Sen. Lucie
Moncion.

Sen. Paul Massicotte added that bankers responsible for compiling
credit data in the first place must be accountable for safeguarding
customers' information.

"While I'm little bit p--d off at Equifax, where did they get that
information?" said Massicotte. "They got that information from you.
So, while I'm upset with them, I'm upset with you. How do you
regain my trust?" [GN]


EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks OT Wages for Healthcare Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Gorzkowska, Maria Drwiega, Patricia Martinez, and Barabara
Drelichowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EURO HOMECARE LLC and ELZBIETA DARMOROS, Case No.
3:19-cv-0773 (D. Conn., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek. The Defendants knew that the Plaintiffs worked more than
13 hours per day and they willfully failed and refused to pay the
Plaintiffs overtime wages at the required rates, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home healthcare
workers.

Euro Homecare is a provider of homemaker and companion
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 587-9373
          Fax: (240) 839-9142
          Email: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com


FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OLAMIDE FAJIMOLU, the
Plaintiff, v. FIDATO PARTNERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04550-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective:

   "all persons presently or formerly employed by Defendant in the
   position of Consultant and/or Accounting Services or in
   positions with substantially similar job duties who were paid
   on an hourly basis, and denied overtime compensation for work
   performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek from October 1,
   2015 to the present."

Fidato Partners provides trusted consulting and recruiting services
in accounting, risk management, and information technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267-273-1054
          Facsimile: 215-525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@philadelphiaemploymentlawyer.com
                  ec@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly T. Kindig, Esq.
          Elizabeth Malloy, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-665-2000
          Facsimile: 215-665-2013
          E-mail: kkindig@cozen.com
                  emalloy@cozen.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et
al.

In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally
filed on October 27, 2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named
Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide
premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing
transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate.

The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania
Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL
requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes
certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for
summary judgment.

On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the
Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of
1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if
any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should
bear the responsibility of identifying class members and
calculating damages.

The Company sought permission from the Pennsylvania Superior Court
to appeal both the liability and damage multiplier issues; however,
the petition was denied. The Company has filed a petition with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court requesting consideration of the appeal
on the merits, or in the alternative, an order directing the
Pennsylvania Superior Court to grant interlocutory review.

Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the
size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek
statutory or actual damages, or whether the judge will exercise
discretion to award prejudgment interest or reasonable attorneys'
fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this
time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do
not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition."

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

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FMC CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Bisser Class Suit Due Nov. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent
Corp., et al., is due on November 18, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, purported stockholders of Livent amended a
putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to add FMC Corporation as
a defendant. The operative complaint in that case, Bisser Nikolov
v. Livent Corp., et al. makes similar substantive allegations as
the state court case, including alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent initial public offering
(IPO) offering documents.

Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Defendants shall file a
motion to dismiss the Bisser case no later than November 18, 2019.
Plaintiffs shall have 45 days to respond to any motion to dismiss,
and Defendants shall have as many as 30 days to file a reply in
further support of a motion to dismiss. All discovery is stayed in
this case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


FMC CORPORATION: Discovery in Livent Corp. Securities Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that defendants' motion
to stay the class action suit entitled In re Livent Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 190501229, has been denied but the court
has granted a separate motion of the defendants to stay all
discovery.

On May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the company's former
subsidiary Livent Corporation ("Livent") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, in connection with Livent's October 2018
initial public offering.

The complaint in this case, Plymouth County Retirement Association
v. Livent Corp., et al., No. 190501229, named as defendants Livent,
certain of its current and former executives and directors, FMC
Corporation, and underwriters involved in the Livent IPO.

The complaint alleges generally that the offering documents for the
Livent IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information
related to Livent's business and prospects. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent IPO offering
documents.

On July 2, 2019, defendants moved to stay the Plymouth County
action, in favor of two similar putative class actions relating to
the Livent IPO, in which FMC had not been named as a defendant,
which are pending in the United States District Court of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On July 18, 2019, a separate state action was filed against the
same defendants in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Bizzaria v. Livent Corp., et al., No.
190702133. On July 26, 2019, Plymouth County filed an amended
complaint in its state court case. On September 23, 2019, the
actions were consolidated under the caption In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 190501229.

On October 11, 2019, defendants filed preliminary objections
seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety. On October 22, 2019,
the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay the case, but granted a
separate motion of the defendants to stay all discovery.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


FOSSIL STORES: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fossil Stores 1, Inc.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Fossil Stores 1,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10295 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019).

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

Fossil is an American lifestyle brand creatively rooted in
authentic vintage and classic design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FUNKY'S BUSINESS: Unlawfully Kept Employees' Tips, Pearson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN DICKEN PEARSON on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. FUNKY'S
BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., MICHAEL W. FORGUS DBA FUNKY'S CATERING,
FPTA EMPLOYEE GROUP, INC., SHEAKLEY HR LLC, JOHN DOE 1-10, and ABC
CORPORATION 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00911-MRB (S.D.
Ohio, Oct. 25, 2019), seeks restitution for all tips unlawfully
kept by the Defendants through policies and practices under which
banquet employees are not allowed to keep all of their tips.

Ms. Pearson alleges that Banquet Employees are required to
participate in an invalid tip pool, which includes the mandatory
tip out of Captains and Chefs, who are managers or supervisors
under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(A) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. She adds that the Defendants hold the Banquet Employees' tips
for an excessive period of time for the Defendants' own use and
benefit.

The Plaintiff also seeks equal amount of liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other damages to which they may
be entitled under law or equity under the FLSA and the Ohio common
law, on behalf of herself and all other current and former banquet
servers, banquet bartenders, and any other tipped banquet employees
("Banquet Employees") at the Defendants' business known as Funky's
Catering, which is owned and operated by Michael W. Forgus.

Funky's Business is an Ohio for profit corporation, which is owned
by Michael W. Forgus. Funky's Catering is registered with the Ohio
Secretary of State Web site as a trade name and is used as such by
the other Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen M. Myers, Esq.
          Caroline M. Drennen, Esq.
          BECKMAN WEIL SHEPARDSON LLC
          895 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513 621 2100
          Facsimile: 513 621 0106
          E-mail: kmyers@beckman-weil.com
                  cdrennen@beckamn-weil.com


GEN 1: Rader Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards
---------------------------------------------------
XEE RADER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
the Plainitff, vs. GEN 1 PROTECTION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03021 (D. Colo., Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that Protection
does not pay its Security Guards overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

Instead, Gen 1 pays all its Security Guards the same hourly rate
for all hours worked in a week, including those in excess of 40 in
a workweek, in excess of 12 in a day, and/or in excess of 12
consecutive hours.

Gen 1's straight-time-for-overtime pay plan violates the FLSA,
CWCA, and CMWA because the Security Guards are owed overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rates, the lawsuit says.

Gen 1 provides an array of security and protection services to its
clients in the Denver, Colorado area.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in the Bezio class action suit is
still pending.

In June 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York
state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k)
plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a
class action on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between
February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and
performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration
statement and documents incorporated therein by reference.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative
complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and
Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP. In
January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
seeking dismissal of the second amended complaint in the
consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Fund
suit.

In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and
the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive
officers.

In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two
actions. In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
misstatements regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related
to GE's Power business. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of
shareowners who acquired GE stock between December 4, 2017 and
December 6, 2018.

In August 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. In September 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the Mahar suit is pending.

In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in
New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive
officers, a former member of GE's Board of Directors and KPMG.

It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance
reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE Stock
Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated
therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who
acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through
the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February 2019, this case was
dismissed.

In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint
naming the same defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2019, the court denied
GE's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the outcome of
the Hachem case.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the Varga class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York is still pending.

In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.

It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP
participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through January
19, 2018 or later.

In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Tri-State Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the Tri-State case.

In August 2019, a putative class action (the Tri-State case) was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and
the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI).

It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty,
and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based
on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the
former Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) board, management and
shareholders in connection with BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas
Business in July 2017. The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI
shareholders during the period between October 7, 2016 and July 5,
2017.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in
"Hachem case" has dismissed a majority of the claims, including all
of the claims related to insurance reserves.

Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions
under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and
certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the Hachem case).

In October 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a fourth amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for
long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of
shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and
January 23, 2018.

GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in August 2019 the court
dismissed a majority of the claims, including all of the claims
related to insurance reserves.

General Electric said, "The court, however, granted the plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, and we expect the plaintiffs to
file a fifth amended complaint during the fourth quarter of 2019."

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Stayed, Awaits Hachem Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the "Houston case"
has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the
"Hachem case".

In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was
filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE
subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and
employees. It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of
senior notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions
involving those notes.

This case has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Hachem case.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GEORGIA POWER: Has Implemented Franchise Fee Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Georgia Public
Service Commission (Georgia PSC) has issued an order that found and
concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the
municipal franchise fee schedule.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state tort law claims.

In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial
court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in 2017. In June 2018,
the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Georgia
Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, on February 13, 2019, the
Superior Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit
petitions to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling to address
certain terms the court previously held were ambiguous as used in
the Georgia PSC's orders.

The order entered by the Superior Court of Fulton County also
conditionally certified the proposed class. In March 2019, Georgia
Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions with the Georgia PSC
seeking confirmation of the proper application of the municipal
franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia PSC's orders.

On October 23, 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found and
concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the
municipal franchise fee schedule. On March 6, 2019, Georgia Power
filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals
regarding the Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019
order. Georgia Power believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit.


The amount of any possible losses cannot be calculated at this time
because, among other factors, it is unknown whether conditional
class certification will be upheld and the ultimate composition of
any class and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from
any municipalities. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.


GOOGLE LLC: Chrome & Gmail not Accessible to Blind, Lefkowitz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
YISROEL LEFKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and ALPHABET INC., a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 523387/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 25, 2019),
complains that Google Chrome and Gmail are not readily accessible
to and usable by blind individuals in violation of the New York
City Human Rights Law and the American With Disabilities Act.

The internet is a critical source of information that provides a
primary means for, inter alia, communications, the absence of which
severely limits everyday activities such as shopping, learning,
banking, researching, as well as many other activities for all
people, including the sighted, blind, and visually impaired.

Blind and visually impaired persons can access online content using
keyboards in conjunction with screen-access software. Software can
serve the duel function of vocalizing the visual information found
on a computer screen or magnifying web-based content.

The Plaintiff is severely visually impaired and uses technology to
assist him when accessing online content. Plaintiff uses the
ZoomText software to assist him by magnifying content displayed on
the screen and/or vocalizing content. Plaintiff typically uses the
level "7" magnification setting on ZoomText.  ZoomText and other
similar software are currently the only methods Plaintiff can
employ to independently access the internet.

The Plaintiff is and was a resident of Kings County and is over the
age of 18. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual. Plaintiff's
condition severely limits his major life activity of sight.

Google owns, operates, controls, and administers inter alia,
gmail.com ("Gmail"). Gmail is an email service developed by Google,
a subsidiary of Defendant. Users can access Gmail on the web and
using third-party programs that synchronize email content. Google
also owns, operates, controls, and administers, inter alia, the
Google Chrome web browser ("Chrome").

Gmail is unique among its competitors: it offers a streamlined
conversation view, configurable density of information, new
higher-quality themes, a resizable navigation bar with
always-visible labels and contacts, and better search. In April
2018, Google introduced a new redesign that made changes in user
interface like the use of Google's Product Sans font. Other updates
included a Confidential mode, which allows users to set an
expiration date for a sensitive message or to revoke it entirely,
integrated rights management, and two-factor authentication.

Gmail's "basic HTML" version will work on almost all browsers. The
modern AJAX version is officially supported in the current and
previous major releases of Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet
Explorer, Microsoft Edge, and Safari web browsers on a rolling
basis.

Chrome is a cross-platform web browser developed by Google. It was
first released in 2008 for Microsoft Windows, and was later ported
to Linux, macOS, iOS, and Android.[BN].

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq.
          BALISOK & KAUFMAN, PLLC
          251 Troy Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (718) 928-9607
          Facsimile: (718) 534-9747
          E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com

HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Taken under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Laura Briscoe, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. Health Care Services Corporation, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10294 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John
Robert Blakey entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion for class
certification under advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk, a motion hearing
was held on Nov. 7, 2019. The Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is taken under advisement and the Court will issue a
ruling by separate order. All deadlines and hearings are to stand.

Health Care Service Corporation is a member owned health insurance
company in the United States. HCSC was formerly known as Hospital
Service Corporation and changed its name to Health Care Service
Corporation in 1975.[CC]

HGW AT SLW: Ramsey Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRANDA RAMSEY, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HGW
AT SLW, LLC d/b/a HURRICANE GRILL & WINGS., a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14404-KAM (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks redress from the Defendant's violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

In August 2017, the Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a
non-exempt employee as a waitress/restaurant server. The Plaintiff
continued her employment with the Defendant until July 20, 2019.

