CAR_Public/191118.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 230

                            Headlines

7- ELEVEN INC: Sousa Files Suit in California
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Robinson Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: December 17 Mediation in Brown Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Defendants to Seek Dismissal of Versetto Suit

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 6
ADTALEM GLOBAL: To Seek Dismissal of Magana Class Action
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Gets More Time to File Supporting Doc
AGA SERVICE: Faces Arencibia Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Kuss Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.33MM Settlement

APPLIED STAFF: Conditional Certification in Thompson Case Denied
AROTECH CORPORATION: Sabatini Challenges Acquisition by Argonaut
ARS NATIONAL: Genovese Files FDCPA Suit in New York
AUTOZONE INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Miller Says
BENIHANA INC: Kim Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California

BLUE RIDGE: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in Gao Case
BP AMERICA: Murphy Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
BROOKLYN NETS: Unlawfully Dismissed Ticket Membership, Yedid Says
BUCA INC: Delacruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Kilmer Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Sous Chefs

CALIBER HOME: Faces Barnett Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Matzura Files Suit in New York
CAM FIELD: Weathers Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
CBC RESTAURANT: Purdue's Bid for Class Certification Denied
COST PLUS: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

CV SCIENCES: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Woodson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed as Moot
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Letelier Files FDCPA Suit in New York
EAZE SOLS: TCPA Class Action Put to Bed by Binding Arbitration
EDSAL MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FALLON HEALTH: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
FARFETCH LIMITED: Rosen Reminds of Nov. 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FIVE BELOW: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIVERR INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

FOGO DE CHAO: Murphy Files Class Suit under ADA
GOGO INC: Federal Judge Shoots Down Investor Class Action
GOODTIME TOWNE: Ct. Grants Bid to Enforce Cameron Suit Settlements
GRAN LUX CAFE: Dominguez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
H & M HENNES: Thorne Assert Breach of Disabilities Act

HALAL GUYS INC: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
HUMMINGBIRD LOANS: Easley Files RICO Class Action in Alabama
HUNTER ALLIED: Ct. Grants Izaguirre's Default Judgment Bid
HUNTER WARFIELD: Muhlstock Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
HUNTER WARFIELD: Valentino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Underway
INFOSYS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
INFOSYS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit From Rosen, SEC Probe
INFOSYS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Notifies Investors of Class Action
JEROME GOLDEN CENTER: 2 Former Employees Launch Class Action Suit

KELLY LAW: Fails to Pay Paralegals' OT Wages, Francis-Luster Says
KIMBERLY HASTIE: Bid to Vacate Summary Judgment in Diamond Denied
LONGS DRUG: Assar Suit Removed to E.D. California
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Dominguez Alleges Violation under ADA
LZRD CORP: Murphy Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MACROGENICS INC: Rosen Law Reminded Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline
MACY'S WEST: $3.5M Garcia Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
MANDARICH LAW: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in New York
MANDARICH LAW: Parker Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MAXIMUS HEALTH: Aguilar Files Suit in California

MDL 2036: Plaintiffs in Dasher Case Seek Prelim. OK of $7.5MM Deal
MDL 2913: Hochhauser Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2915: Haque Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
MIAMI HERALD: Rodeiro FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MODA OPERANDI: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MONAT GLOBAL: Says Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Granted in Part
MYLIFE.COM: Wuest Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MYRIAD GENETICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in New York
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Arnaud Sues Over False Ad for Beverage Refill

NEW DIRECTIONS: Krott Seeks Overtime Wages for UR Employees
OHIO: Class of Eligible Voters in Jail Certified in Mays v. LaRose
OLAM SPICES: Must File Bid for for Prelim OK of Beltran Deal by Dec
ORTHODONTICS SPECIALISTS: Simon FLSA Suit Deal Gets Prelim. OK
OVERSTOCK.COM: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action

PARETEUM CORP: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit
PHILIPS NORTH: Whisenhunt Seeks OT Pay for Collections Specialists
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Rothman Seeks to Enjoin Vote on VMware Merger
RUBY TUESDAY: Delacruz Files Class Suit in New York
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Seeks to Stop Unwanted Marketing
SEAGLE PIZZA: Shanafelt Class Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
SECURITY BENEFIT: Class Action Suit Targets Proprietary Index
SEQUIUM ASSET: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
SF MARKET: Court Dismisses Smock Suit Without Prejudice

SHAW INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Fitch Suit to State Ct.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
SODEXO INC: Stokes Seeks Minimum Wages for Housekeeping Workers
SUBARU CORP: Lawsuit Alleges Windshield Defect Foresters, Outbacks
SUNOCO INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Cline Case Pending Appeal

TENCENT MUSIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
TJX COMPANIES: Dominguez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
TOTAL SAFETY: Gerstmann Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Neuworth Files Suit under FDCPA in New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline

US SOCCER FEDERATION: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Morgan Suit
VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
VITAL RECOVERY: Kelly Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
WAITR HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
WARNER MUSIC: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Williams Suit to State Ct.

WASHE INC: Fails to Pay Washers Minimum and OT Wages, Meza Claims
WELLS FARGO: Hernandez's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Refile Nov. 21
WELTMAN WEINBERG: White Files Suit Under FDCPA
ZENDESK INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit

                            *********

7- ELEVEN INC: Sousa Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7- Eleven, Inc. The
case is styled as Karla Y. Sousa, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7- Eleven, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02142-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas J Campion, Esq.
   Law Offices of Douglas J Campion
   17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
   San Diego, CA 92127
   Tel: (619) 299-2091
   Fax: (619) 858-0034
   Email: doug@djcampion.com


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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 the order dismissing the consolidated Petrizzo class action
suit is still pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit, the
plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six
different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and
consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").

The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry
University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a
putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree
from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within
their chosen field of study within six months of graduation.

Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf
of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of
individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the
Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.

In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws.

Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state
law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem
Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February
12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs'
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice on February 13, 2019.

On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this
matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Robinson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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 parties
in the class action suit initiated by T'Lani Robinson are awaiting
a decision by the court on the defendants motion to dismiss.

On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of
a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and the parties are
awaiting a decision by the court.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: December 17 Mediation in Brown Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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 court
has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the
class action suit initiated by Robby Brown.

On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any
part of a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to
proceed.

                            *     *     *

Mediation is scheduled in the case, Robby Brown v. Adtalem Global
Education Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo., No. 4:19-cv00250), on December
17, 2019.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Defendants to Seek Dismissal of Versetto Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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
defendants in the class action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto,
intend to move to dismiss the amended complaint as it is
substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants' motion on July
29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint on August 26, 2019.

Defendants' intend to move to dismiss this complaint as it is
substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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 final
approval hearing of the settlement in the class action suit
initiated by Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers is set for
December 6, 2019.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice
of Intent to Limit and a civil complaint filed by the FTC on
January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and
DeVry/New York Inc., which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that
alleged that certain of DeVry University's advertising claims were
false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made
in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, as the basis for
claims that defendants made false or misleading statements
regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and the
earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of
other universities and colleges.

As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the
plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects. The
plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for
violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and asserted liability against the individual defendants
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS”) moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers. URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August
24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint (SAC) on December
23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and
January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker, Adtalem's former Chief Financial Officer.

Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all
defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged
material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University
graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss
the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017, without
prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint ("TAC") on January
29, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30,
2018. The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December
20, 2018. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the
TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the TAC.


The parties engaged in mediation and reached a tentative
resolution. On September 5, 2019, the court granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement. The final approval hearing
is set for December 6, 2019.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: To Seek Dismissal of Magana Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education 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
is defending against a class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California initiated by Dennis Magana
et al.

On August 13, 2019, Magana, Scott Swindell and David Torosyan filed
a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry
University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly
deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry
University degree.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of
material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint.

                           *     *     *

The Hon. John A. Mendez, in an October 22 order, granted the
Parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for Defendants'
Response to Complaint.  In light of the scheduled mediation in a
related case, Robby Brown v. Adtalem Global Education Inc., et al.
(W.D. Mo., No. 4:19-cv00250), on December 17, 2019, an extension of
the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint is
appropriate. Accordingly, all deadlines to respond to the Complaint
are extended.  The Parties are directed to report to the Court the
outcome of the mediation no later than January 17, 2020.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Gets More Time to File Supporting Doc
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Susan E. Cox granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for second extension of time to file motion in support of
preliminary approval of proposed settlement and for class
certification in the lawsuit styled Robert Ciskowski, et al. v.
Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-08302
(N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
proposed settlement and for class certification is moot, Judge Cox
wrote.  Judge Cox reminded the Parties that they are to provide the
Court with a proposed order with specific dates as discussed in
Court.[CC]


AGA SERVICE: Faces Arencibia Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IBALDO ARENCIBIA v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL
ASSISTANCE, a Foreign For-Profit Corporation; AMERICAN AIRLINES,
INC., a Foreign For-Profit Corporation; and JEFFERSON INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Foreign For-Profit Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-24300-MGC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2019), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, who
purchased a trip insurance policy from Allianz through American
Airlines' Web site, seeking damages for the Defendants' violation
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Allianz is a foreign for-profit corporation and doing business in
the state of Florida.  Allianz is the main seller of the "travel
insurance" policy at issue in this case.  Jefferson is a foreign
for-profit corporation and was doing business in the state of
Florida. Jefferson acts as the underwriter for the "travel
insurance" policy that Allianz sells.

American Airlines is a corporation that is incorporated in
Delaware, has its principal place of business in Texas, and was
doing business in the state of Florida.

On August 17, 2019, Mr. Arencibia purchased a ticket to Bogota,
Colombia, for an expo and seminar from October 23-25, 2019.
Through an online process, he was presented with, and bought, a
"travel insurance" option to protect his trip. He eventually
cancelled the trip due to being required to work.

Mr. Arencibia says Allianz refused him coverage because trip
cancellation due to being required to work is not covered.  He
contends that Allianz comes far short of its promise, even
misrepresenting the contents of the insurance product it offered
and continues to offer to unsuspecting consumers.  He points out
that it would be easy for Allianz to correct its offer of insurance
in a way that accurately reflects the nature, essence, and
substance of what it covers, which is narrow and largely related to
medical emergencies, illness, or catastrophic event
emergencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo A. Maura, Esq.
          Luis F. Quesada, Esq.
          AYALA LAW, P.A.
          1390 Brickell Avenue, 335
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 570-2208
          E-mail: eayala@ayalalawpa.com
                  lquesada@ayalalawpa.com

               - and -

          Felipe Fulgencio, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, P.L.L.C.
          105 S Edison Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 463-0123
          E-mail: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com


AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Kuss Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.33MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOSEPH KUSS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC., and
LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02348-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion and memorandum in support
of preliminary approval of $1,330,000 class action settlement and
certification of settlement class.