During her last two weeks of employment, the Defendant failed to
compensate her in any conceivable way, Ms. Ramsey alleges. She
contends that the Defendant failed to compensate her at the
required federal minimum wage rate and Florida minimum wage rate at
her last two weeks of employment. She worked approximately 80 hours
totally between July 8, 2019, and July 20, 2019, the lawsuit says.

HGW operates a sports bar and restaurant that specializes in
serving chicken wings and other bar and pub-fare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com


IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
the company continues to defend a class action suit alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York related
to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting
its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former
IBM executives are named as defendants.

On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order.
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted
defendants' request to hear the case.

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

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and
changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in
1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in
Armonk, New York.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Amended Odeh & Choi Complaint Due Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the consolidated Odeh and Choi lawsuit must file an amended
complaint by November 18, 2019.

A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018. The complaint
in this action alleges that the Company failed to disclose the
results of observations made by the FDA during an inspection of the
Company's manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in
August 2018.

The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which
set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the
inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia,
manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity
test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch
records.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price
for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its
officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts
violations of the federal securities laws based on claims that the
Company violated the federal securities laws by making alleged
misstatements in various press releases and securities filings from
February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the
substance of its interactions with the FDA in connection with the
Company's submission of its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan.

Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi actions were granted on
September 10, 2019. Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the
court on October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs must file an amended
complaint by November 18, 2019.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Lucas Silva, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. James River
Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.
50-02019-CA-012154-XXXX-MB, was removed from the 15th Judicial
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Oct. 23, 2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:19-cv-81442-RLR to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
insurance related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg.

James River is a specialty insurer operating on an approved
non-admitted basis in all fifty states and D.C. Since 2003, James
River has provided thousands of commercial customers with creative
solutions for their particular insurance needs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (404) 797-9696
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 South Biscayne Blvd., No. 2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq,
          Edelsberg Law PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave. No. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Aaron Leles Warren, Esq.
          Sina Bahadoran, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO US LLP
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 329-1830
          E-mail: aaron.warren@clydeco.us
                  sina.bahadoran@clydeco.us

               - and -

          Sergio A. Bueno, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT AND KISSANE
          2001 Biscayne Blvd., Apt. 3605
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 271-2837

JBS USA: Pacific Agri-Products Files Class Action vs Big Beef
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Mogin, writing for The National Law Review, reports that first
it was cattle ranchers. Then came the consumers. Now it's the
direct purchasers of one of the nation's most delicious and
protein-rich commodities - beef. The purchasers claim in a new
class action complaint that the country's largest meatpackers
conspired to reduce the capacity of their slaughter and packing
plants in order to pay less on one end of the supply chain so they
could raise prices on the other.

Some of the Big Beef defendants are also defendants in on-going
price fixing and supply manipulation cases pending against Big
Chicken and Big Pork. Perhaps Big Meat views supply manipulation as
the new black for collusive profit-taking.

Pacific Agri-Products, Inc., "distributors and exporters of quality
food products", filed suit on Oct. 16 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota against JBS USA Food Company Holdings,
JBS S.A., Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Tyson Foods,
Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat
Solutions Corporation, National Beef Packing Company, and Marfrig
Global Foods S.A. -- aka Big Beef (Pacific Agri-Products, Inc. v.
JBS, et al., D. Minn, No. 0:19-CV-02720, Oct. 16, 2019).

The defendants are the largest meatpacking companies in the world.
They are the leading processors of millions of pounds of boxed beef
annually - a product created by combining various cuts from the
animal - and produce more than 80% of the beef supplied to
wholesalers. All of that means Big Beef collectively controls a
crucial link in the distribution chain, the complaint states,
something they have exploited.

The industry is highly concentrated and demand for the product is
relatively unaffected by price changes. Since it can cost as much
as $350 million and take more than two years to construct a
licensed meat packing plant, the barriers to entry are extremely
high.

Underutilization of Declining Capacity

According to Pacific Agri-Products, the defendants agreed and
"publicly signaled" to one another to reduce slaughter volumes by
closing or idling plants and halting any plans for expansion.

To illustrate how the industry cut capacity, the complaint lists a
number of plant closings and operational reductions.

Cargile idled a major Plainview, Texas, plant in 2013, a facility
that was estimated to represent nearly 4% of the entire U.S. beef
industry capacity.

A month later, Tyson trimmed production at one of its plants
despite reporting to shareholders that it was increasing production
to meet increasing demand.

Shortly afterwards, JBS purchased an idle plant in Idaho but has
yet to open it.

In 2014, National Beef shut down a California plant and Cargill
shuttered one in Milwaukee.

In 2015, JBS closed six plants and Tyson closed one in Iowa.

During this period, the companies reported historically high
prices, low production, and adequate supply. "Collectively, these
closures reduced the industry's annual slaughter capacity by
millions of cattle per year," the complaint says, resulting in
underutilization of declining capacity.

The complaint includes direct quotes from executives on numerous
corporate earnings calls. This theme was clear: executives saw
reducing capacity as a great way to improve margins. The tactic
worked, although cattle ranchers and consumers, and now
wholesalers, say it came at their expense. Tyson and JBS enjoyed
record profits in 2017 and 2018. They attributed this good fortune
to their "visibility" into the beef cattle segment of the supply
chain.

Margin, Not Market Share

Other public statements included one from a Tyson executive who
told shareholders during a May 2014 earnings call that it was not
even trying to compete for more business. "It is important to
remember that we'll continue to run our Beef business for margin
not market share," the executive reportedly said.

The complaint paints a picture of a cozy industry. The companies
and their executives know each other well, engaging one another
frequently at industry conferences and association meetings.

These tight relationships enabled their collusive arrangement which
artificially caused an increase in the spread between the price of
fed cattle and the price of beef, the complaint says. Also called
the "beef spread," the plaintiffs point out that the per-pound
cattle and beef prices historically stayed within 20-to-40 cents of
each other. Starting in 2015 that gap started to accelerate,
widening to 69 cents in January 2019.

Pacific Agri-Products is suing on behalf of itself and all
individuals or organizations that purchased beef directly from the
defendants. The class period starts as early as Jan. 1, 2015 and
continues today. Citing violations of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act, the plaintiff seeks treble damages, costs and attorney
fees for the class, and an order enjoining "Defendants and their
co-conspirators" from further violating antitrust laws. [GN]


KELLOGG CO: Settlement Reached in Calif. Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit pending before the Northern District of
California have filed a motion seeking to approve a settlement.

In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products. In August 2019, the Court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff regarding certain statements made on the
Company's products and ordered the parties to conduct settlement
discussions related to all matters in dispute.

As of September 28, 2019, the Company concluded that the
contingency related to the unfavorable ruling was probable and
estimable, resulting in a liability being recorded. On October 21,
2019, the parties filed a motion to the Court to approve a
settlement.

Kellogg said, "This litigation, including any potential settlement,
is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements. The Company will continue to
evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes as the litigation
continues.

Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.


KEMPS LLC: Vinales Sues Over Misleading Packaging of Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Vinales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kemps LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-10463 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11,
2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the
Defendant's misleading representations on their vanilla ice cream
products' packaging.

The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor
from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, specifically,
Vanilla Bean Ice Cream, under their Simply Crafted ("Products").
The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount,
type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in
the product which is required and consistent with consumer
expectations. The representations of "vanilla (bean)" describing
the ice cream products are unqualified, and the labels and
packaging do not disclose that addition of non-vanilla flavors as
part of the Products, the Plaintiff contends.

Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the
Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it. The Products contain other representations which are
misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no
less than $6.59, per 9.12 OZ calculated on an average per ounce
basis across the Products, excluding tax--compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

Kemps LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice
cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural
characterizing flavor, vanilla, specifically, Vanilla Bean Ice
Cream, under their Simply Crafted brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KEYBANK: Shanahan Seeks Overtime Pay for Personal Bankers
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KEYBANK, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02477-JG (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and non-overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as personal banker within the
last three years.  The Defendant failed to properly pay at least
one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

KeyBank, the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and is the only major bank based
in Cleveland.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com


KROEGER COMPANY: Mullins Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mullins, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. THE KROEGER COMPANY; and SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS,
INC. d/b/a FRY'S FOOD AND DRUG, Case No. 1:19-cv-00964-MRB (S.D.
Ohio, Nov. 12, 2019), is brought on behalf of current and former
Assistant Managers (AMs) seeking to recover unpaid overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other AMs were required to work more than 40
hours in a workweek but were not paid at the mandated rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants violated the FLSA
by failing to pay their AMs overtime compensation for the hours
they worked over 40 in one or more workweek because the Defendants
classify them as exempt from overtime, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an AM at a Fry's
Food and Drug store in Phoenix, Arizona.

Kroeger is one of the largest retailers in the U.S., which owns and
operates Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Meizlish, Esq.
          Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
          MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
          830 Main St., Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 345-4700
          Fax: (513) 345-4703
          Email: brucelaw@fuse.net
                 drgrayson@fuse.net

               - and -

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and –

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500
          Fax: 215-592-4663
          Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


LANCE CONN: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Michelle Gonzalez an individual
person, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Lance Conn and James Bryant, the Defendants, Case
No. FCS053607, was removed from the Solano County Superior Court,
to U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California
(Sacramento) on Oct. 24, 2019.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02155-MCE-CKD to the proceeding. The suit seeks $5 million
in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew S. Sepuya, Esq.
          William Nathaniel McGrane, Esq.
          MCGRANE PC
          Four Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com
                  william.mcgrane@mcgranellp.com

               - and -

          Michael John Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW, APC
          1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
          E-mail: mjh@jmbm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          James A. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY
          88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8087
          E-mail: jmurphy@mpbf.com

LIVANOVA PLC: Settlement Balance in 3T Suit to be Paid Jan. 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the remainder of the
settlement amount involving the class action related to the
company's 3T device will be paid in January 2020.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all
Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan
York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM
infection. Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T
devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical
monitoring, damages, and attorneys' fees.

On March 29, 2019, the company announced a settlement framework
that provides for a comprehensive resolution of the personal injury
cases pending in the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal
court, the related class action pending in federal court, as well
as certain cases in state courts across the United States.

The agreement, which makes no admission of liability, is subject to
certain conditions, including acceptance of the settlement by
individual claimants and provides for a total payment of up to $225
million to resolve the claims covered by the settlement. Per the
agreed-upon terms, the first payment of $135 million was paid into
a qualified settlement fund in July 2019, and the remainder will be
paid in January 2020.

Cases covered by the settlement will be dismissed as amounts are
disbursed to individual plaintiffs from the qualified settlement
fund.

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation
(NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.


LOGMEIN INC: Faces Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a class action suit entitled, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems,
Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK,
9:19-cv-81155).  

On July 25, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, referred to herein as the
'33 Act Claim, was initiated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida against the Company,
Citrix Systems, Inc. and certain officers and directors of both
LogMeIn and Citrix, entitled Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155).  

The lawsuit, which arises from substantially the same set of facts
as the Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-07285) and
the Schlagel v. Wagner et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-10204), was
purportedly filed on behalf of current and former Citrix
stockholders who acquired LogMeIn common stock in connection with
the Company’s January 2017 acquisition of the GoTo Business from
Citrix and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements
or omissions made in the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-4 and the related prospectus as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in December 2016.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs.  

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

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


LOUISIANA: Certification of Medicaid-Eligible Youth Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as A.A., by and through his mother, P.A.;
B.B., by and through her mother, P.B.; C.C., by and through her
mother, P.C.; D.D., by and through his mother, P.D.; E.E., by and
through his mother, P.E., the Plaintiffs, v. REBEKAH GEE, in her
official capacity, as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Health, and the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action, with the class
      defined as:

      "all Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the
      State of Louisiana who are diagnosed with a mental illness
      or condition, not attributable to an intellectual or
      developmental disability, and who are eligible for, but not
      receiving, intensive home and community based (mental
      health) services with sufficient frequency, intensity, and
      duration they need to remain in their homes and home
      communities"; and

   2. appointing them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

      Rule 23(g).

The Louisiana Department of Health, formerly known as the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, is a state agency of Louisiana,
headquartered in Baton Rouge. It is Louisiana's largest state
agency with a budget of $14 billion and approximately 6,300
personnel.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and class members are:

          Victor M. Jones, Esq.
          Sophia Mire Hill, Esq.
          Neil S. Ranu, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: victor.jones@splcenter.org
                  sophia.mire.hill@splcenter.org
                  neil.ranu@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Kimberly Lewis, Esq.
          Abigail Coursolle, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 204-6010
          E-mai: lewis@healthlaw.org
                  coursolle@healthlaw.org

               - and -

          Travis W. England, Esq.
          Britney R. Wilson, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001-6860
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
          E-mail: england@nclej.org
                  wilson@nclej.org

               - and -

          Debra J. Weinberg, Esq.
          Ronald Lospennato, Esq.
          ADVOCACY CENTER
          8325 Oak Street
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 522-2337
          Facsimile: (504) 522-5507
          E-mail: dweinberg@advocacyla.org
                  rlospennato@advocacyla.orgS

LSB INDUSTRIES: No Liability Remains Outstanding in Wilson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LSB Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that no liability
remains outstanding in the class action suit entitled, Dennis
Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al.

In 2015, a case styled Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class
of our shareholders and asserts that the company violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making material misstatements and
omissions about delays and cost overruns at the company's El Dorado
Chemical Company manufacturing facility and about the company's
financial well-being and prospects. The lawsuit, which also names
certain current and former officers, sought an unspecified amount
of damages.

In October 2018, LSB entered into a preliminary, binding term sheet
to settle Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., which was
subject to approval by the court. On January 17, 2019, the parties
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Wilson
Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which the settlement amount of
approximately $18.5 million was paid in March by the company's
insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers
in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims.  

On May 23, 2019, one request for exclusion from the settlement
class was made. On June 28, 2019, the court held a settlement
hearing and entered a Judgement Approving Class Action Settlement,
which includes a provision whereby the party requesting exclusion
may withdraw its exclusion from the settlement and file by July 23,
2019 to rejoin the class. On July 23, 2019, LSB reached a
preliminary settlement and the requesting party withdrew its
request for exclusion from the class.

Subsequently, during the third quarter of 2019, this additional
settlement was executed, and the settlement amount was paid to the
requesting party by the company's insurers on behalf of LSB and
certain current and former officers in exchange for, among other
things, an appropriate release of claims. As a result, no liability
in relation to this matter remains outstanding as of September 30,
2019.

LSB Industries, Inc., incorporated on January 21, 1977, is a
holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The Company
operates through chemical business segment. The Company is a
manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen fertilizer and other
nitrogen products in North America. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


MDL 2913: C. B. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as C. B. individually and as legal
guardian of her minor child, C.T.B., as well as on behalf of those
similarly situated real party in interest, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL
LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00600 (Filed Sept. 11, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District
California Court Clerk assigned Case No.  3:19-cv-06903-WHO to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The  Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The C. B. case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Timothy Dylan Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & OGLETREE, PLLC
          1640 Lelia Drive, Ste. 105
          Jackson, MS 39216
          Telephone: (601) 988-4590
          E-mail: tmoore@tdmoorelaw.net

Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are

          Craig D Dillard, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          1000 Louisiana St Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 276-5500
          E-mail: cdillard@foley.com

MDL 2913: Cobb Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Tyler Cobb and Jordan Heitmann
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02446-RWS (Filed Aug. 28, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06929-WHO to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The  Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The Cobb case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS,
INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kristine K. Kraft, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          E-mail: kkraft@uselaws.com

Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are

          James F. Bennett, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 1900
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 889-7302
          Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
          E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com

MDL 2913: J.W. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as J.W., a minor, indivdually by
his mother and natural guardian Natasha Welch, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00665 (Filed Sept. 25, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06911-WHO to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The  Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The J.W. case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS,
INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Kristine K. Kraft, Esq.
          Nelson Gregory Wolff, Esq.
          Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON
          100 S 4th St #1200
          St Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  kkraft@uselaws.com
                  nwolff@uselaws.com
                  smorgan@uselaws.com

MDL 2913: La Conner Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as La Conner School District on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated school districts,
the PLAINTIFF v. JUUL Labs Inc., Altria Group Inc., Altria Client
Services, Altria Group Distribution Company, Nu Mark LLC, and Nu
Mark Innovations Ltd.,the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01600(Filed
Oct. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 23, 2019.

The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-06904-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The  Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The La Conner case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Alison Gaffney, Esq.
          Dean N Kawamoto, Esq.
          Felicia Craick, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
          1201 3RD AVE., Ste 3200
          Seatlle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
                  dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  fcraick@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com

MDL 2913: Tekulve Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW TEKULVE AND MORGAN
WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC. and PAX LABS, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00773 (Filed Sept. 13, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San
Francisco) on Oct 23, 2019.

The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-06906-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The Tekulve case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Barbara D. Bonar, Esq.
          BONAR, BUCHER & RANKIN, PSC
          3611 Decoursey Avenue
          Covington, Kentucky 41015
          Telephone (859) 431-3333
          Facsimile (859) 392-3900
          E-mail: bdbonar@lawatbdb.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Tekulve, Esq.
          JOSEPH G. TEKULVE LAW
          Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
          785 Ohio Pike
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone (513) 752-0001
          Facsimile (513) 752-0289
          E-mail: joetekulvelaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Aneca E. Lasley, Esq
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          41 S High St
          2000 Huntington Center
          Columbus, OH 43215-3406
          Telephone: (614) 365-2700
          Facsimile: (614) 365-2499
          E-mail: alasley@ssd.com

MDL 2915: Baisden Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MICHELLE BAISDEN, NATALIE ROSSI,
SCOTT ROSSI, and PATRICIA MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00623 (Filed Aug. 7,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 24, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02970-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Briane F. Pagel, Esq.
          Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq.
          Daniel P. Bach, Esq.
          Terrence M. Polich, Esq.
          LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
          State Bar No. 1031375
          345 W. Washington Ave. Ste. 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608 282 6200
          Facsimile: 608 282 6252
          E-mail: bpagel@lawtoncates.com
                  dgahnz@lawtoncates.com
                  dbach@lawtoncates.com
                  tpollich@lawtoncates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Esq.
          PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP
          321 North Clark Street, 26th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 939-6580
          Facsimile: (312) 939-0983
          E-mail: jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com

MDL 2915: Bowen Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Cindy Bowen and Diane Dillashaw,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One,
National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07917 (Filed Aug. 23, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria) on Oct 24, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02966-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Courtney Elizabeth Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter Manley Starr, Esq.
          Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
          Robert Warren Gray, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2767
          E-mail: peter.starr@davispolk.com
                 pisajiw@kslaw.com
                 bgray@kslaw.com

MDL 2915: Greenberg Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as M.D.P.C. Aaron Saul Greenberg,
Emily Behar, Wendy Friedman, and Molly s. Piesco, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National
Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07752 (Filed Aug. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on
Oct 24, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02965-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street, Ste 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (954) 675-5240
          E-mail:c memert@ssbny.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter Manley Starr, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2767
          E-mail: peter.starr@davispolk.com

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Margery Newman, the
Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03530 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin
entered an order granting Plaintiff's and Intervenors' unopposed
motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 7,
2019, Plaintiff's and Intervenors' unopposed motion for class
certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement
is granted. Motion hearing is held on Nov. 7, 2019. Final fairness
hearing is set for Feb. 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.[CC]

MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Mississippi Power
and the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint filed in the class action suit initiated by Ray
C. Turnage.

In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power
and the three current members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base
pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior
to placing the Kemper IGCC into service.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that
the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were
improper.

They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up
to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect
interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees, and costs.

In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 14, 2019.

The amended complaint included four additional plaintiffs and
additional claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and
intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC
have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi,
is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a
utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


MOLSON COORS: Colorado Class Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court
was voluntarily dismissed and the class action lawsuits originally
filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated
case.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants")
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder
filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District
Court.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs. On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case.

On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the
Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District
Court, but was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019. On October
2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado
District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019, the
court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated case. On October 11, 2019, the parties filed a joint
motion to enter a schedule for filing an amended complaint and
anticipated motion to dismiss.

Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time."

Molson Coors Brewing Company manufactures, markets, and sells beer
and other malt beverage products in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. Molson Coors Brewing Company was
founded in 1786 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


NCS PEARSON: Shacke Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS SHACKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NCS PEARSON, INC. d/b/a PEARSON, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12356 (Ill. Cir., Oct 24, 2019), seeks to
redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when a person registers to take an exam
through Pearson Vue, he or she is enrolled in a candidate database
maintained by Defendant to verify the examination candidate's
identity.

While many organizations use conventional methods for identity
verification (such as a state ID or passport), Defendant's
examination candidates are required to have their hand geometry
scanned by a biometric device.

Unlike state IDs or passports -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- hand geometry is a unique, permanent
biometric identifier associated with each examination candidate.

This exposes Defendants' examination candidates to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
hand geometry or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo,
eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods,
Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge
Analytica, and Suprema data breaches or misuses -- examination
candidates have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this
highly personal and private information.

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

The Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the
risks and harmful conditions created by Defendant's violations of
BIPA, the lawsuit says.

NCS Pearson, Inc. is a developer and marketer of enterprise
application software. The company provides software applications
and technologies for education, testing, assessment, and complex
data management.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

NEAL COMMUNITIES: Devivo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN DEVIVO, individually and on bealf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEAL COMMUNITIES INC.,, the Defendant,
Case No. CACE-19-021872 (Fla. 17th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 22, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, to solicit new paying customers, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for
privacy rights of the recipients of those messages.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is a land development company.[BN]

The Plaintiff and the Class are represented by:

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


               - and -

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

NEW YORK: Rosenberg Sues Over Unlawful Fees for E-ZPass Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A
MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS and THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-10478 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019), accuses
the Defendants of violating the New York General Business Law by
charging a $6 annual fee in order for their E-ZPass New York
customers to receive a monthly paper billing statement by mail.

MTA's E-ZPass is an electronic toll collection system that allows
customers to pay toll fares.

A portion of the Defendants' Web site states "Monthly statement by
mail, annual fee $6.00." By contrast, the Defendants offer their
customers monthly billing statements by e-mail free of charge. The
Defendants' conduct is prohibited by the GBL and, therefore,
constitutes a deceptive act and practice under the GBL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a New York citizen, who resides in Brooklyn and
who has had an E-ZPass account with the Defendants since 2016.

The Defendants operate bridges and tunnels throughout New York and
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

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


NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Heslip, David Sanders, Marcus Davis, Steven Mitchell, and
Wendy Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NIXON ENGINEERING, LLC and TINA TINER NIXON, Case No.
5:19-cv-01327 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiffs minimum wage and proper overtime compensation for
all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs have been misclassified by the Defendants as
salaried employees and as exempt from the overtime requirements of
the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendants have deprived the
Plaintiffs of regular wages and overtime compensation for all of
the hours worked over 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Crew Leaders, a
Dispatcher, and a Crew Chief.

Nixon Engineering, LLC, is a domestic for-profit limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ORLEANS PARISH: Moran Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MILES MORAN, the Plaintiff,
v. KEVA LANDRUM-JOHNSON, Chief Judge of Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13553
(E.D. La.), Ms. Moran moved the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a declaratory Plaintiff class consisting of:

      "all individuals with pending state misdemeanor or felony
      cases who will, after acceptance of their charges by the
      District Attorney, appear before Defendant Judges for
      proceedings concerning pretrial release"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          James W. Craig, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, La 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          ALEC KARAKATSANIS, D.C.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

PARETEUM CORP: Vargo Alleges Artificially Inflated Stock Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VARGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT H. TURNER
and EDWARD O'DONNELL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09936
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2019), asserts that Defendant violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Pareteum
Corporation's common stock between May 7, 2018 and October 21,
2019, inclusive.

In 2015, Pareteum (then named "Elephant Talk Communications"), was
a failing penny stock which appeared on the verge of collapse. The
Company's fortunes, however, appeared to turn in November 2015,
when a new management team entered that was led by Robert H. Turner
and Vic Bozzo.

This team spearheaded a 12-month restructuring project which
appeared to bear fruit in November 2016 as the Company slowly
backed away from the brink of bankruptcy. It was at this time that
the Company rebranded itself as "Pareteum."

Purportedly due to the restructuring, the Company began what can
only be described as an incredible winning streak -- continuously
reporting record revenues for every quarter in 2018 and the first
two quarters in 2019. In fact, the Company's reported revenues
increase from $4.1 million to $34 million in 6 quarters --
representing an increase of 730%.

The impressive growth quickly drew investor and analyst attention,
and the Company's common stock rose from $1.75 per share on January
2, 2019 to high of $5.70 per share in March of 2019 -- an increase
of 225%. At least one analyst predicted that the stock could go as
high as $9.00 per share before the end of 2019.

Pareteum's rags-to-riches storyline would start to fall apart in
the summer of 2019 -- when growth began to draw the attention of
sceptics in the market. Questions began to arise regarding the
Company's business plan, customer base and the legitimacy of its
financial reports. Then, the bottom fell out.

On October 21, 2019, Pareteum reported that it had been improperly
recognizing revenues for all of 2018 and the first two quarters of
2019, and the Company's financial statements for those periods
would be restated. According to Company estimates, the restatements
could negate $9 million dollars of revenue for 2018 and $24 million
for the first two quarters of 2019.

This news shocked investors -- as the Company appeared poised to
negate over 42% of the aggregate revenue previously recorded for
that period. The Company's share price reacted as one would expect,
falling from $0.74 per share to $0.30 per share on the next day of
trading -- a drop of almost 60%.

The Defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true
operational and financial condition of Pareteum, and materially
misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were
adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period,
because it:

-- enabled them to deceive the investing public regarding
Pareteum's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value
of Pareteum's common stock;

-- enabled Defendants to artificially inflate the price of
Pareteum's common stock; and

-- caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase
Pareteum common stock at artificially inflated prices, the lawsuit
says.