On January 6, 2017, American HomePatient Inc.'s ("AHP") office in
Newark, Delaware was burglarized.  AHP is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Lincare Holdings, Inc. ("LHI") (collectively, "Defendants").
The burglar(s) stole five unencrypted computer hard drives
potentially containing sensitive and private protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other
personally identifiable information (collectively, "PII") of up to
13,701 customers/patients of AHP ("Security Incident").

The case does not involve a breach of a computer system by a third
party, but rather the potential unauthorized disclosure of the PII
of the Plaintiff and Class Members by the Defendants to unknown
third parties.  As a result of Defendants' alleged failure to
implement security procedures--such as, at a minimum, encrypting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII--Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII has now possibly been compromised and may be in the hands of
unauthorized third parties.  The Plaintiff and Class Members allege
that they now face a substantial increased risk of identity theft;
in fact, the Plaintiff alleges that he has already fallen victim to
multiple instances of identity theft since the Security Incident.
Consequently, AHP's current and former customers have had to spend,
and will continue to spend, significant time and money in the
future to protect themselves due to Defendants' alleged basic
failures.

In this Motion, the Plaintiff asks that the Court grant an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement; (2)
provisionally certifying the Settlement Class; (3) appointing
Joseph Kuss as Settlement Class Representative; (4) appointing John
Yanchunis, Esq., as Lead Settlement Class Counsel; (5) appointing
Ryan McGee, Esq., Charley Shaffer, Esq., and Dan Levin, Esq., as
Settlement Class Counsel; (6) approving the proposed Notice Program
and authorizing its dissemination to the Class; (7) appointing Epiq
Systems, Inc. ("Epiq"), to serve as the Claims Administrator; and
(8) setting a schedule for the final approval process including
Lead and Settlement Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The proposed Settlement Class is defined as:

     All individuals in the United States who are current or
     former patients or customers of Defendants, whose PII was
     stored on the unencrypted hard drives stolen from
     Defendants' Newark, Delaware location on or about January 6,
     2017, and who suffered injury or harm resulting from the
     dissemination of their PII.

     Excluded from the Settlement Class is the judge presiding
     over this matter and any members of her judicial staff, the
     officers and directors of either of the Defendants, and
     persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
     Settlement Class.

Under the Settlement, subject to its terms and conditions and
subject to Court approval, Settlement Class Members are eligible to
receive substantial relief and reimbursement for these categories
of out-pocket expenses resulting from the Security Incident:

   1. Extended identity theft protection for an additional 24
      months and insurance for ID theft reimbursement up to
      $25,000;
   2. Reimbursement of self-paid identity theft protection;
   3. Payment for false or fraudulent tax returns;
   4. Payment for IRS tax transcript requests;
   5. Eligible incident claims; and
   6. Out-of-Pocket losses.

The aggregate amount of total potential claims reimbursement under
the Settlement Agreement: Section 34 ($1,000,000), attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses under the Settlement Agreement, Section XII.61
($325,000), and service award to the Representative Plaintiff under
the Settlement Agreement Section XII.60 ($5,000), for which the
Defendants shall be responsible to pay is capped at
$1,330,000.[CC]

The Plaintiff and the Class are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Charlie Schaffer, Esq.
          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  DLevin@lfsblaw.com


APPLIED STAFF: Conditional Certification in Thompson Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACK THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED STAFF AUGMENTATION
PARTNERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-127-FDW-DCK (W.D.
N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, (i) denied
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice, and (ii) denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Turning to the Plaintiff's motion, the Plaintiff seeks conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") of a
collective defined as all current and former employees of ASAP who
were, at any point in the last 3 years, paid the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, including those over 40 hours in a workweek.

Defendant ASAP opposes conditional certification on several
grounds, arguing individual employment agreements, some of which
contain guaranteed weekly salary minimums, mandatory arbitration
agreements, and/or a class action waiver, indicate the proposed
collective is not sufficiently similarly situated and subjected to
a common unlawful policy.

Judge Whitney denied the Plaintiff's motion seeking "conditional
certification" and declines to express an opinion at this juncture
on the notice or notice process proposed by the Plaintiff and
objected to by the Defendant.  He notes the denial of "conditional
certification" does not mean the action cannot proceed as an FLSA
collective action. Conditional certification only refers to the
district court's exercise of its discretionary power to facilitate
the sending of notice to potential class members. Additional
plaintiffs may join the action even if conditional certification
never occurs. Indeed, the Court notes several plaintiffs have now
consented to join in this action.

Although the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
denied, the Judge finds good cause to sua sponte extend the
opportunity for parties to opt-in to the action.

The deadlines in the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan are
amended as follows:

     a. Motion to Amend Pleadings to add additional parties: Dec.
13, 2019

     b. Discovery Completion: Feb. 12, 2020

     c. ADR: Feb. 21,2020

     d. Dispositive Motions (filed): March 4, 2020

     e. Dispositive Motions (hearing): April 6-17 (unchanged)

     f. Pretrial Submissions: Seven calendar days before FPC

     g. Final Pretrial Conference (FPC): To be determined

     h. Trial Setting: May 4, 2020 (unchanged)

The Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan is modiefied to extend
the deadlines as set forth.  All other provisions of the Order
remain intact.

The Judge denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment to be refiled at the close of discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iw8kgO from Leagle.com.

Jack Thompson, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson
Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Robert Strianese --
chris@strilaw.com -- Strianese Huckert LLP & Tamara L. Huckert --
tamara@strilaw.com -- Strianese Huckert, LLP.

Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Edward Norman Boehm, Jr. -- tboehm@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher
Philliips LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin Joseph Dalton --
kdalton@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.

AROTECH CORPORATION: Sabatini Challenges Acquisition by Argonaut
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AROTECH CORPORATION, JON B. KUTLER, KENNETH
W. CAPPELL, LAWRENCE F. HAGENBUCH, and JAMES J. QUINN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02028-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 28, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proxy statement they filed for a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Arotech will be acquired by Argonaut
Intermediate, Inc.

On September 22, 2019, Arotech's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Argonaut.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Arotech's
stockholders will receive $3 in cash for each share of Arotech
common stock they own.

On October 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges.

Mr. Sabatini, who owns Arotech common stock, asks the Court to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the Proposed Transaction, and in the event they consummate
the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.  He also asks the Court to direct the
Individual Defendants to disseminate a Proxy Statement that does
not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states
all material facts required in it or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement fails to disclose:
(i) all line items used to calculate adjusted EBITDA; (ii)
projected free cash flow and all underlying line items; and (iii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. He adds that the
Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, B. Riley FBR, Inc.

With respect to B. Riley's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) unlevered free cash flows for
calendar years 2020 through 2024 and all underlying line items;
(ii) the terminal values for Arotech; (iii) B. Riley's basis for
applying exit multiples ranging from 9.5x-10.5x; and (iv) the
individual inputs and assumptions underlying the
discount rates ranging from 14.0% to 16.0%, the lawsuit says.

Arotech is a defense and security company engaged in two business
areas: interactive simulation and mobile power systems. The Company
has research, development, and production subsidiaries in Michigan,
South Carolina, and Israel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


ARS NATIONAL: Genovese Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sara Genovese, Alice Jihee
Han, Tanesha Mason and Ceimoy James, Plaintiffs v. ARS National
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06272 (E.D. N.Y., Nov.
6, 2019).

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

ARS National Services Inc is a debt collection agency, which
receives a lot of consumer complaints to our law firm for debt
harassment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTOZONE INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Miller Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Miller and Michael J. Iannone Jr., individually and on behalf
others similarly situated v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02779
(W.D. Tenn., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs bring this action because of the Defendant's
extraordinary breaches of its fiduciary duties under the ERISA,
including the approval, maintenance and recommendation of an
abusive "GoalMaker" asset allocation service furnished by
Prudential Insurance Company that serves Prudential's interests,
according to the complaint. The Defendant touted GoalMaker to
participate as a service that would "guide you to a model portfolio
of investments available, then rebalances your account quarterly to
ensure you portfolio stay on target."

The "GoalMaker" representation was and remains false because, here,
"GoalMaker" served Prudential's interests by funneling
participants' retirement savings into Prudential's own shamelessly
overpriced proprietary investment products and into investments
that paid kickbacks to Prudential, the Plaintiffs alleges.

The Defendant could have easily stopped these abuses at any time by
replacing the obscenely high-fee, chronically underperforming
GoalMaker funds with reliable, low-fee Vanguard index funds already
in the retirement plan's investment menu, the Plaintiffs contend.
Year after year, the Defendant chose to retain GoalMaker ignoring
the abusive fees and costs of the GoalMaker funds, the conflicts of
interest inherent in Prudential's asset allocation scheme, and the
misrepresentations repeatedly made to participants on behalf of the
Plan, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan.

AutoZone is the Plan Administrator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James H. White, IV, Esq.
          JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
          Landmark Center, Suite 600
          2100 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 383-1812
          Email: james@whitefirmllc.com

               - and -

          Lange Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK, P.C.
          301 19th Street North, Suite 550
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 939-3933
          Email: langeclark@langeclark.com

               - and -

          D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 314-0500
          Email: dgpjr@wiggingschilds.com


BENIHANA INC: Kim Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Youngsuk Kim, an individual, and on behalf of others members of the
general public similarly situated v. BENIHANA, INC., and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 1928920, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Bernardino to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Nov. 13, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09756 to the
proceeding.

The action is brought to seek remedy for certain unfair, deceptive
and unlawful business practice of Benihana, Inc., which violates
the California Business and Professions Code and the California
Civil Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel J, Herling, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-432-6000
          Fax: 415-432-6001
          Email: djherling@mintz.com

               - and -

          Nicole V. Ozeran, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-586-3200
          Fax: 310-586-3202
          Email: nvozeran@mintz.com


BLUE RIDGE: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in Gao Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JING GAO; ALVIN RABSATT; BARRY NIXON; PATRICIA NIXON;
MADISON LOWE; IOLANDA LOWE; KATHERINE PIERCE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BLUE RIDGE LANDFILL TX, L.P.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-40062 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's
summary judgment, and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to
amend.

The Plaintiffs live near a landfill in Pearland, Texas.  They
brought a putative class-action lawsuit against Blue Ridge invoking
the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction and argued Blue Ridge
constituted a nuisance.  After losing at summary judgment, the
Plaintiffs appealed.