John Vargo is an individual residing in Jacksonville, Fla. He
acquired and held shares of Pareteum at artificially inflated
prices during the class period and has been damaged by the
revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and
material omissions.  Pareteum is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York. The Company trades on the
NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "TEUM."

According to the Company's website, Pareteum is provider of
"Communications Platform as a Service Solution." Pareteum was
originally named "Elephant Talk Communications Corp." It changed
its name to Pareteum in November 2016 and appointed Vic Bozzo as
the newly-named Company's Chief Executive Officer.

Robert H. Turner is the Company's Co-Founder and Chairman. He also
took on the role of CEO in November 2018. The Company's website
lauds Turner for his vision and experience, claiming that Turner
"has set the vision and business tone that has chartered the
successful course of numerous international and U.S. domestic
communication, software, and technology startup, growth, and
Fortune 500 companies."

Edward O'Donnell is the Company's Chief Financial Officer.
According to the biography found on Pareteum's website, O'Donnell
has "25 years of experience in investment banking, private equity
investment, and venture capital, in the Software-as-a-Service and
digital technology sectors prior." The biography does not disclose
that as CFO of AudioEye in 2015, O'Donnell was sued by the
company's investors for the "fraudulent booking of revenues"
triggering a restatement erasing 92% of the company's reported
revenue for the first three quarters of 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

PARETEUM CORPORATION: Singh Says Financial Statements Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
AJAY SINGH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT TURNER,
VICTOR BOZZO, EDWARD O'DONNELL, and DENIS MCCARTHY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09795 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019), targets
Defendants' material misrepresentations and concealment regarding
Pareteum's true business operations and financial results.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pareteum securities
between December 26, 2017 and October 21, 2019, inclusive.

Pareteum, a mobile networking software and services provider,
presented itself to investors as a "rapidly growing Cloud
Communications Platform company" that was poised for exponential
growth due to the Company's involvement in new industries such as
block chain, customer wins, a rising "36-month contract revenue
backlog," and effective contract conversion rates.

The Company traces its origins to Elephant Talk Communications, a
languishing company on the brink of failure. Following the
introduction of a new management regime led by CEO and Chairman
Turner, the Company was re-branded as "Pareteum" and as "Global
Cloud Communications Platform."

The Company was able to increase its market capitalization
twenty-fold between 2016 and 2019 by portraying itself as a high
growth company in a barrage of press releases and social media
posts touting its new customers and purported multi-million
contracts. Its press releases described the Company as a rapidly
growing global cloud software communications platform company with
a mission to connect "every person and every(thing)." Defendants
also touted a "36 month contract revenue backlog" (reaching $900
million) and promoted the Company's conversion rate of contract
value and reported revenue growth. Wasting no time, Defendants
quickly leveraged the rising stock price to acquire at least two
companies -- Artilium plc ("Artilium") and iPass Inc. ("iPass").

Analysts responded favorably to Defendants' claims regarding its
purported 36-month contract backlog. For instance, a December 20,
2018 analyst report from Northland Capital Markets reported that,
"Over the past 12 months, Pareteum has won 90+ deals. In the prior
3.5 years, the company had signed no new deals. The company has
also been adding $10+ million in ACV per quarter, and 3-year
backlog has also grown dramatically to several hundred million
dollars." The report added that, "As Pareteum deploys its organic
backlog and the overall company scales, Pareteum sees the ability
to reach 70% gross margin again on the combined Pareteum/Artilium
business." Similarly, an analyst report from Maxim Group dated
January 11, 2019 stated, "TEUM has over $500M in three-year
contracted revenue backlog, which provides strong visibility for
revenue growth."

Defendants' growth story similarly impressed industry commentators.
As a Seeking Alpha article put it: "Pareteum (TEUM-NASD) has been
one of the best performing stocks of 2019 so far -- up an
astounding 300%+ in the last two and a half months. (Sure beats oil
stocks, and that's why I'm looking here.) I've watched the run --
and the chart has been tempting one of my market lines is: At The
End Of the Day, it's The Tape That Matters. Price. And the stock
has done fabulously well."

But contrary to Defendants' statements regarding great customer
wins and multi-million dollar contracts, Pareteum's contracts were
entered into with either fake entities, related-third parties, or
companies so small they had no chance of ever satisfying the value
Defendants assigned to their contracts.

In addition, Defendants misstated or manipulated its 36-month
contract revenue backlog and revenue conversion metrics. Further,
the Company improperly and prematurely recognized revenue and
reported inflated revenue and accounts receivable in its financial
statements in violation of GAAP. These false and misleading
representations and omissions artificially inflated Pareteum's
stock price.

On June 7, 2019, investors started to learn the truth when research
firm Marcus Aurelius Value issued a scathing report describing the
Company's "massive downside potential" and noting its belief that
"the stock is completely uninvestible." The news caused Pareteum's
stock to plummet 24% on June 7, 2019, from $3.39 per share to
$2.58.

The Company, however, was able to stem additional losses by
vehemently denying Marcus Aurelius Value's report, dismissing its
findings as a "coordinated attack by short sellers."

Then, on June 25, 2019, a second research firm, Viceroy Research
("Viceroy"), published a report entitled, "Pareteum - The Wild West
of Telecoms." Viceroy's report echoed many of the findings from the
Marcus Aurelius Value Report, including that several of Pareteum's
partner entities were either nonexistent, insolvent or lacked
sufficient resources to satisfy reported contract values, "leading
us to believe that they are Pareteum customers who are unable to
pay or have no operations." The Viceroy Report also noted that
"Pareteum's 36-month contractual backlog measurement is not an
accurate predictor of future profits." The Viceroy Report further
described Pareteum's growth story as "completely broken and may not
have ever existed at all."

Following the Viceroy Report, the Company's stock declined another
20%, from $2.47 per share on June 25, 2019 to $2.00 per share at
the close of trading on June 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, Defendants
again denied the findings of Viceroy and Marcus Aurelius Value,
claiming that the Reports "misrepresent[ed] facts" and made
"spurious claims" against the Company.

On August 26, 2019, the risks Viceroy and Marcus Aurelius Value
warned about began to materialize. Cash-strapped, the Company
announced that it was forced to amend its credit agreement with
senior creditor Post Road to get access to $2.5 million. As part of
the deal, Pareteum had to issue 750,000 shares to Post Road on
August 22, 2019, and an additional 250,000 shares on November 15,
2019, thereby seriously diluting existing shareholders.

The news caused the Company's stock to drop another 17%, from $2.81
per share on August 26, 2019 to $2.33 at the close of trading on
August 27, 2019.

Then, on October 16, 2019, the Company announced the sudden and
unexplained termination of Pareteum's Chief Operating Officer Denis
McCarthy, who had been "deeply involved" with the "contract
backlog" metric. The Company also disclosed that it had retained an
executive search firm to assist with "assessing the board of
directors and key leadership positions," signaling that the
departure of other high-level Pareteum officials was imminent.

Finally, media outlets, including Seeking Alpha, reported the
likelihood that investors would "need to prepare for another
disappointing quarterly report with ongoing, material cash burn and
management potentially reducing future growth expectations."

The news caused the Company's stock to drop another 25%, from $1.13
per share on October 16, 2019 to $0.83 at the close of trading on
October 17, 2019.

On October 21, 2019, after the market closed, Pareteum announced
that it would restate its previously issued consolidated financial
statements as of and for the full year ended December 31, 2018, and
interim periods ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019.

According to the Company, "the decision to restate these financial
statements is based on the Company's conclusion that certain
revenues recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not have been
recorded during that period. For certain customer transactions, the
Company may have prematurely or inaccurately recognized revenue."

All told, Pareteum has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in
shareholder value during the Class Period, and the shares remain
down approximately 90% from their Class Period high, the lawsuit
says.

Based in New York, Pareteum provides backend software services to
Mobile Virtual Network Operators, which are essentially entities
that provide wireless communications to customers by renting
bandwidth from large carriers such as T-Mobile or AT&T.

Pareteum was formerly known as Elephant Talk Communications Corp.
and changed its name to Pareteum Corporation in November 2016.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Danielle Smith, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752-5455
          Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
                  reed@hbsslaw.com
                  danielles@hbsslaw.com
                  lucasg@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

PARSON-BISHOP: Headen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Parson-Bishop Services, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Shadonna Headen individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parson-Bishop
Services, Inc. and John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00937-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 5, 2019).

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

Parson Bishop Services, Inc. offers credit collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


PETCO ANIMAL: Wu Sues Over Sale of Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06035 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell to consumers store gift cards that
contain writing in Braille so they will be fully accessible and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff contends. She asserts that because the Defendant's
store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

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

The Defendant operates Petco retail stores, as well as stores for
various subsidiary companies, and advertises, markets, distributes,
and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State of New York
and throughout the world. Petco operates multiple retail locations
in the State of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., No. 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516 695 0052
          Facsimile: 212.656.1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


PETSMART INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PETSMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09922-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell to consumers store gift cards that
contain writing in Braille so they will be fully accessible and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that because the Defendant's
store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

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

The Defendant operates PetSmart retail stores, as well as stores
for various subsidiary companies, and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State
of New York and throughout the world. PetSmart operates multiple
retail locations in the state of New York and is one of the largest
retailers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zare Khorozian, Esq.
          ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW LLC
          1047 Anderson Avenue
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: 201.957.7269
          Facsimile: 201.224.9841
          E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


PETSMART INC: Silberstein Sues for Failing to Notify Plan Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Silberstein, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PETSMART, INC. a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Case No. 8:19-cv-02800-SCB-AAS (M.D., Fla., Nov. 12, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative
class adequate notice of their right to continued health care
coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1985 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Defendant has repeatedly violated the ERISA by failing to
provide participants and beneficiary in its Petsmart Smartchoices
Benefit Plan with adequate notice, as prescribe by the COBRA, of
their right to continue their health care insurance coverage
following an occurrence of a "qualifying event," according to the
complaint. The Defendant's COBRA notice violated the law because it
fails to include a termination date for COBRA coverage if elected.
The Defendant's deficient COBRA notice both confused and misled the
Plaintiff, says the complaint. As a result of these violations,
which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health
coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, cost and expenses.

Josh Diehl worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt Assistant
Manager.

The Defendant is the Plan sponsor of the Petsmart Smartchoices
Benefit Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-223-5505
          Fax: 813-257-0572
          Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

                    - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main No: 813-224-0431
          Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com


PG&E CORPORATION: Vataj Says Business Statements Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER VATAJ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, JOHN R.
SIMON, GEISHA WILLIAMS, and JASON P. WELLS, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-06996 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired PG&E securities between December 11, 2018, and
October 11, 2019, both dates inclusive.

On January 29, 2019, PG&E filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of California. The Chapter 11 petition
followed in the wake of multiple high-profile lawsuits against PG&E
related to widely publicized and catastrophic wildfire incidents
that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. The incidents
were faulted to PG&E, whose alleged misconduct apparently caused
the Company's equipment to ignite the wildfires. PG&E is facing $30
billion in liabilities in connection with the wildfires.

Following the wildfire incidents, PG&E began periodically
initiating rolling power outages across its customers' facilities
and service areas. The blackouts were intended to reduce the risk
of future wildfire events and scheduled for times when dangerous
weather conditions exacerbated chances of further wildfires
occurring.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

-- PG&E's purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for
which they were ostensibly designed;

-- as a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the
Company implemented to minimize wildfire risk; and

-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published an article
reporting on PG&E's efforts to deal with the rolling power cuts it
had implemented in California aimed at minimizing wildfire risk.

The article reported, among other issues, that "PG&E's
communications and computer systems faltered, and its website went
down as customers tried to find out whether they would be cut off
or spared."

According to the article, "as the company struggled to tell people
what areas would be affected and when, chaos and confusion
unspooled outside. Roads and businesses went dark without warning,
nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup
power and even government agencies calling the company were put on
hold for hours."

On October 23, 2019, it was reported that as a last resort to
prevent additional wildfires PG&E began shutting off power to
179,000 homes and businesses in northern and central California
counties.

On this news, PG&E's stock price fell $0.35 per share, or 4.36%, to
close at $7.67. Following this news, PG&E's stock price fell $1.00
per share, or 12.2%, to close at $7.20 on October 24, 2019.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

PG&E Corporation was incorporated in 1905 and is based in San
Francisco, California. The Company, through its subsidiary, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of
electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial,
and agricultural customers in northern and central California of
the United States.

PG&E's electricity distribution network consists of approximately
107,000 circuit miles of distribution lines, fifty transmission
switching substations, and 769 distribution substations. The
Company's electricity transmission network comprises approximately
18,000 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines and 84
electric transmission substations. The Company's natural gas system
consists of approximately 43,100 miles of distribution pipelines,
approximately 6,400 miles of backbone and local transmission
pipelines, and various storage facilities. Additionally, the
Company also owns and operates nuclear, hydroelectric, fossil
fuel-fired, and solar electricity generation facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

PHOENIX: Court OKs Damage Class Certification
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned Puente, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants. No. CV-18-02778-PHX-JJT. (D.
Ariz.)

At issue is Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

President Donald Trump held a rally at the Phoenix Convention
Center, and approximately 6,000 demonstrators both pro-Trump and
anti-Trump gathered outside the Convention Center.

Plaintiffs filed suit against PPD and certain PPD members including
Chief Williams, Field Force Commander Moore, Grenadier Team Leader
McBride, and Grenadiers Scott, Turiano, Neville, Sticca, White,
Howell, and Herr  raising four claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for excessive use of force during a search or seizure
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (2) a Section 1983 claim
for infringement of Plaintiffs' freedom of speech and association
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (3) a Section 1983
claim for due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and
(4) a Section 1983 claim for equal protection violations under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class action
that is, an action in which one or more members of a class sue on
behalf of all members of the class may proceed only if four
prerequisites are met:

(1) Numerosity: the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable (2) Commonality: there are questions of
law or fact common to the class (3) Typicality: the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class and(4) Adequacy of Representation: the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs propose a damages class consisting of
those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump
Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as
the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to
the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west, and 3rd street
to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point
between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who did not engage in any conduct
justifying the Defendants' use of force against them, and who were
subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of force, or other
unlawful police activity arising from the police response to
anti-Trump protestors.

Proposed Damages Class

Failsafe Class Definition

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition
fails, somewhat ironically, because it is failsafe that is, it
limits membership to plaintiffs described by their theory of
liability in the class definition such that the definition
presupposes success on the merits.  
Put another way, Defendants argue that, by limiting class
membership to those who did not engage in any conduct justifying
the Defendants' use of force against them, the class definition
requires that the Court examine the merits of each individual's
claim before it can determine whether the individual is a member of
the class, which Defendants contend is unacceptable.

As Defendants point out, Defining the class is of critical
importance because it identifies the persons (1) entitled to relief
(2) bound by a final judgment and (3) entitled under Rule 23(c)(2)
to the best notice practicable in a Rule 23(b)(3) action. Thus, a
class definition must be precise, objective, and presently
ascertainable' before a class action can proceed.

Plaintiffs and Defendants interpret the proposed damages class
definition differently. Plaintiffs represent that they intended to
define a class not by presupposing that they win the legal question
at issue, but rather by limiting the class to individuals who did
not engage in certain conduct. Defendants focus not on the conduct
of the class members, but rather the conclusion that must be drawn
from that conduct that it did not justify Defendants' use of force
against them.  
Here, the Court finds the defect in Plaintiffs' proposed damages
class definition to be somewhat akin to a defective complaint in
which a claim relies on allegations couched as legal conclusions
instead of non-conclusory allegations of fact. If the class
definition were to focus on the individuals' conduct, as Plaintiffs
intended, concerns about having to reach the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims in identifying class members would no longer be present.
Moreover, the conduct Defendants have identified as justifying
their use of force was only two-fold: individuals attempting to
breach the free speech zone barrier and individuals throwing
objects (including CS gas cannisters) at PPD officers.

Thus, a more precise, presently ascertainable, non-conclusory class
definition that is consistent with the class definition Plaintiffs
have chosen would be as follows:

those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump
Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as
the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to
the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west and 3rd street
to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point
between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who neither threw objects nor
attempted to breach the free speech zone barrier along Monroe
Street, and who were subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of
force, or other unlawful police activity arising from the police
response to anti-Trump protestors.

Numerosity, Commonality, Predominance, and Damages

Plaintiffs generally describe their theory of liability as follows:
PPD used indiscriminate force against the whole protest as opposed
to individual protestors against whom such force was justified and
declared an unlawful assembly based on the conduct of a few
individuals who could and should have been isolated. This
undifferentiated use of force and wholesale crowd dispersal
violated the protestors' rights.

In contrast, Defendants contend that the evidence shows that
Plaintiffs' claims are riddled with individualized inquiries that
cannot be answered on a classwide basis. Defendants point in
particular to evidence that the PPD deployments of munitions,
whether in the form of gas and chemical agents (Plaintiffs'
proposed damages subclass (a)) or bullets and projectiles
(Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (b)), were targeted at
certain individuals and spread out over time and space.

The Court now examines whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently
demonstrated numerosity, commonality, and predominance with respect
to each proposed damages subclass.

Proposed Damages Subclass (a) — Gas/Chemical Agents

Plaintiffs contend the evidence shows that the individuals exposed
to gas or chemical agents number at least in the hundreds out of
the estimated 6,000 protestors. They further argue that these
individuals' claims for relief require resolving central, common
questions as to Defendants' liability and that these common
questions predominate over individual issues, satisfying Rules
23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3).   

A review of the video and other evidence reveals that a large
number of individuals more than 40 appear to have been exposed to
gas or chemical agents, even if in some instances it was inert
smoke, and Plaintiffs therefore satisfy the numerosity
requirement.

As for commonality, the Court need not find that all questions of
fact and law be common to the individual class members, t]he
existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates
is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with
disparate legal remedies within the class.

Defendants argue that their use of gas and chemical agents was by
different grenadiers exercising individual judgment in response to
certain actions by protestors, and each use was targeted at certain
groups of individuals.  

The Court disagrees with Defendants that this case is similar to
those and that the factual and legal questions as to PPD's use of
gas/chemical agents are too individualized for class certification
here. While the grenadiers report that they intended to target
certain groups of individuals with their use of force, the very
nature of the use of gas is that it is not contained to a certain
individual or a small area. The video evidence shows that PPD's use
of pepper balls, tear gas, and inert smoke caused large numbers of
protestors to disperse.  

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have satisfactorily
demonstrated for the purposes of their Motion that Defendants'
actions were likely command decisions, from the initial
authorization to use gas and chemical agents, to the unlawful
assembly and dispersal announcements, to the later ratification of
PPD's actions by its Chief.5 Plaintiffs thus have shown that both
factual and legal questions as to the propriety of Defendants' use
of gas and chemical agents are common among the proposed class
members and predominate over any individual questions.
   
Typicality and Adequacy of Representation

Returning to the remaining damages class proposed damages subclass
(a) Plaintiffs have satisfactorily demonstrated typicality and
adequacy of representation with respect to the named Plaintiffs.
Gonzalez Goodman, Guillen, and Travis all claim they were exposed
to Defendants' gas/chemical agents and subject to Defendants'
dispersal order. Moreover, there is no argument before the Court
that the named Plaintiffs have a conflict of interest or that
counsel for Plaintiffs are not competent to represent the class.
Plaintiffs have therefore shown typicality and adequacy of
representation under Rules 23(a)(3) and (4).

Because Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3), the Court will certify Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a)
of the damages class for a class action.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification The Court
certifies Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a) of the damages class
with the modification to the class definition described in this
Order, as well as Plaintiffs' proposed injunctive relief class. The
Court denies certification of Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass
(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yym3mz7s from Leagle.com

Puente, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Poder in Action, an
Arizona nonprofit corporation, Ira Yedlin, individually and as
class representatives, Janet Travis, individually and as class
representatives, Cynthia Guillen, individually and as class
representatives & Jacinta Gonzalez Goodman, individually and as
class representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett S. Litt -
blitt@kmbllaw.com - Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt, pro hac vice, Dan
Stormer , Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue,
Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice, Darrell Lavar Hill ,
ACLU, Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148. Indra Neel Chatterjee
- nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice, John
C. Washington , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 11543 W
Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508,  pro hac vice, Julia W.
Zhang  - jzhang@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice,
Kathleen E. Brody , Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, One
Renaissance Square, 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450, Phoenix, AZ
85004, Paul L. Hoffman , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP,
11543 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508, pro hac vice,
Samantha K. McKean , Goodwin Procter LLP, 620 8th Ave, New York, NY
10018-1618, pro hac vice, Sean M. Galvin , Goodwin Procter LLP, ,
620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018-1618,  pro hac vice, Shaleen Ameeta
Shanbhag , Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks
Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice & Martin Lieberman , ACLU,
Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148.

City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Jeri L Williams,
individually and in their official capacities, Benjamin Moore,
individually and in their official capacities, Douglas McBride,
individually and in their official capacities, Robert Scott,
individually and in their official capacities, Christopher Turiano,
individually and in their official capacities, Glenn Neville,
individually and in their official capacities, John Sticca,
individually and in their official capacities, Lane White,
individually and in their official capacities, Jeffrey Howell,
individually and in their official capacities & George Herr,
individually and in their official capacities, Defendants,
represented by Bradley D. Holm , Phoenix City Attorneys Office,
David B. Rosenbaum - drosenbaum@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Gary
Lee Popham, Jr.  - glp@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod
Ramirez Trester LLP, Joshua Michael Whitaker -
jwhitaker@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Leslie Steve Tuskai , City
of Phoenix Law Department, Mary Ruth OGrady , Osborn Maledon PA,
2929 N Central Ave, 21st Fl. | Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793, Mildred K.
OLinn - mko@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester
LLP, pro hac vice & Nishan Joseph Wilde - njw@manningllp.com -
Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP.


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Silverberg Says Merger Docs Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT SILVERBERG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., PAUL MARITZ,
MICHAEL S. DELL, EGON DURBAN, WILLIAM D. GREEN, MARCY S. KLEVORN,
MADELYN LANKTON, ROBERT MEE, and ZANE ROWE, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-06977 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2019), is brought as a class
action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public
holders of the Class A common stock of Pivotal against the Company
and the members of the Company's board of directors, arising out of
the failure to disclose material facts relating to the proposed
sale of Pivotal in violation of Sections 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with VMware, Inc. and Raven Transaction Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of VMware, providing for the acquisition of
Pivotal by VMware.

The Merger Agreement provides that Pivotal shareholders will
receive $15.00 in cash for each share of Stock that they own
immediately prior to the time the merger becomes effective.

The Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions,
including a majority of the outstanding shares of Stock not owned
by VMware or any of its affiliates, including Dell Technologies
Inc. and EMC Equity Assets LLC, approving the terms of the Merger.

On October 10, 2019, to convince Pivotal's shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a proxy statement, with the SEC, on Schedule 14A which fails to
disclose material information necessary for
Pivotal's stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the
Proxy Statement incomplete and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Pivotal Software is an American multinational software and services
company based in San Francisco that provides cloud platform hosting
and consulting services.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 764-2580
          Facsimile: (858) 764-2582
          E-mail: tkellar@aftlaw.com
                  mklein@aftlaw.com

PLURALSIGHT INC: New York Class Action Transferred to Utah
----------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by certain
stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, and certain of
the Company's officers alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages.

In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Pluralsight said, "The Company is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final
decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it
is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."

Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and
courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their
programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces
customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington,
Utah


PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puma North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Puma North America,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10291 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Puma North America Inc. provides apparel goods. The Company offers
wholesale distribution of men and boys apparel and
furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. removes case
captioned as PAMELA STEWART, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of
California, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00048524-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Sept. 13,
2019), from the San Diego Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 23,
2019.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02043-DMS-KSC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges
causes of action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination; Wrongful
Racial Discrimination; Failure to Promote due to Racial
Discrimination; Failure to Provide Equal Pay based on Race; and
Failure to Provide Rest Periods pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500
company, Quest operates in the United States, United Kingdom,
Mexico, and Brazil. Quest also maintains collaborative agreements
with various hospitals and clinics across the globe.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Anahi Gonzalez, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone:  213 612 2500
          Facsimile: 213 612 2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  anahi.gonzalez@morganlewis.com

QUICKEN LOAN: Illegally Sent Telemarketing Texts, Lopez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. QUICKEN LOAN, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-13340-SC-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
Nov. 12, 2019), is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.

The Defendant sent automated text message calls to cellular
telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff's, which is prohibited
by the TCPA, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff says he
never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for
telemarketing purposes.

Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds
of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Mr. Lopez is a Massachusetts resident.

The Defendant is in the business of providing mortgage lending
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 4221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hollywood Firefighters Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
MICHAEL G. NEFKENS, and JOSEPH D. RAGAN III, Case No. 0:19-cv-02889
(D. Minn., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons or
entities that purchased shares of Resideo's common stock between
October 10, 2018, and October 22, 2019, asserting claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the close trading on October 22, 2019, Resideo released
preliminary financial results for the third quarters, and surprised
investors by announcing earnings that significantly missed
estimates. The Company also materially reduces its earnings
guidance for 2019. The drivers of these disappointing results were
the lower sales of thermostats and the performance id the RTS
business.

In response to these disclosures, the price of Resideo stock fell
$5.73 per share, a decline of over 3%. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff
have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund is a pension fund established
for the benefit of the current and retired firefighters of the City
of Hollywood, Florida, and has purchased Resideo common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Resideo manufactures home automation products, including smart
thermostats and security cameras.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
                 khriebel@locklaw.com

               - and –

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Phone: (954) 916-1202
          Email: bob@robertdklausner.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: MSP Seeks Damages Over Purchase of Zantac
------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity v.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc.,
Sanofi S.A., Pfizer, Inc., Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Glaxosmithkline,
PLC, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-24657-DPG (D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought as a class
action on behalf of similarly-situated third-party payors to
recover payments unlawfully induced by the Defendants, and to
recover the economic harm caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act on
third-party payors, who spent billions on purchasing Zantac.