The Plaintiffs now argue the federal courts have no subject-matter
jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties.  That argument is based solely on Blue Ridge's
Answer to the complaint.  In its Answer, Blue Ridge denied
sufficient knowledge to know whether complete diversity exists and
admitted that it is located at 2200 FM 521 Rd, in Fresno, Texas.
The Plaintiffs claim the Answer conclusively establishes that Blue
Ridge is a Texas citizen.  If true, that would deprive the court of
diversity jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs also are Texas
citizens.

Blue Ridge is organized under the laws of Delaware. It operates a
landfill in Texas, but that fact alone does not make Texas its
principal place of business. Blue Ridge filed a motion for leave to
amend its Answer to admit to Plaintiffs' allegation that Phoenix is
its principal place of business. That motion also contains tax
filings to demonstrate that Blue Ridge's "nerve center" is in
Phoenix. The Fifth Circuit is satisfied that Blue Ridge is a
citizen of Delaware and Phoenix. And Plaintiffs are citizens of
Texas. Therefore, complete diversity exists.

The Plaintiffs argue that Blue Ridge is not a "permanent nuisance"
under Texas law.  The Fifth Circuit finds that Blue Ridge landfill
has been in operation since 1992 -- roughly a decade before the
Plaintiffs' homes were constructed.  In a survey conducted by the
Plaintiffs' counsel, numerous residents who lived in the affected
area for a decade or more reported experiencing odors continuously
ever since they moved to the neighborhood.  So both the Plaintiffs'
injuries and the landfill's operations are permanent, creating a
presumption of a permanent nuisance.  Having reviewed all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Fifth
Circuit sees nothing indicating that the odors are so rare that it
is uncertain whether or to what degree they may ever occur again.
Thus, the presumption of a permanent nuisance is unrebutted.

The Plaintiffs next argue their claims are not time-barred.  The
statute of limitations for nuisance claims in Texas is two years.
Because the landfill is a permanent nuisance, the Plaintiffs'
nuisance claims accrued when the injury first occured or was
discovered.  The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 17, 2016.  Therefore,
the statute of limitations bars claims for permanent nuisances that
first occurred or were discovered before Nov. 17, 2014.

As the Fifth Circuit has already discussed, residents in the
Plaintiffs' neighborhood have been experiencing foul odors from the
landfill for at least a decade.  Named Plaintiff Iolanda Lowe
herself testified that in 2007, someone in her neighborhood went
door to door with a petition regarding the landfill's odors.  Even
construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, the Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that
the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the Fifth Circuit has reviewed the Plaintiffs' untimely
supplemental brief and evidence concerning the worsening of the
odors in 2015.  Nothing in those filings changes its conclusion, so
it need not decide whether the district court erred in excluding
them.

Based on the foregoing, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment, and granted the Defendant's motion to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ITy8os from Leagle.com.

William G. Beck -- William.Beck@WoodsFuller.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Troy Ford, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brenton Joel Allison, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Constance Hankins Pfeiffer -- cpfeiffer@beckredden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Owen Joseph McGovern -- omcgovern@beckredden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Allyson E. Cunningham, for Defendant-Appellee.

David Dubin -- ddubin@swlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nicholas Alexander Coulson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

BP AMERICA: Murphy Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------
BP America Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BP America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10323-VEC
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

BP America Inc. produces and retails oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


BROOKLYN NETS: Unlawfully Dismissed Ticket Membership, Yedid Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON YEDID, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN NETS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 523484/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's Brooklyn Nets season ticket
membership, purportedly due to his resale of his tickets to certain
games, in violation of New York law.

The Defendant is engaged in unlawful and predatory practice in an
attempt to destroy the ability of season ticket holders to re-sell
Brooklyn Nets tickets, including through licensed ticket brokers,
Mr. Yedid alleges. He contends that the Defendant's goal is to
eliminate competition in the market for Brooklyn Nets tickets, and
to instead funnel all resales of Brooklyn Nets tickets though its
preferred ticket broker and profit-sharing partner, Dynasty Sports
& Entertainment.

Dynasty's co-founder and former President was for many years a Vice
President of BSE Global prior to founding Dynasty, and is currently
a Senior Vice President of BSE. BSE Global manages and operates
Barclays Center, the Brooklyn Nets, its NBA G League team, the Long
Island Nets, and its NBA 2K League affiliate, NetsGC.

The Defendant essentially seeks to create a monopoly over the
resale of Brooklyn Nets tickets, which serves to raise the prices
that ticket purchasers pay for Brooklyn Nets tickets, Mr. Yedid
alleges. To accomplish this goal, the Defendant not only relies on
its improper termination of Memberships, but also the chilling
effect that such terminations have on other Brooklyn Nets season
tickets holders, who may also seek to exercise their right to
re-sell their tickets, resulting from the fear that the Defendant
will improperly terminate their Memberships as well, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant's unlawful conduct has resulted in severe damage to
Plaintiff and the class, as well as to the ticket-buying public at
large, Mr. Yedid asserts. He seeks equitable relief enjoining the
Defendant from unlawfully terminating the Memberships of Brooklyn
Nets season ticket holders so as to prevent them from exercising
their rights under New York law to re-sell their tickets. The
Plaintiff has spent a total of more than $225,000 on season ticket
Memberships with the Brooklyn Nets.

The Brooklyn Nets, which operates a professional basketball
organization that competes in the National Basketball Association,
is a New Jersey limited liability company located at 168 39th
Street, in Brooklyn, New York, and is authorized to do business in
the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren Oved, Esq.
          Andrew J. Urgenson, Esq.
          James Reilly, Esq.
          OVED & OVED LLP
          401 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 226 2376


BUCA INC: Delacruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Buca, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Emanuel
Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Buca, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10325 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Buca, Inc. owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The Company
offers appetizers, salads, pastas, pizzas, desserts, beer, wine,
and meat products, as well as provides gift cards, recipes, and
catering services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Kilmer Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Sous Chefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan Kilmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Burntwood Tavern Holdings LLC d/b/a Chef Art Pour
Restaurant Group LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern
Beachcliff LLC d/b/a Tavern Rocky River LLC, an Ohio Corporation,
Burntwood Tavern Belden Village LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood
Tavern Bell Tower LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern
Brecksville LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Chagrin
Falls LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Crocker Park LLC,
an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Cuyahoga Falls LLC, an Ohio
Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Daytona LLC, an Ohio Corporation,
Burntwood Tavern Fairlawn LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood
Tavern Grand Oaks LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Gulf
Coast LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Lyndhurst LLC, an
Ohio Corporation, Burntwood Tavern Naples LLC, an Ohio Corporation,
Burntwood Tavern North Olmsted LLC, an Ohio Corporation, Burntwood
Tavern Solon LLC, an Ohio Corporation, M Italian LLC, an Ohio
corporation, Tose Italian Kitchen Cuyahoga Falls LLC d/b/a Leo's
Italian Social, an Ohio corporation, and Rose Italian Kitchen Solon
LLC, an Ohio corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-02660 (N.D. Ohio, Nov.
13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

Consistent with the Defendants' policy, pattern and/or practice,
the Plaintiff and Sous Chefs worked over 40 hours in one or more
workweeks, but they did not receive overtime premiums on one or
more regularly scheduled pay dates for hours worked as Sous Chefs
in excess of 40 in those workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a Sous Chef for the Defendants from July
2016 to April 2019.

The Defendants operate various restaurant locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LCC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Phone: (404) 942-4151
          Fax: (404) 796-7338
          Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                 bhilbert@headlawfirm.com


CALIBER HOME: Faces Barnett Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDI BARNETT and GREGORY BENJAMIN, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, Case No.
2:19-cv-00309 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 17, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant routinely and systematically breaches uniform covenants
in standard deeds of trust and violates the Texas Debt Collection
Practices Act by assessing fees to borrowers that are either not
authorized by or expressly prohibited by their mortgage
agreements.

Headquartered in Coppell, Texas, Caliber is a residential mortgage
lender and one of the largest mortgage servicers of residential
mortgages in the country.

Any time a borrower makes a mortgage payment to Caliber online or
over the phone, Caliber charges the borrower a fee ranging from
$3.50–8.00 ("Pay-to-Pay fees").

The Plaintiffs, who are Texas residents and borrowers, contend that
charging this fee violates provisions of the TDCPA and the express
terms of the uniform covenants in standard deeds of trust and
mortgage agreements, including the uniform covenants in Plaintiff
Sandi Barnett's standard deed of trust.  They add that these fees
also violate uniform covenants in mortgages guaranteed by the
Federal Housing Administration.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          E. Lee Lowther III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Abraham Moss, Esq.
          MOSS LAW OFFICE
          5350 S. Staples, Suite 209
          Corpus Christi, TX 78411
          Telephone: (361) 992-8999
          Facsimile: (361) 232-5007
          E-mail: amoss@amlawyers.com


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Matzura Files Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California Pizza Kitchen Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10336 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

California Pizza Kitchen is a casual dining restaurant chain that
specializes in California-style pizza. The restaurant was started
in 1985 by attorneys Rick Rosenfield and Larry Flax in Beverly
Hills, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


CAM FIELD: Weathers Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
-------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY WEATHERS, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CAM FIELD SOLUTIONS LLC,
Defendant, Case No 4:19-cv-04248 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 28, 2019),
alleges that CAM Field required the Plaintiff to work more than 40
hours in a workweek without overtime compensation.

The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welding inspector from
April 2019 to July 2019. As an inspector, the Plaintiff was
responsible for performing visual and non-destructive testing on
pipelines, pipeline coating, and facilities owned and operated by
Defendant's customers. For his labor, the Defendant paid Plaintiff
a day rate but did not pay him overtime for his hours in excess of
40 per week, the lawsuit says.

The FLSA Class Members are all current and former inspectors, and
all employees in substantially similar positions, that worked at
any time during the three-year period before the filing of this
Complaint that were paid on a day rate.

CAM Field operates in the oil and gas industry by providing
inspection staffing services to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


CBC RESTAURANT: Purdue's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Gary Klausner denies without prejudice Amber
Purdue and Jennifer Vargas' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit titled Amber Purdue, et al. v. CBC Restaurant Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03920-R-SK (C.D. Cal.).

In its opposition to the Motion, CBC contends that the Motion
should be denied because the Plaintiffs' counsel failed to meet and
confer prior to the filing of the Motion as required by Local Rule
7-3.

Indeed, the Court notes, the Plaintiffs' Motion lacks the meet and
confer certification required under Local Rule 7-3, and a review of
declarations accompanying the Motion reveals that the Plaintiffs
have set forth no evidence that the parties conferred at any length
specifically regarding the numerous issues raised in the Motion.

This discrepancy, coupled with the Plaintiffs' failure to include
the meet and confer certification required under Local Rule 7-3,
warrants denial of the Motion, Judge Klausner opines, citing Hinton
v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993).

Because the Court finds the Plaintiffs failed to meet their meet
and confer obligations with respect to the precise relief sought in
their Motion in violation of Local Rule 7-3, the Court denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice.

The Court instructs the parties to comply with the spirit and
letter of Local Rule 7-3 before filing future motions, and to
discuss, with specificity, the parties' relative positions before
seeking the Court's intervention on those issues.[CC]


COST PLUS: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------
Cost Plus, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cost Plus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10324-ER
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Cost Plus, Inc. retails casual home living and entertainment
products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



CV SCIENCES: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CV Sciences, Inc. doing business
as: PlusCBD Oil, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06289 (E.D. N.Y., Nov.
6, 2019).

CV Sciences is engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing
and distribution of consumer products containing plant-based
cannabidiol (CBD), which is refined into its portfolio brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Woodson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barry W. Ashe dismissed as moot the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled ANGELA WOODSON v. DASMEN
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; RH COPPER CREEK, LLC; AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10890-BWA-DMD (E.D. La.).

According to the Court's Minute Entry, a status conference was held
on November 6, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., with the participation of
Suzette Peychaud Bagneris, Esq., and DeVonn Henry-Joseph Jarrett,
Esq., on behalf of Plaintiff Angela Woodson; and Emily E. Eagan,
Esq., and Michael Hill, Esq., on behalf of Defendants Dasmen
Residential, LLC and RH Copper Creek, LLC.

At the conference, the parties discussed the state of pleadings,
the scheduling order, and the state of discovery.  The Court
dismissed as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
because the operative complaint does not contain class
allegations.[CC]

Plaintiff Angela Woodson is represented by:

          Suzette Peychaud Bagneris, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810-3995
          E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          DeVonn Henry-Joseph Jarrett, Esq.
          JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
          228 Saint Charles Ave., Suite 1435
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 491-6806

Defendants Dasmen Residential, LLC and RH Copper Creek, LLC, are
represented by:

          Emily E. Eagan, Esq.
          Michael Hill, Esq.
          GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC
          Hancock Whitney Center
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 561-0400
          Facsimile: (504) 561-1011
          E-mail: eeagan@glllaw.com
                  mhill@glllaw.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Letelier Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Letelier, Nancy Park,
Joseph Guido, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06316 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Diversified Consultants, Inc., a telecom-specific collection
company, specializes in the bad debt recovery of wireless,
landline, cable, satellite, utilities, and security arenas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


EAZE SOLS: TCPA Class Action Put to Bed by Binding Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
the Cannabis industry is not immune from the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act as a number of cases targeting cannabis suppliers
and retailers have tested purported telemarketing techniques used
by "pushers" in this "budding" trade.   But the TCPA is a mere
nuisance compared to another, potentially existential, threat
facing the industry—as the subject matter of cannabis
transactions—you know, marijuana—remains illegal to sell under
federal law, are contracts to buy and sell the green stuff even
enforceable?

In a fascinating new decision recently handed down, a Court in
California faced a case intersecting both issues and was asked to
determine whether a contract to facilitate the purchase and
distribution of marijuana can be lawfully created under California
law, which forbids contracts lacking a "lawful object." Its
answer—let an arbitrator figure it out.

In Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02598-JD, 2019
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182942 (N.D. Cal.  Oct. 21, 2019) the Plaintiff
signed up for Eaze—an online application that apparently makes it
easier for people to buy dope. Groovy.

After signing up and accepting the terms and conditions on Eaze's
platform the Plaintiff began receiving telemarketing calls,
apparently trying to convince her to buy more marijuana. Plaintiff
contends she did not want these calls and sued Eaze under the TCPA,
which prevents calls to cell phones using certain automated
technology without consent.

While it is unclear from the case precisely how Eaze was placing
calls and whether it had consent to make the calls, Eaze sought to
have the entire battle fought out in arbitration rather than in
federal court. It submitted to the Court that by singing up for its
marijuana-to-you services the Plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any
disputes it had with Eaze.

Although Eaze probably assumed its customers would not be the
litigious bunch—imagine walking into federal court with a story
that starts with "so I was buying some marijuana online and . . . "
- Plaintiff fought Eaze tooth and nail to stay in court and pursue
her case as a class action. Her theory -- the arbitration clause
was not enforceable because the entire contract between her and
Eaze lacked a lawful basis since marijuana distribution remains
illegal under federal law. Since the contract to buy and sell dope
wasn't legally enforceable in her mind (!) she could not be
compelled to arbitrate her TCPA claims against Eaze.

The court disagreed and enforced arbitration, but interestingly not
because it held the entire contract was enforceable. Rather the
Court determined that the contract might not be valid but even if
it wasn't an arbitration clause contained within a void contract is
still subject to enforcement. That is, even if the rest of the
contract cannot be enforced, the TCPA claim still had to be
resolved in arbitration because the portion of the contract dealing
with arbitration remains enforceable.

Accordingly, the Court compelled the dispute to arbitration and
Plaintiff will be forced to convince the arbitrator that Eaze
called her without consent in violation of the TCPA.

So there you go folks. If you sign up with Eaze any resulting
contracts with your friendly local drug dispensary (dealer?) may
not be enforceable in Court but you certainly will have to
arbitrate any disputes arising out of phone calls they may make to
you encouraging you to lighten up a bit. [GN]


EDSAL MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliseo Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDSAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2019CH13197
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' sensitive, private,
and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding
the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant
disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights, and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in
violation of BIPA, says the complaint.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform
Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were
being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by the
BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by
BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose,
redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

Edsel Manufacturing Company, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with
places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                 plesko@pwcklegal.com


ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP,
INC., et al. The case is styled as Lloyd Williams, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE
CAPITAL GROUP, INC., MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05252-GJP (E.D. Penn.,
Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Encore Capital Group is a global specialty finance company with
operations and investments across North America, Europe, Asia and
Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Andrew Fogdall, Esq.
          STEPHEN ANDREW FOGDALL
          1600 MARKET ST., STE. 3600
          PHILA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 751-2000
          Email: sfogdall@schnader.com


FALLON HEALTH: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindi Gardner and Anne Rideout, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FALLON HEALTH & LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY, INC. AND FALLOM COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-40148 (D. Mass., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law
arising from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
other Utilization Review Employees for all earned overtime pay.

The Defendant classified Utilization Review Employees as exempt
from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime
for all hours worked over 40 in an individual workweek, says the
complaint. The Utilization Review Work performed by the Plaintiffs
was non-exempt work, however, due to the Defendants'
misclassification scheme, the Plaintiffs were not paid all earned
overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks in violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Utilization Review
Employees.

The Defendants are Massachusetts-based health insurance providers
that operate under the name "Fallon Health".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 790-4454
          Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


FARFETCH LIMITED: Rosen Reminds of Nov. 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Farfetch Limited pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (together,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Farfetch's
initial public offering of ordinary shares conducted in September
2018 (the "IPO") of the important November 18, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Farfetch investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Farfetch class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1673.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement was false
and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) large scale
online wholesale was reasonably likely to lead to pricing
volatility and heavy promotions of luxury goods; (2) Farfetch's
core business was vulnerable to such pricing pressures; (3)
Farfetch would aggressively pursue acquisitions to remain
profitable; and (4) as a result, Farfetch's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
18, 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-1673.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]


FIVE BELOW: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Below, Inc. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Five Below, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10294 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019).

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

Five Below Inc. is a publicly-held chain of discount stores in the
United States, which sells products costing up to $10. The
company's target demographics are children and teens, and typically
operates outlets in strip malls.[BN]

The Defendant 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


FIVERR INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiverr Inc. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Fiverr Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06298 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Fiverr is an online marketplace for freelance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          Shaked Law Group P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Fax: (718) 504-7555
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FOGO DE CHAO: Murphy Files Class Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Fogo De Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fogo De Chao 53rd Street, New York
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10320 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Fogo De Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC is an authentic Brazilian
steakhouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



GOGO INC: Federal Judge Shoots Down Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal
judge has grounded a putative class action suit that alleged an
in-flight Internet service strung investors along by issuing sunny
statements about the company's future, instead of revealing an
expensive hardware problem.  The judge ruled the plaintiffs failed
to show company officials knew the gravity of the problem when they
made the statements.

Judge Jorge Alonso of U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois issued the ruling Oct. 16. His decision tossed out an
action brought by lead plaintiffs Maria Zingas and Daniel Rogers
against Chicago-based Gogo Inc., an in-flight Internet provider.
Also named as defendants are Gogo officials Michael J. Small,
Norman Smagley, Barry Rowan and John Wade.

However, Alonso said the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint
by Nov. 15.

Gogo integrates hardware and software on airplanes with satellite
and ground networks to supply web service to passengers, court
papers said. Gogo's 2Ku system has hardware that is installed in a
plane's ventilated external radar compartment. However, when ground
crews spray de-icing fluid on an aircraft, the fluid sometimes can
prevent the hardware from operating, the suit said.

The problem began cropping up in 2017, shortly after 2Ku was
introduced with Delta Airlines, which accounted for 25 percent of
Gogo's revenue, registering serious complaints, according to the
suit. At the close of 2017, 550 planes had 2Ku.

Attempts to fix the problem were expensive, but Gogo did not fully
disclose the de-icing issue to investors and analysts, while
talking optimistically of Gogo's future, the plaintiffs alleged. In
May 2018 Gogo did acknowledge the problem, which caused its stock
price to drop 47 percent in five days and costing investors
millions of dollars, the plaintiffs alleged.

Zingas and Rogers sued in June 2018, alleging Gogo breached the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

Alonso agreed with Gogo's motion to dismiss, which contended Gogo
officials did not dupe investors.

"Plaintiffs' allegations do not support a reasonable belief that
the defendants' statements were false, misleading, or without a
reasonable basis at the time they were made," Alonso ruled.

Specifically, the plaintiffs did not show when the de-icing issue
assumed "sufficient magnitude" to make Gogo's statements
misleading, or when Gogo knew or should have known of the problem,
according to Alonso.