Recent revelations by independent researchers have uncovered what
will likely go down as one of the gravest public-health fraud in
modern time, according to the complaint. Put simply, Zantac is a
cancerous poison. When ingested, every tablet (and every dose),
produces the toxic carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in the
body. NDMA's lone medical use is to cause cancer in animals for
laboratory experimentation.

The Defendants have been engaged in racketeering activity designed
to further the sale of Zantac, both in prescription and
over-the-counter forms, the Plaintiff alleges. The racketeering
acting activity involved uncountable instances of wired and mail
fraud for the purposes of concealing the carcinogenic nature of
ranitidine and Zantac. Each Defendant knew of this issue and took
active steps to fraudulently conceal the risk from consumers,
third-party prayers, doctors, and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, says the complaint.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a Delaware series limited
liability company, who has paid for Zantac.

The Defendants manufactured and sold Zantac, an over-the-counter
medication, which decreases stomach acid production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          Email: arivero@riveromestre.com
                 jmestre@riveromestre.com
                 arolnick@riveromestre.com
                 cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                 ddaponte@riveromestre.com


SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of SmileDirectClub, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about
the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDC)

Class Period: on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's September 2019 initial
public offering

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/smiledirectclub-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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

To learn more about the SmileDirectClub, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


SOUTH HOLLAND HOME: Webster Sues over Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA R. WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH HOLLAND HOME, LLC
d/b/a HOLLAND HOME SENIOR LIVING and VILLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH12365 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive
biometric data.

According to the complaint, when Holland Home or one of Villa
Healthcare's other affiliated facilities hires an employee,
including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database
shared and maintained by and between Defendants and the affiliate
facilities to monitor the time worked by hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendants
and their affiliated facilities' employees are required to have
their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.

For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber,
Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Suprema data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other
unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses – such as Defendants -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones, the lawsuit says.

Holland Home is a senior living community that provides a variety
of home health care services, including independent living,
assisted living, memory care, and respite stays in Illinois. Villa
Healthcare is a health care management corporation that manages and
operates various health care facilities through primary and
specialized clinical programs in six states, including
Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Class are:

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

SSCP PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Polk Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia R. Polk, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SSCP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a SNAPBOX STORAGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04529-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought
to address class-wide overtime violations committed by the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In connection with its operations, the Defendant employs non-exempt
manufacturing employees. The Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a non-exempt manufacturing employee. The Plaintiff,
the putative class and collective action members regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of the Defendant
but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed to them
under the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a property
manager in December 2017.

The Defendant owns and/or operates storage facilities in at least
10 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry St.
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Phone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          Email: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com


SUMMIT COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Martin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lavar Martin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. SUMMIT COUNTY, Case No. 5:19-cv-02641-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 12,
2019), arises from the Defendant's practices and policies of not
paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff estimates that he worked on average between 41 and 42
hours per workweek, but was paid for only 40 hours per workweek. He
contends that he was not paid overtime compensation for all of the
hours that he worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

Mr. Martin has been employed by the Defendant as a Detention
Officer at the Summit County Juvenile Court since March 2006.

Summit County is an urban county in the state of Ohio. The County
is responsible for the operation of the Summit County Juvenile
Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces Kennebunk Anticompetitive Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situation v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07445 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought under the Sherman Act to restrain
anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and to remedy the harms of
its decade-long anticompetitive scheme.

The Plaintiff alleges that Surescripts, the nation's largest
provider of "e-prescribing" services, has engaged in a long-running
anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over two
separate, complementary markets: (1) electronic prescription
routing, and (2) eligibility, which are often collectively referred
to as "e-prescribing" services. Routing is the transmission of
prescription and prescription-related information from a prescriber
(via the prescriber's electronic health record to a pharmacy.
Eligibility is the transmission of a patient's formulary and
benefit information from a payer (usually the patient's pharmacy
benefit manager) to a prescriber's electronic health record (EHR).

In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility.
To neutralize competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of
anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies, the
Plaintiff alleges. This multifaceted anticompetitive scheme has
been remarkably successful: despite a massive increase in e
prescribing over the past decade, Surescripts has prevented any
meaningful competition, maintaining at least a 95% share (by
transaction volume) in each market, the Plaintiff contends.

Surescripts established pricing protocols that required long-term
exclusivity commitments from virtually all its routing and
eligibility customers. Surescripts designed its new pricing to
ensure that its customers would pay a higher price on all of
Surescripts's transactions unless they were "loyal" to Surescripts.
Among other things, Surescripts engaged in a long-running campaign
of threats and other non-merits-based competition to ensure that no
other competitor could get a toehold in either market.

Due to the Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful
competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, the
Plaintiff asserts. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have
produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality,
stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative
business models. Pharmacies, like the Plaintiff here, typically pay
at least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts'
monopolistic regime. Surescripts has admitted that competitive
prices in the routing market would be between 1 and 3 cents a
transaction. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018
been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the
Plaintiff and the Class would have saved millions of dollars in
that year alone, says the complaint.

Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. is a pharmacy located in
Kennebunk, Maine. The Plaintiff has paid Surescripts e-prescription
routing charges.

Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company,
with its principal place of business located at 2800 Crystal Drive,
in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                 tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                 mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Phone: 207-791-3000
          Fax: 207-791-3111
          Email: ghansel@preti.com
                 rweill@preti.com
                 msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Eric C. Burns, Esq.
          ECB LAW LLC
          320 Eat Patrick Road
          Palmyra, PA 17078
          Phone: 717-303-6520
          Email: eburns@ecblawllc.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com
                 ckocher@smbb.com


SURESCRIPTS LLC: Monopolizes E-Prescribing Services, Whitman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerald Whitman d/b/a Whitman Pharmacy, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situation v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07448 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought under the Sherman Act to restrain
anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and to remedy the harms of
its decade-long anticompetitive scheme.

The Plaintiff alleges that Surescripts, the nation's largest
provider of "e-prescribing" services, has engaged in a long-running
anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over two
separate, complementary markets: (1) electronic prescription
routing and (2) eligibility, which are often collectively referred
to as "e-prescribing" services. Routing is the transmission of
prescription and prescription-related information from a prescriber
(via the prescriber's electronic health record to a pharmacy.
Eligibility is the transmission of a patient's formulary and
benefit information from a payer (usually the patient's pharmacy
benefit manager) to a prescriber's electronic health record (EHR).

In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility.
To neutralize competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of
anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies, the
Plaintiff alleges. This multifaceted anticompetitive scheme has
been remarkably successful: despite a massive increase in e
prescribing over the past decade, Surescripts has prevented any
meaningful competition, maintaining at least a 95% share (by
transaction volume) in each market, the Plaintiff contends.

Surescripts established pricing protocols that required long-term
exclusivity commitments from virtually all its routing and
eligibility customers. Surescripts designed its new pricing to
ensure that its customers would pay a higher price on all of
Surescripts's transactions unless they were "loyal" to Surescripts.
Among other things, Surescripts engaged in a long-running campaign
of threats and other non-merits-based competition to ensure that no
other competitor could get a toehold in either market, the
Plaintiff alleges.

Due to the Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful
competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, according to
the complaint. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have
produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality,
stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative
business models. Pharmacies, like the Plaintiff here, typically pay
at least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts'
monopolistic regime. Surescripts has admitted that competitive
prices in the routing market would be between 1 and 3 cents a
transaction. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018
been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the
Plaintiff and the Class would have saved millions of dollars in
that year alone, says the complaint.

Jerald Whitman d/b/a Whitman Pharmacy is a pharmacy located in
Holicong, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff has paid and continues to pay
Surescripts e-prescription routing charges.

Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company,
with its principal place of business located at 2800 Crystal Drive,
in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                 tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Fax: (267) 685-0676
          Email: medelson@edelsonlaw.com


TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Reiner v. Teladoc
Health, Inc., et al.

On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former
officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2018. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the alleged misconduct of one
of the Company's previous Executive Officers.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

Teladoc said, "The Company believes that the claims against the
Company and its officers are without merit, and the Company and its
named officers intend to defend the Company vigorously, including
filing a motion to dismiss the complaint."

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Best Doctors, Inc.,
a company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company’s wholly owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc.

The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors
violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other
recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or
permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential
loss is currently deemed to be immaterial.

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TEXAS PRIDE: Scheve Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SCHEVE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS PRIDE FUELS, LTD., the Defendant,
Case No. 7:19-cv-00248 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2019), alleges that
Texas Pride violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay its drivers at
time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours within a workweek.

Specifically, it has done so by knowingly permitting its employees
to engage in compensable travel time and compensable preparatory
and concluding work but nevertheless intentionally failing to pay
those employees for all of that travel time or preparatory and
concluding work.

In addition, the Defendant has paid, and continues to pay, a
bi-monthly, non-discretionary safety and performance bonus.
However, Defendant fails and refuses to include that bonus amount
in calculating its employees' regular rates of pay, the lawsuit
says.

Daniel Scheve is an individual who resides in Tarrant County, Texas
and has been employed by Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA.


Texas Pride provides fuel, lubricants and services to the Oil & Gas
industry in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com

TIMO SUSHI: Faces Tem Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Tem and Clemente Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. TIMO SUSHI & TERIYAKI PLACE INC. d/b/a
SUMO TERIYAKI & SUSHI, KUMA NYC INC. d/b/a KUMA NYC, ZZHI XIONG
OUYANG, and SUN LUNG WONG, Case No. 1:19-cv-056368 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
11, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were not paid proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation throughout their employment with the Defendants,
especially for work performed above 40 hours per week. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a
policy of not paying the Plaintiffs either the FLSA overtime rate
(of time and one-half) or the NYLL overtime rate (of time and
one-half) in violation of said laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants to work as dishwashers,
porters, and food delivery workers at Sumo Teriyaki.

The Defendants owned and operated a Japanses restaurant doing
business as "Sumo Teriyaki & Sushi," located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: info@jcpclaw.com


TNT CABLE: Holts Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Holts, on behalf of himself and one behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TNT CABLE CONTRACTORS, INC. AND UDEO SERVICES
ONE INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-13546 (E.D. La., Nov. 11, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and their other
Technicians appropriate overtime wages when they work more than 40
hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Defendants' pay practices and polices applied not only to the
Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a Technician
since March 2019.

TNT is a corporation with its principal business office located in
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Zachar R. Smith, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM &
HAYES, L.L.P.
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 587-9373
          Fax: (240) 839-9142
          Email: gbr@chehardy.com


TSUNAMI RIG: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Martinez, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
TSUNAMI RIG WASH, LLC d/b/a HINKLIN ENERGY SERVICES, Case No.
7:19-cv-00266 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and paid the Plaintiff and other workers like him, the
same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of
40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Hydrovac hand.

The Defendant provides the oil and gas industry with rig washing,
tank cleaning, hydro excavation, and vacuum trucking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


TWT 2016: Zhao, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Zhuo Zhao and Jian Chang Lin, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TWT 2016
Inc. d/b/a Dim Sum Dynasty, and Qian Zhang a/k/a "Judy" Zhang, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-19263-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 2019),
alleges Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, arising from Defendants' various
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices
by failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs,
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each week, and improper retention of tips.

The case is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and
on behalf of similarly situated employees, including kitchen
workers, waiters, delivery drivers, delivery packagers, and all
other non-exempt employees of the Defendants.

Lin was hired as a waiter and a helper who helps packaging
delivery, from September 18, 2018 to February 28, 2019. Zhao worked
5 days a week. From Wednesday to Friday, Zhao has the same
schedule. He would start working at 11:00 am and get off at 9:30
pm. On Saturday and Sunday, he would start working at 11:00 am, and
get off at 10:00 pm. Plaintiff Zhao lives in Brooklyn, and there
would be a car driving him and his coworkers from New York to the
restaurant. Thus, Plaintiff Zhao worked Fifty-Three and a half
(53.50) hours per week, the lawsuit says.

Dim Sum Dynasty had gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. The
company has about 15 employees. Among them are 4 kitchen workers, 5
waiters, 6 sushi chefs, 4 delivery drivers, and a delivery
packager.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs and proposed FLSA Collective are:

          Qinyu Fan, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: qfan@hanglaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Esa Says IPO Documents Misleading
----------------------------------------------------
ELLIE MARIE TORONTO ESA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, NELSON CHAI, GLEN CEREMONY, RONALD SUGAR, URSULA
BURNS, GARRETT CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON,
TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO, H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN
THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS &
CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., SMBC
NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, NEEDHAM
& COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK &
CO., L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., BTIG, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY
LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, MACQUARIE
CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER &
CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., AND TPG CAPITAL
BD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-580262 (Cal. Super., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Uber's initial
public offering of its common stock that closed on May 14, 2019.

In May 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 180
million shares of common stock to the investing public at $45.00
per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

By the commencement of the action, Uber's shares trade
significantly below its IPO price. As a result, investors were
damaged.