"These allegations do not answer the critical question of when
defendants had sufficient knowledge to put them on notice that
there was at least a substantial risk that Gogo would have to incur
considerable remediation costs to prevent service outages due to
de-icing fluid infiltration," Alonso said.

In addition, Alonso found plaintiffs put forth allegations that
were merely possible but not plausible, that Gogo's statements were
deceptive at the time they were made.

"There might be any of a number of different plausible explanations
for why defendants did not disclose more facts about the 2Ku
de-icing problems to investors at an earlier date," Alonso said.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys at the firms of
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, of Chicago; Wolf,
Hardenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, of Chicago; Glancy, Prongay &
Murray, of Los Angeles; DiTommaso Law, of Oak Brook;
LubinAustermuehle PC, of Elmhurst; and Levi & Korsinsky, of
Washington, D.C.

Gogo is defended by attorneys at the firms of Neal, Gerber &
Eisenberg, of Chicago; and Shearman & Sterling, of New York.
[GN]


GOODTIME TOWNE: Ct. Grants Bid to Enforce Cameron Suit Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIANNA CAMERON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. GOODTIME TOWNE
TAVERN, INC. Defendant/Counter Claimant, Civil Action No
18-cv-03159-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado (i) granted the
Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement(s); and (ii)
denied the Defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw.

Cameron worked for the Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc. ("GTTI") as an
exotic dancer.  In her Complaint, she asserted, purportedly on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated dancers, that she
was not paid minimum wages or overtime pay as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  She also asserted claims under the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act and for unjust enrichment.

Despite her claim to represent herself and others, Ms. Cameron did
not seek certification of a collective action or a class action.
She did, however, file a "Consent to Join" on behalf of another
individual, Georgina Santich.  Whether that was a proper means of
adding an additional party plaintiff to the case was not challenged
by the Defendant.

The parties settled the case on terms set forth in two written
agreements.  Among other terms, these agreements required payments
of $6,483.33 to Ms. Cameron and $5,933.33 to Ms. Santich no later
than July 15, 2019.  The settlement amounts were not paid as
agreed, and to the Court's knowledge, have never been paid.

In a status conference held on Aug. 8, 2019, the Defendant's owner,
Stan Pettengill, both in person and through his attorney,
represented that GTTI did not have funds with which to make the
settlement payments, but that Mr. Pettengill was in the process of
attempting to sell the tavern and would make the payments out of
the sales proceeds.  Shortly thereafter Ms. Cameron filed the
pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement(s) against GTTI
and against Mr. Pettengill individually.  She asserted that Mr.
Pettengill was obligated because he had "ratified" the settlement
agreement.

GTTI, through the counsel, responded that it did not oppose the
motion to the extent that sought to impose liability on GTTI but
did oppose it to the extent that it sought to impose liability on
Mr. Pettengill.  GTTI argues that Mr. Pettengill was not a party to
the litigation and did not ratify the settlement in any capacity
other than as an authorized signatory for GTTI.

Shortly after filing the response, the Defendant's counsel moved to
withdraw, stating that he is not a collections attorney, and that
there was additional good cause for withdrawal that he could not
disclose in the motion.  The motion indicates that the counsel had
conferred with the Plaintiff's counsel who indicated that the
Plaintiff opposed the motion.  However, no opposition has been
filed.  Nor have GTTI or Mr. Pettengill responded to the motion to
withdraw.

Judge Jackson finds that the Cameron agreement expressly provides
that it is between Brianna Cameron and her agents, etc., on the one
hand, and GTTI along with its owner (Stan Pettengill), agents,
managers, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, predecessors,
successors, assignees, beneficiaries, and affiliated entities, all
of whom may be collectively or individually referred to as the
'parties' or a 'party,' on the other hand.  Setting aside the
excessive legalese, the Judge interprets this language to mean that
Mr. Pettengill, among others, is a "releasee" and a party to the
settlement agreement.  The Santich agreement contains substantially
identical language.

There is no indication or argument that Ms. Cameron or Ms. Santich
failed to comply with their obligations.  The Judge concludes as a
matter of law that both GTTI and Mr. Pettengill were obligated to
make the agreed payments by July 15, 2019.  Neither GTTI nor Mr.
Pettengill did so.  They both are in breach of the settlement
agreements.

The Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney's fees.  The
agreements provide that "the Court will enter an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party should
it prevail in any action to enforce the terms of the Agreement.
The Judge finds that the motion to enforce the settlement
agreements is an action to enforce any of the terms or provisions
of the Agreement.  Ms. Cameron and Ms. Santich are the prevailing
parties.  Accordingly, Ms. Cameron and Ms. Santich are entitled to
an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Counsel represented GTTI and Mr. Pettengill in the preparation
of the settlement agreements, and he was designated as the person
to receive the Plaintiff's signed releases and form W-9s.  It
appears to the Court that the settlements might have been entered
into by the Defendant with knowledge that GTTI either did not have
or might not have the ability to make the agreed payments, and
perhaps with the notion, notwithstanding the language of the
agreements to the contrary, that Mr. Pettengill would not have to
make good on his agreements.  In the circumstances, the Judge
declines to permit the defense counsel to withdraw.  He suggests
that the counsel and the client have a serious heart-to-heart and
figure out a way to get the problems that they have together caused
or contributed to resolved.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Jackson (i) granted the Plaintiff's
motion to enforce the settlement agreement(s); and (ii) denied the
Defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw.  Final Judgment will
enter in favor of (a) Ms. Cameron and Ms. Santich, respectively,
against GTTI and Mr. Pettengill, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $6,483.33 (Ms. Cameron) and $5,933.33 (Ms. Santich), plus
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, plus post judgment interest
as determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1961.  Attorney's fees
and costs are to be shared by Ms. Cameron and Ms. Santich in the
proportionate amounts, if any, that each of them incurred.

The Judge suggested that the parties and counsel promptly confer
and attempt in good faith to resolve the amounts and make
appropriate payments in order to avoid further litigation and
attorney's fees.  The Court will award additional attorney's fees
if the Plaintiff is unreasonably required to incur them.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/w0fqXv from Leagle.com.

Brianna Cameron, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sara Ann Green --
Sara.green@coloradolaw.net -- Bachus & Schanker, LLC.

Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Phillips Brown -- office@nemirowperez.com -- Nemirow Perez P.C.

Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Christopher Phillips Brown, Nemirow Perez P.C.

Brianna Cameron, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Sara Ann Green, Bachus
& Schanker, LLC.



GRAN LUX CAFE: Dominguez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gran Lux Cafe LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yovanny Dominguez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gran Lux Cafe LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10345 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Gran Lux Cafe LLC is an American restaurant in Calabasas,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H & M HENNES: Thorne Assert Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10346 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP retails apparels and cosmetic products. The
Company offers shirts, blouses, pants, shorts, skirts, lingerie,
swim wear, sleep wear, socks, shoes, jackets, coats, blazers,
waistcoats, sweaters, and accessories to teenagers, men, women, and
children. H&M Hennes & Mauritz operates worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALAL GUYS INC: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
The Halal Guys Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James
Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Halal Guys Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10334-KPF (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

The Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise that
began as a halal cart on the south-east corner of 53rd Street and
Sixth Avenue in the borough of Manhattan in New York City. The
franchise also has a cart on the south-west corner of the same
intersection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


HUMMINGBIRD LOANS: Easley Files RICO Class Action in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hummingbird Loans.
The case is styled as Lillian Easley and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hummingbird Loans doing business as: Blue
Trust Loans, John (Randy) Cadotte, William Trepania, Daylene
Sharlow, Tweed Shuman, Don Carley, Lee Harden, Trina Starr and
James Williams, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00937-KD-M (S.D.
Ala., Nov. 6, 2019).

The docket of the case states that the suit was filed pursuant to
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Blue Trust Loans provides installment loans as an alternative
solution to payday loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Earl P. Underwood , Jr., Esq.
   Underwood & Riemer, PC
   21 South Section Street
   Fairhope, AL 36532
   Tel: (251) 990-5558
   Fax: (251) 990-0626
   Email: epunderwood@gmail.com


HUNTER ALLIED: Ct. Grants Izaguirre's Default Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FERNANDO M. IZAGUIRRE, Plaintiff, v. HUNTER ALLIED OF
MARYLAND, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-965 (DLF) (D.
D.C.), Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted Izaguirre's Motion for Default
Judgment.

Hunter Allied is a construction company providing services within
Washington, D.C., and Bradford Q. Ott is its president and owner.
Izaguirre has worked at Hunter Allied since August 2017 with an
hourly rate of $16.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the District of
Columbia Payment and Collection of Wages Law ("DCPCWL"), and the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act ("DCMWRA"),
"employers" must compensate their "employees" for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week at a rate "not less than" one and
one-half times the employee's regular rate.

Hunter Allied and Ott are employers as defined by the FLSA and D.C.
law.  Hunter Allied is an employer under the FLSA because it
employs two or more people who handle goods that traveled in or
were produced for interstate commerce, and the annual gross volume
of Hunter Allied's business has exceeded $500,000.  Ott is an
employer because he is a corporate officer with operational control
of a corporation's covered enterprise.

Izaguirre alleges that Hunter Allied and Ott failed to pay him
overtime wages from 2017 through 2018.  According to Izaguirre,
when his work exceeded 40 hours per week, he would receive wages
equal to his hourly wage rate instead of one and one-half of his
hourly rate.  He alleges that the defendants would sometimes
classify these overtime wages as "expense reimbursement" on his
paychecks, and sometimes count his overtime hours from one week
toward his regular hours the next week.

Izaguirre filed suit on April 24, 2018, and has since amended the
complaint as a collective action for overtime wages under the FLSA
and as a class action for overtime wages pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the DCPCWL, and the DCMWRA.
Following personal service of the complaint and the amended
complaint upon Ott, the Defendants failed to appear.  

Izaguirre then moved for an entry of default, and the Clerk entered
default against the Defendants.  On Nov. 13, 2018, the Court
granted Izaguirre's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act Collective Action.  It later ordered the Defendants
to produce a computer-readable list of all employees who worked as
hourly employees of Hunter Allied of Maryland, Inc., since April
24, 2015, by Jan. 18, 2019.