The Registration Statement and Prospectus used by Defendants to
effectuate Uber's Offering was false and misleading in that it
misled investors with regard to the Company's ballooning losses,
stagnating growth rate, and cost-cutting measures that undercut its
key growth initiatives, all of which were known to, but concealed
by, Defendants at the time of the Offering.

The Offering Documents claimed that Uber had a number of
significant opportunities to continue to grow its business,
including "increasing Ridesharing and Uber Eats category
penetration in existing markets, expanding Ridesharing and Uber
Eats into new markets, increasing MAPCs and Trips per MAPC,
investing in and expanding our New Mobility products, including
dockless e-bikes and e-scooters, and investing in and expanding
Uber Freight." Defendants also promised to continue to "invest in
consumer and Driver rewards programs across our offerings."

The statements were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that:

-- at the time of the Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing
subsidies for customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share,
which caused the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell;
and

-- Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas
that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities.

Uber purports to be a technology company that primarily facilitates
access to rides and meals on demand. Uber's shares are listed and
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "UBER."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
          Gina Stassi, Esq.
          Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
          CORCHETT, PITREW, & MCCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
                 gstassi@cpmlegal.com
                 tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI &  BOTTINI, INC
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottinni@bottinnilaw.com
                  achang@bottinnilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinnilaw.com



UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Uber Technologies.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about
the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)

Class Period: on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber securities
pursuant and/or traceable to Uber's registration statement issued
in connection with Uber's May 10, 2019 initial public stock
offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2019

Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uber-technologies-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Uber Technologies, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at
the time of the initial public offering, Uber was rapidly
increasing subsidies for customer's rides and meals in a bid for
market share, which caused the Company's sales and marketing
expenses to swell; and (2) Defendants were cutting (or planned to
cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's central
growth opportunities.

To learn more about the Uber Technologies, Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manzini Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as NICHOLAS A. MANZINI, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
19-27603-CA-22, was removed from the 11th Judical Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami) on Oct. 23, 2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-24387-PCH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Paul C. Huck.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Bruno Reategui, Esq.
          1111 Brickell Bay Dr., Apt 1011
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (561) 859-9053

               - and -

          Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq.
          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS , BOCKIUS LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3447
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
                  brian.ercole@morganlewis.com

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Tomlinson Sues Over 2017 Care Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA TOMLINSON, on her own behalf and on behalf of her
beneficiary daughter, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-06999 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that all
UBH members, who were injured by UBH's proven misconduct with
respect to the 2017 Level of Care Guidelines will obtain all the
relief available to them.

The Plaintiff asserts claims over the Defendant's creation of its
2017 "Level of Care Guidelines" and its use of those Guidelines to
determine whether mental health and/or substance use
disorder--services for which coverage was requested--were
consistent with generally accepted standards of care under the
ERISA.

Ms. Tomlinson is a participant in the S&P Global Inc. Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan sponsored by her employer (the
"Tomlinson Plan" or the "Plan"). The Plaintiff's daughter is her
dependent and a beneficiary of the Tomlinson Plan, a self-funded
plan governed by ERISA. The Plan covers treatment for sickness,
injury, mental illness, and substance use disorders.

UBH, which also operates as OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions, is a
corporation organized under California Law, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. UBH administers
mental health and substance use disorder benefits for commercial
welfare benefit plans. In this role, UBH administers requests for
coverage on behalf of members of health benefit plans governed by
ERISA, including the health benefit plans of the Plaintiff and the
members of the putative class.

The 2017 Level of Care Guidelines at issue were among the UBH
Guidelines challenged in two certified class actions pending in
this Court: Wit, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, Case No.
14-cv-02346-JCS (N.D. Cal.) and Alexander, et al. v. United
Behavioral Health, Case No. 14-cv-05337-JCS (N.D. Cal.). The cases
have been consolidated and referred collectively as the "Wit
Litigation."

Following a trial on the merits of the Wit Litigation, Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of this Court found that the UBH
Level of Care Guidelines in effect from 2011 through 2017,
including the 2017 Level of Care Guidelines at issue, were
unreasonable and did not reflect generally accepted standards of
care and, thus, conflicted with the relevant terms of the Wit class
members' plans.

Judge Spero concluded that UBH breached its ERISA fiduciary duties
by adopting its pervasively-flawed Guidelines and that UBH abused
its discretion when it used the Guidelines to deny coverage to the
Wit class members. At the time this Tomlinson complaint is being
filed, Judge Spero has not yet issued a remedies order in the Wit
Litigation.

The three certified classes in the Wit Litigation ("Wit Class")
include only UBH members whose requests for coverage were denied by
UBH between May 22, 2011, and June 1, 2017. As a result, UBH
insureds, like the Plaintiff's daughter, whose requests for
coverage were denied by UBH on or after June 2, 2017, based on the
defective 2017 Level of Care Guidelines are not members of the Wit
Class and will not share in any of the remedies ultimately ordered
by the Court in that case--even though UBH continued using its
pervasively-flawed 2017 Level of Care Guidelines until May 9,
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  creynolds@zuckerman.com


UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Erin Schlagel And all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. United Services Automobile
Association, the Defendant, Case No. 63CV-19-00677-3, was removed
from the Saline County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court
for Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Oct. 23, 2019.

The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00745-JM to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
insurance related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
James M. Moody Jr.

USAA offers home, life, and auto insurance as well as online
banking and investment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Doyle Nalley, Esq.
          LOVELL, NALLEY AND NALLEY
          Post Office Box 606
          Benton, AR 72018-0606
          Telephone: (501) 315-7491
          Facsimile: (501) 778-4979
          E-mail: johndoylenalley@hotmail.com

               - and -

          William G. Horton, Esq.
          CADDELL REYNOLDS
          211 North Second Street
          Rogers, AR 72765
          Telephone: (479) 464-8269
          E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Graham Caughman Talley, Esq.
          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG
          GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8853
          E-mail: gtalley@mwlaw.com
                  lpruitt@mwlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Faces Infusino Case in District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Education et al. The case is captioned as ROBERT J.
INFUSINO, EMMANUEL DUNAGAN, KEISHANA MAHONE, and RACHEL DELIBASICH,
and JESSICA SCHEIBE, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BETSY DEVOS, In her
official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education; and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03162-CRC
(D. Colo., Oct. 22, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Christopher R. Cooper.

The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level
department of the United States government.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
          1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: alex@nsldn.org

UNITI GROUP: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Safadi Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
IBRAHIM E. SAFADI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITI GROUP INC. f/k/a
COMMUNICATIONS SALES & LEASING, INC., MARK A. WALLACE and KENNETH
A. GUNDERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00756-BSM (E.D. Ark.,
Oct. 25, 2019), is a federal securities class action on behalf of
all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Uniti securities
between April 20, 2015, and February 15, 2019, inclusive, seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 26, 2015, Uniti filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission disclosing approval of its spin-off from
Windstream Holdings, Inc. Simultaneously, Windstream became Uniti's
main customer. Uniti now identifies itself as a real estate
investment trust ("REIT") specialized in acquisition and
construction of essential-to-survival infrastructure in the
communications industry.

On September 21, 2017, hedge fund Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd.,
the owner of more than 25% of Windstream's unsecured notes due
2023, provided written notice to Windstream that the spin-off of
Uniti constituted a sale and leaseback in breach of the notes'
indenture. On February 15, 2019, United States District Judge Jesse
M. Furman released its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
declaring that Windstream breached the indenture and awarding
Aurelius a monetary judgment in the amount of $310,459,959 plus
interest.

On this news, the price of the Uniti's common stock declined $7.4
from a close of $19.98 per share of Uniti common stock on February
15, 2019, to a close of $12.51 per share of Uniti common stock on
February 19, 2019, a drop of approximately 37.39 percent. Over the
course of the next three trading days, the price of the Uniti's
common stock continued to plummet to close at $9.23 on February 22,
2019, an overall decline of 53.80 percent.

The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by the Plaintiff and
other Class members was a direct result of the Defendants'
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price
and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the
Company's share, price when the Defendants' prior
misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct was revealed, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 7220
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  gnespole@zlk.com


UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Tenn. Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed
in the class action suit entitled, In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation.

Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants as follows:

On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff
seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded
securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The Company strongly
denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the
litigation.

On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in the
Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies these allegations and
will vigorously defend the litigation.

On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum
Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel
Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent
purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between October
27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The allegations and damages claimed
mirror those in the Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies
these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation.

On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman,
Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s
counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint. On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial
as well as costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. On March 18, 2019,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

Unum said, "These lawsuits are in a very preliminary stage, the
outcome is uncertain, and the Company is unable to estimate a range
of reasonably possible losses. Reserves have not been established
for these matters. Although we believe these claims lack merit, an
adverse outcome in one or more of these actions could, depending on
the nature, scope, and amount of the ruling, materially adversely
affect our consolidated results of operations in a period."

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum
International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The
company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


USA: Oztimurlenk Files Suit in Fed. Claims Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The case is styled as SENOL
OZTIMURLENK, R.N., JOSE PERLATA, R.N., and RICHARD J. WALTERS,
R.N., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01715-EGB on Nov. 5,
2019.

The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay - Overtime
Compensation.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Yaakov Statman, Esq.
          Snider & Associates, LLC (MD)
          600 Reisterstown Road, 7th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Phone: (410) 653-9060
          Fax: (410) 653-9061
          Email: jstatman@sniderlaw.com


V LIVE DALLAS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. V LIVE DALLAS LLC and DAMON COBBS, Case No.
3:19-cv-02693-N (N.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover
underpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by paying their servers,
bartenders, and doorgirls less than the standard federal minimum
wage, overtime premium or any additional compensation for working
over 40 hours in a workweek, Ms. Johnson alleges. She adds that the
Defendants also failed to inform her and her co-workers in advance
of the Defendants' use of the tip credit provision of the FLSA.

Ms. Johnson was employed by the Defendants as a server, bartender
and doorgirl at their location at Dallas, Texas.

The Defendants operated several strip clubs named "V Live."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP
          302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: (214) 722-5990
          Fax: (214) 722-5991
          Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 lotus.canon@jtblawgroup.com


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09864-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019),
asserts claims against Defendant for its failure to sell store gift
cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

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

Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to
all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of
blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less
than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Because Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated
group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant operates Victoria's Secret retail stores as well
retail as stores for various subsidiary companies and advertises,
markets, distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City
and State of New York and throughout the world. Defendant is doing
business in the State of New York. Victoria's Secret operates
multiple retail locations in the State of New York and is one of
the largest retailers in the world. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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

VWR INTERNATIONAL: Website not Accessible to Blind, Reid Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09829 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019),
asserts claims against Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Because Defendant's website, us.vwr.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

VWR International is an American company involved in the
distribution of research laboratory products, with over 1,200,000
items to more than 250,000 customers in North America and Europe.
The U.S. division is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Russel Weinrib, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com

WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces Camacho Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wendy's Company.
The case is captioned as Jason Camacho on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Wendy's
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06027-ENV-PK (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 695-0052
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com

WHOLE FOODS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
---------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09842-RA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019),
asserts claims against Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards
to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Because Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant operates Whole Foods grocery stores as well as stores
for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells groceries and other merchandise in the
City and State of New York and throughout the world. Defendant is
doing business in the State of New York. Whole Foods operates
multiple grocery store locations in the State of New York and is
one of the largest retailers in the world.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no
vision.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284

XPO LOGISTICS: Villatoro et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XPO Logistics Port
Services, LLC et al. The lawsuit involves Defendant-employers'
deliberate scheme to misclassify their truck drivers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them the fundamental protections due
to employees under the California Labor Code.

The result of Defendants' misclassification scheme is that
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated truck drivers were, and
are, routinely denied payment of all earned wages, including:

-- the compensation earned but left unpaid for non-driving work,
pursuant to California law's requirement that employees be paid at
least the minimum wage for each hour worked;

--  the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived
an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period mandated by California law;


--  the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived
an uninterrupted, duty-free rest period mandated by California law;
and

--  improper deductions made from drivers' pay for Defendants' own
business operational expenses. Instead, Defendants have taken such
wages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated truck drivers
and unlawfully converted the funds for Defendants' own use and
benefit, in order to maximize profits and gain an unfair business
advantage over their competitors at the expense of Defendants' own
employees.

The class action seeks to enjoin the defendants' unlawful conduct,
and to obtain restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions
made from truck drivers' pay from Defendants, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as EDGARDO VILLATORO, an individual; MANUEL
DE JESUS MARTINEZ MEJIA, an individual; and GERALD DANIELS, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES, LLC, dba XPO
LOGISTICS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; XPO PORT SERVICES,
INC., dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; XPO
LOGISTICS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; BUSINESS
EXPENSES XPO LOGISTICS, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited
liability company; XPO INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS, INC. dba XPO
LOGISTICS, an Ohio corporation; XPO INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC dba
XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09199 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 25, 2019).