After the Defendants failed to respond, the Court held them in
civil contempt on May 29, 2019 for failing to comply with the
Court's order.  When the Defendants produced the required records,
the Court found that they purged themselves of civil contempt and
ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach an
agreement.  Izaguirre now contends that the Defendants have resumed
ignoring his communications, and on Aug. 23, 2019, he moved for a
default judgment against Allied and Ott under Rule 55(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Before the Court is Izaguirre's Motion for Default Judgment.  In
support of his motion for default judgment, Izaguirre has submitted
(1) pay stubs relevant to the overtime hours at issue; and (2) a
chart totaling the amount that should have been paid to Izaguirre
as overtime wages as well as liquidated damages.   In total, he
estimates he worked 31 overtime hours.  He asserts that he is owed
an additional $8 per hour in overtime pay (equivalent to 50% of
$16, his straight wage pay), and multiplying the $8 by the 31 hours
yields $248 in total overtime pay owed to him. Id. at 7.

Judge Friedrich holds that due to the Clerk's default entry in the
case, Hunter Allied and Ott are deemed liable for the well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint.  Those allegations establish that the
Defendants violated the FLSA, the DCPCWL, and the DCMWRA when they
failed to pay Izaguirre overtime compensation by both counting
these hours as "expense reimbursements" and shifting them to
subsequent weeks.  With liability established, the Judge must
independently determine the amount owed by the Defendants to the
Plaintiff.

The Judge also holds that the FLSA and the D.C. wage laws also
entitle Izaguirre to recover liquidated damages along with his
unpaid compensation.  A plaintiff can recover liquidated damages
equal to the amount of unpaid wages under the FLSA, and equal to
treble the amount of unpaid wages under the D.C. laws.  Izaguirre
will be awarded $744 as liquidated damages.  

In sum, the declarations and their accompanying exhibits establish
that Hunter Allied owes the following amounts totaling $992: (i)
$248 for unpaid overtime wages, and (ii) $744 for liquidated
damages.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that the Izaguirre is
entitled to a monetary judgment of $992.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Friedrich granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Default Judgment.  A separate order consistent with her
decision accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/KIOek5 from Leagle.com.

FERNANDO M. IZAGUIRRE, Plaintiff, represented by Howard B. Hoffman
-- hhoffman@hoholaw.com.


HUNTER WARFIELD: Muhlstock Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield. The
case is styled as Todd Muhlstock individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06311 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Hunter Warfield is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com



HUNTER WARFIELD: Valentino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield. The
case is styled as Angela Valentino individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06310 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Hunter Warfield is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
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 motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated Fergus class action suit is still
pending.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise
from the same alleged facts and circumstances and seek class
certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between
April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter)
and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the
Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the
Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132
breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.

The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled
the presentation because it contained previously reported
information. The complaints further allege that these statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"). An order of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker
matter.

An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on
February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was
filed on October 4, 2017.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 26, 2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs
with the ability to file an amended complaint within thirty (30)
days. Counsel for the Company has consented to an extension of time
for plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an
additional thirty (30) days.

On May 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
many of the same allegations that were set forth in the previously
filed complaints, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss.

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

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.


INFOSYS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Infosys Limited (INFY) between July 7, 2018 and October 20, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeks to
recover damages for Infosys investors under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues to inflate
short-term profits; (2) the Company's CEO, Salil Parekh, bypassed
reviews and approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny;
(3) management pressured the Company's finance team to hide
information from auditors and the Company's Board of Directors; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On October 21, 2019, before the market opened, the Economic Times
reported that an anonymous group calling itself "ethical employees"
sent a whistleblower complaint to the Company's audit committee and
the SEC. The whistleblower complaint stated that Defendant Parekh
was using "unethical practices" to boost short-term revenues and
profits.

On this news, Infosys ADSs fell $1.28 per ADS, or over 12%, to
close at $9.29 per ADS on October 21, 2019, damaging investors.

If you purchased Infosys securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/infosyslimited-infy-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-208/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

Contact:

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


INFOSYS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit From Rosen, SEC Probe
-------------------------------------------------------
Anirudh Laskar and Jayshree P. Upadhyay, writing for Live Mint,
report that Infosys Ltd's regulatory problems mounted after a US
law firm filed a suit against the company on behalf of American
investors, seeking damages for manipulating earnings, even as the
US securities regulator started a probe into a complaint by
anonymous whistleblowers.

New York-based Rosen Law Firm, which filed the class action suit
against Infosys on October 23, said it has the backing of several
hundred American depositary share (ADS) holders and named chief
executive Salil Parekh and former chief financial officer M.D.
Ranganath as respondents, along with the company.

The allegations of accounting malpractices first came to light in a
whistleblowers' complaint sent to the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Infosys board on September 30 that became
public on October 21.

Regulatory heat on the company increased on Thursday, as SEC
initiated an investigation into the whistleblowers' complaint.

"The company has been in touch with the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the anonymous whistleblower complaints
(anonymous complaints) and has learnt that the SEC has initiated an
investigation into this matter," Infosys said in a statement. The
company will cooperate with the investigation, the statement said.

The US lawsuit, reviewed by Mint, alleges that Infosys violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting books of accounts,
concealing whistleblowers' complaint and causing losses to its ADS
holders. Due to the misstatement, the company also artificially
inflated its stock price and caused losses to investors from July
7, 2018 to October 20, 2019, the petition claimed.

The law firm has appealed in the court of the Eastern District of
New York to direct Infosys and the two directors to compensate its
US investors for the damages caused.

The law firm did not quantify the compensation it is seeking, nor
did it specify the number of investors in the class action.

On October 21, Infosys's US-listed shares plunged after the
whistleblowers' complaint, accusing Parekh and the company's chief
financial officer of "unethical accounting practices" to inflate
revenue and earnings, became public.

According to the NYSE, between 6 July 2018 and 30 September 2019,
Infosys ADS gained 18.75% from $9.575 to $11.37. But soon after
reports of the whistleblowers' complaint emerged on 21 October,
Infosys ADS suffered steep losses. Since 21 October, US investors
have lost $6.52 billion.

In the petition, Infosys and its two directors are accused of
drafting, producing and disseminating materially false and
misleading statements to US investors and choosing not to disclose
the fraud at the company.

The law firm alleged that the company improperly recognized revenue
to inflate short-term profit; Parekh bypassed reviews and approvals
for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny; the (Infosys)
management pressured the company's finance team to hide information
from auditors and the company's board; and as a result, defendants'
(Infosys, Parekh and Ranganath) statements about its business,
operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

The company misled investors with these statements since July last
year to artificially inflate the ADS, which ultimately
"economically damaged" investors when the ADS price swooned after
the whistleblowers' complaint became public on 21 October, the
petition stated.

It alleged that Infosys, with the help of Parekh and Ranganath,
used the means of interstate commerce, including US mails,
interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the
national securities exchange to conduct the wrongdoings.

This is the second instance of an Indian company facing a class
action lawsuit in the US. The first was related to the accounting
fraud at Satyam Computer Services.

While the US securities holders of Satyam received a settlement of
$125 million pursuant to the class action, their Indian
counterparts received no compensation and were left only to benefit
from the regulatory actions taken against the firm.

"This situation will likely not repeat itself. India recently paved
the way for securities class action suits through the Companies
Act, 2013. The Indian investors of Infosys can approach National
Company Law Tribunal for damages. They now have rights of
restitution that will and should change the power balance between
shareholders and the management," a managing partner at a legal
firm said on condition of anonymity. [GN]


INFOSYS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Notifies Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman notifies investors in Infosys Limited (NYSE: INFY) of
a recently filed securities fraud class action against the company.
The firm urges INFY investors who have suffered significant losses
to submit a loss form now to learn if they qualify to recover their
investment losses.

Class Period:  July 7, 2018 - Oct. 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  Dec. 23, 2019
Sigh Up Now:  www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/INFY
Contact An Attorney Immediately:  INFY@hbsslaw.com
510-725-3000

Infosys Limited (INFY) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges Defendants misstated Infosys's true revenues
by engaging in improper revenue recognition practices.  The
Complaint further alleges that the CEO evaded reviews and approvals
of large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny, and that management
pressured the Company's finance team to conceal information from
auditors and the Board of Directors.

On October 21, 2019, Reuters reported the Company received
whistleblower complaints alleging "unethical practices" by certain
executives to boost short-term revenue and profits, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.

This news drove the price of INFY shares sharply lower during
intraday trading on October 21, 2019.

"We are focused on investors' losses and whether Infosys's senior
management cooked the books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

If you purchased shares of INFY and suffered significant losses,
click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

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

Contact:

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


JEROME GOLDEN CENTER: 2 Former Employees Launch Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Parker, writing for WPBF 25 News, reports that two former
employees of the Jerome Golden Center filed a federal class action
lawsuit against the center alleging labor law violations for not
providing 60 days written notice before terminating about 350
employees.

Tampa attorney Ryan Barack, Esq., said he has another 75 former
employees who have contacted him wanting to join the suit.

According to the lawsuit, two female employees were given only a
few days notice that they were losing their jobs. The center, which
provides mental health and substance abuse help for people of all
income levels, filed for bankruptcy the next week.

"There were clear warning signs the center was in trouble and the
board failed to act to protect the operations of the center, and
they clearly knew there were problems and they didn't take any
steps to address them," said Barack.

A skeleton staff is still working at the West Palm Beach locations
but many services have been suspended. [GN]


KELLY LAW: Fails to Pay Paralegals' OT Wages, Francis-Luster Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tramaine Francis-Luster and Terena Hodge, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLY LAW FIRM,
P.C., Case No. 3:19-cv-02708-L (N.D. Tex., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks
damages and relief from the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, which requires payment of overtime
compensation.

The Defendant has failed and refused, and continues to fail and
refuse, to properly compensate persons they employ as non-exempt,
non-attorney employees for any and all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that the
Defendant does not properly pay their non-exempt employees any
overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as paralegals in
Dallas, Texas.

The Defendant is in the business of operating a private law firm
and providing legal services to clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. Sue Allen, Esq.
          4701 Altamesa Blvd., Suite 2R
          Fort Worth, TX 76133
          Phone: (817) 926-5005
          Fax: (817) 926-5165
          Email: sues@sueallenlaw.com


KIMBERLY HASTIE: Bid to Vacate Summary Judgment in Diamond Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARNITA DIAMOND, individually, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY
HASTIE, in her individual capacity, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:15-00204-KD-C (S.D. Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, denied the parties' joint motion to vacate the Court's
summary judgment and dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

The case was initiated on April 14, 2015, as the simultaneous
criminal prosecution of the Defendant was ongoing.  Specifically,
Plaintiff Diamond filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Hastie
unlawfully obtained, used and/or disclosed her personal information
(email address) from motor vehicle records in violation of the
Drivers' Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") (Count I) and in violation
of her privacy rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count II).  In
the criminal case, Hastie was ultimately convicted of violating the
DPPA by disclosing the email addresses collected by the License
Commission to a political consulting firm to tout Hastie's support
for a mayoral candidate.

In the case, the civil case, the merits of Diamond's claims--on
review via a motion to dismiss, as a potential class action
(including an evidentiary hearing), on motion for summary judgment,
etc.--were thoroughly and substantively litigated.  While the
parties' dispute over attorneys' fees was pending, on Aug. 30,
2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement.

On Sept. 4, 2019, the case was dismissed with prejudice subject to
the right of any party to move to reinstate within 60 days.  On
Oct. 29, 2019, the parties moved to vacate the summary judgment and
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims, as part of the settlement
agreement.  As such, the instant relief sought is for the Court to
vacate the order granting the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment, and dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

Judge DuBose finds that the parties failed to cite any case law
supporting vacatur under the present circumstances, much less
allege or establish "extraordinary circumstances" justifying
vacatur.  Moreover, she finds that the equitable remedy of vacatur
is not available under the circumstances of the case, particularly
as the fact that a party conditions a settlement on achieving
vacatur does not by itself provide the needed equitable
circumstances.  Such a rule would essentially remove the decision
from the court and hand it to the parties, in violation of the U.S.
Bancorp rule. Further, as to the public interest concerns, the case
was rooted in same (violations of privacy rights), and the parties
"rolled the dice" with respect to the motion for summary judgment;
thus, to the extent they now endeavor to change the outcome via
settlement, vacatur (versus, for example, an appeal) is an improper
vehicle for such relief.

Based on the foregoing, Judge DuBose denied the Joint Motion to
Vacate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Or4Iv9 from Leagle.com.

Arnita Diamond, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Murphy, Braswell
Murphy, LLC, Kasie M. Braswell, Braswell Murphy, LLC, Archibald I.
Grubb, II, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles PC &
Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin Portis &
Miles, P.C.

Kimberly Hastie, Individual, Defendant, represented by J. Burruss
Riis -- briis@handarendall.com -- Hand Arendall, L.L.C.,
Christopher Scott Williams -- cwilliams@handarendall.com -- & Joe
Carl Jordan, Ross & Jordan, P.C.

Nick Matranga, Non-Party, represented by Christopher Scott
Williams.


LONGS DRUG: Assar Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled JAWEED ASSAR, an individual v.
LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, LLC DBA CVS HEALTH, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-9666, was removed on Oct. 17, 2019, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00991 to the
proceeding.

On July 25, 2019, Plaintiff Jaweed Assar filed this matter styled
Jaweed Assar v. Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C. dba CVS
Health, No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-9666 in the Superior Court. Ms. Assar
brought the State Court Action on behalf of himself individually
and a Training Module Class, a Waiting Time Penalty Class, and a
Wage Statement Class.  He defines the Classes as:

   1. Training Module Class:

      All current and former non-exempt California employees
      (with the exception of Pharmacists) who underwent mandatory
      remote training modules for Defendant outside of their
      regularly scheduled shifts at any time from four years
      prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint and
      continuing to the date of trial;

   2. Waiting Time Penalty Class:

      All current and former nonexempt California employees (with
      the exception of Pharmacists) who underwent mandatory
      remote training modules for Defendant outside of their
      regularly scheduled shifts at any time from three years
      prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint and
      continuing to the date of trial; and

   3. Wage Statement Class:

      All current and former non-exempt California employees
      (with the exception of Pharmacists) who underwent mandatory
      remote training modules for Defendant outside of their
      regularly scheduled shifts at any time from one year prior
      to the filing of this Complaint and continuing to the date
      of trial.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Rachel Allgaier, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Blvd.
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          E-mail: jbriscoe@mayallaw.com
                  rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  rallgaier@mayallaw.com

Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC, is represented by:

          Rowena Santos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          18565 Jamboree Rd., Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6668
          Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
          E-mail: Santosro@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1717 Arch St., Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19148
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          Facsimile: (215) 988-7801
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Dominguez Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Lowe's Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10343 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Lowe's Companies, Inc., doing business as Lowe's, is an American
retail company specializing in home improvement. Headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina, the company operates a chain of retail
stores in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LZRD CORP: Murphy Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LZRD Corp. The case
is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LZRD Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06290 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

LZRD CORP. is a business entity registered at New York State
Department of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
          Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 317-2453
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: ds@lawsolo.net


MACROGENICS INC: Rosen Law Reminded Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of MacroGenics, Inc. from February 6,
2019 through June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important November 12, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the case.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MacroGenics investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the MacroGenics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1675.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) MacroGenics had conducted the progression-free survival
("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the
SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (2) the October
2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; (3) the
October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically
significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves (a
non-parametric statistic used to estimate the survival function
from lifetime data) crossed in several spots (thereby violating the
constant hazard assumption) and separated late; and (4) as a
result, MacroGenics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
12, 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-1675.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
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]


MACY'S WEST: $3.5M Garcia Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S WEST
STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04440-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On a preliminary basis, the Settlement Agreement (Amended Joint
Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release), appears to be
within the range of reasonableness of a settlement that could
ultimately be given final approval by the Court.  Defendant XPO
Last Mile, Inc. has agreed to pay $3.5 million, on behalf of itself
and Defendant Macy's, for distribution to the Putative Class
Members, the Class Representatives, the Class Counsel, the Labor
Workforce and Development Agency, and the Claims Administrator, in
exchange for a release and full and final disposition of the case,
as described in the Settlement Agreement.

It further appears, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement is
fair and reasonable to the Putative Class Members when balanced
against the probable outcome of further litigation, liability and
damages issues, and potential appeals of rulings concerning the
claims arising in the Settlement Period of Dec. 28, 2014 to the
present.

Judge Orrick conditionally certified, for settlement purposes,
pending final approval, the class of all individuals who performed
services as Drivers and/or Helpers delivering Macy's products
and/or furnishings, who did not sign a Delivery Service Agreement
with the Defendants, and who were tendered loads at the location
identified as the Macy's Logistics and Operations distribution
center, 1208 Whipple Road, Union City, California 94587 between
Dec. 28, 2014 and the date of the Order.

The Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Exclusion Form
is approved for distribution to the Putative Class Member.

The Judge appointed (i) Michael H. Boyamian, and Armand R. Kizirian
of Boyamian Law, Inc., Thomas W. Falvey, of the Law Offices of
Thomas W. Falvey, and Joseph M. Lovretovich of JML Law, APLC as the
Class Counsel; (ii) Plaintiffs Adrian Valente, Mario Pinon and
Mynor Cabrera as the Class Representatives; and (iii) KCC Class
Action Services, LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

Within 14 days, Defendant XPO will forward to the appointed Claims
Administrator, KCC, the Class Information, as that term is defined
in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release.

Within 21 days, the Claims Administrator will mail to each member
of the Settlement Class the Notice of Class Action Settlement,
Verification Form, Exclusion Form, and a postage-paid envelope
addressed to the Claims Administrator.

All requests for Exclusion and completed Verified Claim Forms must
be mailed to the Claims Administrator, postmarked on or before the
120th day after the Notice Packet was mailed to the relevant
Putative Class Member, excepting Putative Class Members who had
Notice Packets re-mailed, who will have an additional 15 days.  All
objections must be filed with the Court as described in the Class
Notice and also served on the Class Counsel and on the Defense
Counsel on or before the 120th day after the Notice Packet was
mailed to the relevant Putative Class Member, excepting the
Putative Class Members who had Notice Packets re-mailed, who will
have an additional 15 days.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on March 11,
2020.  All briefs in support of final approval of the Settlement
and for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Class Representative
Service Awards, and Putative Class Member Service Awards will be
served and filed with the Court at least 35 days prior to the close
of the Exclusion and Objection Period, such that the Putative Class
Members will be able to review the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
request prior to the close of such period.

Pending further order of the Court, all proceedings in the matter
except those contemplated and in the Settlement Agreement are
stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5l0tKx from Leagle.com.

Ramon Garcia, Victor Ramirez, Adrian Valente & Mario Pinon,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian --
michael@boyamianlaw.com -- Boyamian Law, Inc., Armand Raffi
Kizirian -- armand@kizirianlaw.com -- Boyamian Law, Inc., David
Francis Tibor -- david@tiborlaw.com -- JML Law, Joseph Mark
Lovretovich -- jml@jmllaw.com -- JML LAW, APLC & Thomas Walker
Falvey -- thomaswfalvey@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W.
Falvey.

Mynor Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian,
Boyamian Law, Inc., Armand Raffi Kizirian, Boyamian Law, Inc.,
David Francis Tibor, JML Law, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, JML LAW APLC &
Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey.

Macy's West Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fraser Angus
McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
& Michael C. Christman -- michael.christman@macys.com -- Macy's Law
Department.

Joseph Eletto Transfer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Carl
Smedstad, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C. & Andrew J.
Butcher, Scopelitis, Gavin, Light, Hanson & Feary, pro hac vice.

XPO Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Lewis Lounsbury,
Jackson Lewis, PC, pro hac vice, Fraser Angus McAlpine, Jackson
Lewis P.C. & Robert Irving Lockwood, Pacific Employment Law LLP.



MANDARICH LAW: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP. The case is styled as Ila Jones, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06264 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

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

Mandarich Law Group is a California law firm that has established a
Nationwide consumer debt collection practice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANDARICH LAW: Parker Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP. The case is styled as Chardee Parker individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law
Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06313 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7,
2019).

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

Mandarich Law Group is a debt collector law firm based in
Chatsworth California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


MAXIMUS HEALTH: Aguilar Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maximus Health
Services Inc. The case is styled as Eric Aguilar and Carlos
Hercules, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Ilene R. Baylinson, Does 1-100, David R. Francis, Maximus Health
Services Inc, an Indiana Corporation, Maximus Inc, Maximus Services
LLC and Kevin M. Reilley, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00268385-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento County., Nov.
6, 2019).

The case type stated as Other employment.

Maximus Health Services Inc. provides business process services
(BPS) to government health and human services agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Galen T Shimoda, Esq.
   4812 Crown Bench Cir
   Elk Grove, CA
   Tel: (916) 524-8655


MDL 2036: Plaintiffs in Dasher Case Seek Prelim. OK of $7.5MM Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Michael Dasher v. RBC Bank
(USA), predecessor in interest to PNC Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:10-CV-22190-JLK (S.D. Fla.), move for preliminary approval of a
$7.5 million Settlement Agreement and Release, which will resolve
all claims against PNC Bank, N.A.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE:
CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK
(S.D. Fla.).