The Defendants run a large trucking operation in Southern
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq.
          Karl P. Evangelista, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR.
          500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 291-0088
          Facsimile: (818) 240-9955

               - and -

          Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq.
          Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Hector De Haro, Esq.
          Kiel Ireland, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB, ALC
          801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          Facsimile: (818) 973-3201

ZYNERBA PHARMA: Velayos Sues over Zygel Reports, Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY VELAYOS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ARMANDO
ANIDO, and JAMES E. FICKENSCHER, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04959-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Oct. 23, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zynerba securities between March 11, 2019 and
September 17, 2019, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, Zynerba is developing, among other
product candidates, Zygel (ZYN002), a transdermal CBD gel, which is
in a Phase II clinical trial for treating children and adolescent
patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies ("DEE");
a Phase II/III clinical trial to treat children and adolescent
patients with fragile X syndrome; and a Phase II clinical trial for
treating children and adolescent patients with autism spectrum
disorder.

In April 2018, Zynerba initiated the Phase 2 BELIEVE 1 (Open Label
Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Zygel Administered as a
Transdermal Gel to Children and Adolescents with Developmental and
Epileptic Encephalopathy) clinical trial ("BELIEVE 1 Trial"), a
six-month open label multi-dose clinical trial designed to evaluate
the efficacy and safety of Zygel in children and adolescents (ages
three to seventeen years) with DEE as classified by the
International League Against Epilepsy ("ILAE").

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:

-- Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE
1 Trial;

-- the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that
Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for
commercializing Zygel for the treatment of DEE in children and
adolescents; and

-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and  misleading at all relevant times.

On September 18, 2019, during pre-market hours, Zynerba issued a
press release announcing results from the BELIEVE 1 Trial
evaluating topical gel Zygel in children and adolescents with DEE.
While Zynerba asserted that Zygel was well-tolerated in the
September 2019 Press Release, it also disclosed that, among
patients enrolled in the BELIEVE 1 Trial, the rate of treatment
emergent adverse events ("TEAEs") was 96%, the rate of treatment
related adverse events ("TRAEs") was 60%, and there were ten
patients who reported serious adverse events ("SAEs"), of which,
"two SAEs (lower respiratory tract infection and status
epilepticus) were determined to be possibly related to treatment."


On this news, Zynerba's stock price fell $2.46 per share, or
21.77%, to close at $8.84 per share on September 18, 2019.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Zynerba was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Devon,
Pennsylvania. The Company was formerly known as AllTranz, Inc. and
changed its name to Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In August 2014.
Zynerba operates as a clinical stage specialty pharmaceutical
company. The Company focuses on developing
pharmaceutically-produced transdermal CBD therapies for rare and
near-rare neuropsychiatric disorders.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212 697-6484
          Facsimile: 212 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 37 PI Cases vs. Harsco Corp. Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
At September 30, 2019, there are approximately 37 remaining
asbestos personal injury cases in New York County against Harsco
Corporation that are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket
created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or
physical impairment, 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.

Harsco states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades.  In their suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors
and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At September 30, 2019, there were approximately 17,131 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of
those actions, approximately 16,587 were filed in the New York
Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 117 were filed in
other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 427
were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At September 30, 2019, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed
in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the
Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for
all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot
demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible
physical impairment.  The remaining approximately 37 cases in New
York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created
for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or
physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's
insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  At September 30, 2019, the
Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,216 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/K9zGRM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39,900 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 39,900 pending claims
related to asbestos-matters as of 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 a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  To date, we have disposed
of approximately 151,600 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement.  The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
US$557 million through September 30, 2019 and US$545 million
through December 31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/06DvcM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $24MM Aearo-Related Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$24 million as of September 30, 2019, for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims, 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, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of September 30, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American
Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp.  and Cabot
Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational
dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or
generally in the workplace.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of US$24 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the
Company's best estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an
estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo
approaching the year 2050.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well
as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an
informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical
Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective
insurers (the "Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the
parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory
products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety
Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of
exposure of the individual plaintiff.  Aearo's share of the
contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered
into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.  This agreement
provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of
US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and
indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving
exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators
sold prior to July 11, 1995.  Because of the difficulty in
determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream
of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the
agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to
January 1, 1997.  With these arrangements in place, Aearo's
potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen
from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or silica products on or after January 1, 1997.  To date, Aearo has
elected to pay the quarterly fee.  Aearo could potentially be
exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995
period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to
discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is
no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/I3f0QH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $620MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$620 million as of September 30,
2019, for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos
cases (excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), 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.

3M Co. states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of the settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits, the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia), its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious
injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black
lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first nine
months of 2019 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$337
million, of which US$313 million pre-tax (or US$238 million after
tax (US$0.40 per diluted share)) was accrued in the first quarter
of 2019.  In the first nine months of 2019, the Company made
payments for legal defense costs and settlements of US$390 million
related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company had an accrual for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of
US$620 million.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for
future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the
year 2050.  The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of
the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual
the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty
in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted
or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/I3f0QH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,770 Claimants at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company remains a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various
courts that purport to represent approximately 1,770 individual
claimants as of 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, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty years, the Company
has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury
(including the lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.

"In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710
respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust
and awarded compensatory damages of approximately US$2 million and
punitive damages totaling US$63 million.

"In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
has appealed.  During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the US$65 million jury verdict in April 2018 in the
Kentucky case currently on appeal.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/I3f0QH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. still defends itself against 59
asbestos cases pending as of 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.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state
courts.  There were 59 asbestos cases pending as of September 30,
2019.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  As of September 30, 2019, the Company has
accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/701KIa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit v. J&J Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2019, that the Company's motion to dismiss a
securities class action related to asbestos matters remains
pending.

The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal
securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged
asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson &
Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result.  Plaintiffs are
seeking damages.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and
awaits the Court's schedule for oral argument.  

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DuStQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Asbestos Claims Are Not Material
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that at this time, the amount of
reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the
Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating
cash flows.

The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured
in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s.  In
addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages.  Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals
or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.  The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to
the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or
judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.  At this
time, the amount of reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows, although these matters could
result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or
expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Suit v. J&J
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2019, that the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed
against the Company related to asbestos matters has been dismissed
without prejudice.

The Company states, "In October 2018, a shareholder derivative
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal
defendant and its current directors as defendants in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a
breach of fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered
damages as a result of those alleged breaches.

"In September 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the shareholder derivative lawsuit, and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DuStQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,829 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 28,829 pending asbestos-related claims as of
September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019.

The Company states, "Of the 28,829 pending claims as of September
30, 2019, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. remains a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts,
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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits.  We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation.  We are
unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. recorded Other Noncurrent Liabilities of US$1,087 million
related to asbestos matters at September 30, 2019, according to the
press release issued by the Company on October 24, 2019, announcing
results for the third quarter of 2019.

A full-text copy of the Company's Press Release is available at
https://is.gd/yFpYCx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Sept 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the Company is still subject to
asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained
asbestos.

The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters.  Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.  Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/A8J57w


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $161MM Gross Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded gross liabilities for
both asserted and unasserted asbestos claims, inclusive of defense
costs, totaling US$161 million 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.

The Company states, "We periodically, and at least annually, review
our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable
estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance
recoveries.  We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$161
million and US$166 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31,
2018, respectively.  In determining the estimate of our asbestos
liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period.  Due
to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on
new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may
result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase
could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities.  After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers.  We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$103
million and US$108 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31,
2018, respectively.  We expect that approximately 65% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during
the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability.  Of these
amounts, US$13 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at both September 30, 2019 and December 31,
2018, respectively.  The recorded receivable consists of an amount
we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with
certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount
we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess
insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2018, we had approximately US$565
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements.  We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs.  We had coverage under
certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity
and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to
coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated.  Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged.  Recoveries may be limited by insurer insolvencies
or financial difficulties.  Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of certain
legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible
by us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/06DvcM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $562.5MM Liabilities at Sept 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of US$562.5 million as of 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 also disclosed that it has total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$299.6 million as of
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The Company's asbestos insurance receivables
related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were US$178.3 million
and US$121.3 million, respectively, at September 30, 2019, and
US$141.7 million and US$126.5 million, respectively, at December
31, 2018.  The receivable attributable to Trane for probable
insurance recoveries as of September 30, 2019 is entirely supported
by settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance
carriers, and approximately 90% of the receivable attributable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company for probable insurance recoveries as of
September 30, 2019 is supported by settlement agreements between
Ingersoll-Rand Company and the respective  insurance carriers.
Most of these settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place"
arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse
Trane or Ingersoll-Rand Company, as applicable, for specified
portions of their respective costs for asbestos bodily injury
claims and Trane or Ingersoll-Rand Company, as applicable, agrees
to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

"The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related
matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for
potential future claims are included in the income statement within
continuing operations or discontinued operations depending on the
business to which they relate.  Income and expenses associated with
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos-related matters are recorded
within discontinued operations as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold by the Company in 2000.  Income and expenses associated with
Trane's asbestos-related matters are recorded within continuing
operations.  During the third quarter of 2019, the Company reached
settlements with several insurance carriers associated with pending
asbestos insurance coverage litigation.  As these settlements
relate to Ingersoll-Rand Company, they are recorded within
discontinued operations.

"In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims.  The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity
costs.  The responding defendants generally challenged the
Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.
As of September 30, 2019, Ingersoll-Rand Company has settled with
approximately 90% of the insurer defendants, and has dismissed one
of the actions in its entirety.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies.  The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for approximately 90% of its
recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlements;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
75 percent of the open and active asbestos-related claims against
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company at September 30, 2019 are
non-malignant or unspecified disease claims, 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, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts.  In virtually all of the
suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as
defendants.  The vast majority of those claims have been filed
against either Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane)
and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos
contained in certain historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand
Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes.  None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were a
producer or manufacturer of asbestos.

"The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed
analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total
liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related
claims.  In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the
liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount
within the range is a better estimate than any other amount.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred.  The methodology
used to prepare estimates relies upon and includes the following
factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of
non-malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's history to determine the average
settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease
claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward
to 1.0% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting
from the aging of the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future
(currently projected through 2053).

"At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, over 75 percent of
the open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or
unspecified disease claims.  In addition, the Company has a number
of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets
and expected to have little or no settlement value against the
Company."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Nix 2 ERISA Actions over Talc Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2019, that the defendants in two ERISA class action
lawsuits related to asbestos contamination in body powders have
filed a motion to dismiss the case.

The Company states, "In January 2019, two ERISA class action
lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits
Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock
as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was
imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages and
injunctive relief.  Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DuStQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Unit Has 1,591 Exposure Lawsuits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2019, that its subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,591
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,493 claims at September
30, 2019.

The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis.  The products at
issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently
offered by MSA LLC.  A reserve has been established with respect to
cumulative trauma product liability claims currently asserted and
estimated incurred but not reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma
product liability claims.  Because our cumulative trauma product
liability risk is subject to inherent uncertainties, including
unfavorable trial rulings or developments, an increase in newly
filed claims, or more aggressive settlement demands, and since MSA
LLC is largely self-insured, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC
may not ultimately incur losses in excess of presently recorded
liabilities.  These losses could have a material adverse effect on
our business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity.
We will adjust the reserve relating to cumulative trauma product
liability claims from time to time based on whether the actual
numbers, types and settlement values of claims asserted differ from
current projections and estimates or there are significant changes
in the facts underlying the assumptions used in establishing the
reserve.  These adjustments may be material and could materially
impact future periods in which the reserve is adjusted."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 700 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries continues to face approximately 700
pending claims related to asbestos matters as of 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, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other
unaffiliated companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.  These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties.  Each case typically names between
several dozen to more than a hundred corporate defendants.  Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial.  Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of September 30, 2019, there were approximately 700 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries.  This amount is not adjusted
for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified
incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would
ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we
assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or
divestitures.  In addition, the amount does not include certain
claims pending against third parties for which we have been
provided an indemnification."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fWWz06


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,413 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 11,413 unresolved asbestos-related
claims 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.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/f6DKZn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,192
million 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.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,192 million
at September 30, 2019, and approximately 18 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and approximately 82 percent
related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/f6DKZn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $330MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$330 million as of
September 30, 2019, for its estimated range of total liabilities to
resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims
through 2059, 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, "...[L]ike many other industrial companies, we
and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our
historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have
contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the
aggregate in any year.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities are
based on currently available information and assumptions that we
believe are reasonable and are made with input from outside
actuarial experts.  The estimated range of total liabilities to
resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims
through 2059 is approximately US$330 million to US$395 million.
Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, the
minimum is accrued.  We have recorded the minimum amount of US$330
million, which is principally recorded in Other long-term
liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30,
2019.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and
excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims,
which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are
incurred.  In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$142 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September
30, 2019.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, the allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we
have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with
other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved
settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance
carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future liability
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings
that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of
state or federal legislation.  At the end of each year, the Company
will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside
actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our
estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

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



                            *********

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 ***