In 2010, the Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, who incurred Overdraft Fees as a result of
RBC's practice of posting Debit Card Transactions to an Account in
order from highest to lowest dollar amount ("High-to-Low Posting").
The Plaintiffs alleged that RBC systemically engaged in
High-to-Low Posting of Debit Card Transactions to maximize the
Bank's Overdraft Fee revenues.  According to the Plaintiffs, RBC's
practices violated the Bank's contractual and good faith duties and
the North Carolina consumer protection statute, were substantively
and procedurally unconscionable, and resulted in conversion and
unjust enrichment.

The Settlement secures $7,500,000, inclusive of all attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses awarded to Class Counsel and a Service
Award to the Class Representative, plus PNC's payment of all fees,
costs, charges and expenses of the Notice Administrator and
Settlement Administrator in connection with the Settlement.  The
Settlement satisfies all Eleventh Circuit criteria for Preliminary
Approval and its terms are also consistent with numerous other
settlements that received final approval from the Court as part of
MDL 2036.

The Settlement Class is an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Settlement Class is defined
as:

     All holders of a RBC Account who, from October 10, 2007
     through and including March 1, 2012, incurred one or more
     Overdraft Fees as a result of RBC's High-to-Low Posting.
     Excluded from the Class are all former RBC and current PNC
     employees, officers and directors, and the judge presiding
     over this Action.

Settlement Class Members do not have to submit claims or take any
other affirmative step to receive relief under the Settlement.  As
soon as practicable but no later than 150 days from the Effective
Date, PNC and the Settlement Administrator will distribute the Net
Settlement Fund to all eligible Settlement Class Members who do not
opt out of the Settlement.

Class Counsel will seek, and PNC will not oppose, a Service Award
of $10,000 for the Class Representative.  If the Court approves it,
the Service Award will be paid from the Settlement Fund and is in
addition to the amount of the Class Representative's Settlement
Fund Payment.  PNC will not oppose Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees of up to 35% of the Settlement Fund, plus
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel ask that the Court
take these initial steps in the settlement approval process and:
(1) grant Preliminary Approval to the Settlement; (2) certify for
settlement purposes the proposed Settlement Class, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e); (3) approve the
Notice Program set forth in the Agreement and approve the form and
content of the Notices; (4) approve and order the opt-out and
objection procedures set forth in the Agreement; (5) appoint as
Class Representative the individual identified in paragraph 24 of
the Agreement; (6) appoint as Class Counsel and Settlement Class
Counsel the law firms and attorneys listed in paragraphs 22 and 51
of the Agreement, respectively; (7) stay the Action against RBC
pending Final Approval of the Settlement; and (8) schedule a Final
Approval Hearing no sooner than the week of April 13, 2020.[CC]

The Settlement Class is represented by:

          Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 384-7269
          E-mail: rcg@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

          Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.
          BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A.
          100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 1000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 767-8909
          E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com

The Class is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, L.L.C.
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  FLemond@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN L.L.P.
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Russell W. Budd, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: rbudd@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Richard Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN L.L.P.
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Ted E. Trief, Esq.
          TRIEF & OLK
          150 E. 58th Street, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 486-6060
          E-mail: ttrief@triefandolk.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Darren Kaplan, Esq.
          DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1359 Broadway, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 999-7982
          E-mail: dkaplan@darrenkaplanlaw.com


MDL 2913: Hochhauser Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Shawn Hochhauser, Individually,
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL
LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05551 (Filed Oct. 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, 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-06907-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 Hochhauser 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:

          Christopher MIchael Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
          110 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 838-3333
          Facsimile: (212) 838-9760
          E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com

MDL 2915: Haque Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Zakaria Haque, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National
Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03512 (Filed  Aug. 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 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-02969-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The Haque 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:

          Roberta Dayvette Liebenberg, Esq.
          Mary L. Russell, Esq.
          Ria Cecilia Momblanco, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK RPC
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  mrussell@finekaplan.com
                  rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Inez M. Markovich, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-3854
          Facsimile: (215) 988-4319
          E-mail: imarkovich@mccarter.com

MIAMI HERALD: Rodeiro FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miami Herald Media Company removes the case captioned as MANUEL
RODEIRO, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIAMI HERALD
MEDIA COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-028681
(Filed Oct. 8, 2019), from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 28,
2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case
No. 1:19-cv-24433 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this action against the Herald, his former
employer, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Miami Herald is a daily newspaper owned by the McClatchy
Company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David C. Miller, Esq.
          Denise M. Heekin, Esq.
          Ranjiv Sondhi, Esq.
          BRYANT MILLER OLIVE P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Telephone: (305) 374 7349
          Facsimile: (305) 374 0895
          E-mail: dmiller@bmolaw.com
                  dheekin@bmolaw.com
                  rsondhi@bmolaw.com


MODA OPERANDI: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moda Operandi, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Moda Operandi, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06296
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Moda Operandi is a fashion discovery platform that gives consumers
access to shop directly from designers' complete runway
collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          Shaked Law Group, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Says Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONAT Global Corp. said Oct. 24, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division announced its
ruling on MONAT Global Corp's (MONAT) motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit against the company, granting a partial victory.

Judge Darrin P. Gayles struck down a claim from the plaintiffs for
injunctive relief.  Though Judge Gayles denied MONAT's motion to
dismiss the case altogether, he did acknowledge the "plaintiffs
might have a difficult time proving that the Products, and not a
pre-existing medical condition or simple aging, caused their
injuries."

Thomas J. Hoolihan, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer,
MONAT, stated: "We are happy that Judge Gayles granted part of our
motion to dismiss. This is just a small part of a lengthy legal
process. We look forward to taking discovery, including depositions
of each of the plaintiffs, to determine the real cause of their
claimed reactions. We are confident that those depositions, and
other discovery, will confirm what we already know: MONAT products
are dermatologist-tested, made with the highest quality
ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and quality standards set by
our industry, and are validated by rigorous safety testing
conducted by independent labs."

Product safety is MONAT's top priority. The company invests
millions of dollars in research and conducts thousands of tests
each year to ensure MONAT products meet the highest standards for
quality, safety and performance. For instance, to ensure the safety
and efficacy of MONAT's products, the company uses one of the
world's leading independent clinical testing labs, Kosmoscience
Ciência & Tecnologia Cosmética Ltda, an ISO 17025-certified
laboratory that specializes in skin and haircare product testing.

Most recently, in June 2018, MONAT announced the results of
additional allergy tests from Allergisa, an internationally
renowned testing facility, on its products. The test results from
Allergisa found that MONAT premium haircare products are safe on
all skin types for their intended cosmetic purpose:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180621005905/en/Monat-Global-Products-Clinically-Proven-Dermatologically-Safe.

Follow MONAT on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and
YouTube. Additional information about the company can be found at
its website, www.monatglobal.com.

                       About MONAT Global

MONAT Global Corp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcora
Corporation, whose holdings include L'EUDINE Global, an established
Direct Selling company specializing in premium beauty and wellness
products throughout the U.S. and Latin America, and B&R Products,
Inc., their research, development and manufacturing Laboratory
subsidiary. All three companies are headquartered in and around
Miami, Florida. MONAT was founded in 2014 to enter the
multi-billion-dollar haircare market and provides groundbreaking
opportunities through a novel Social Marketing approach to Direct
Sales. The company offers a unique and exciting business model and
one of the most generous compensation plans in the U.S., Canadian,
U.K., Irish and Polish markets.


MYLIFE.COM: Wuest Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MyLife.com. The case
is styled as Kristina Wuest, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MyLife.com, a Delaware corporation, Does
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00268543-CU-MC-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 7, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Misc Complaints - Other".

MyLife is an American information brokerage founded by Jeffrey
Tinsley in 2002 as Reunion.com. In addition to that name, it
previously conducted business as Wink.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by William A Percy, Esq.


MYRIAD GENETICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tencent Music Entertainment
Group (TME), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Ovetstock.com (OSTK),
and Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class Period: December 12, 2018 to August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that the State
Administration of Market Regulation, China's antitrust authority,
was investigating exclusive licensing deals between Tencent Music
and major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent Music's American depositary share price fell
$0.92 per share, or 6.83%, to close at $12.57 per share on August
27, 2019.

The complaint, filed on September 26, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive
licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Tencent class action go to:
https://bespc.com/tme.

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

On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its
acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad also
acquired GeneSight through this acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). This acquisition provided
Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and Prelude—in the
expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing
markets, respectively. The company estimated that these markets
would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the
U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that 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: (i) GeneSight
lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in
their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to
GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's
acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the
company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for
its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to,
and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on
the company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 13, 2019 Myriad issued an earnings release, wherein the
company reported its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. In this release, it was disclosed that
"[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test"—i.e., Foresight.

Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and
analysts, it was revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the
GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with
clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight
Psychotropic, and that the company has "been in ongoing discussions
with the FDA regarding its request."

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K").
In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned
whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been
established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late
2018, the FDA had repeatedly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests, such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%
to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019.

For more information on the Myriad Genetics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/MYGN

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that on
September 23, 2019, following months of media reports on the
erratic behavior of founder Patrick Byrne, who resigned as CEO in
August 2019 and subsequently sold over $91.98 million worth of
company stock within a three day period, the company later
disclosed the sudden and unexpected departure of CFO Gregory
Iverson the week prior, and that the company would lower guidance
to break even EBITDA for the year, eliminating the projected $17.5
million that Overstock had recently provided and which was critical
to support the launch of its tZERO service.

On this news, the price of Overstock shares fell from a closing
price of $14.97 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading day
prior to September 23, 2019, to close at $11.19 per share on
September 23, 2019.

For more information on the Overstock class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ostk.

Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)

Class Period: Securities purchased between May 17, 2018 to August
8, 2019 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant or traceable to
Waitr's November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in
its May 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

Waitr is an online food ordering and delivery services company that
was formed on November 15, 2018 through a public transaction
between Waitr Inc. and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. After the
transaction, its shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under
the symbol "WTRH."

On August 8, 2019, the company disclosed highly disappointing
financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019,
including the resignation of its CEO; that its integration of
BiteSquad.com, LLC, which it acquired in January 2019, was not
proceeding according to plan; that the company was laying off
personnel; and that losses were far higher than previously
anticipated.

On this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's market
capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on March
13, 2019.

For more information on the Waitr class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WTRH

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit &
Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Marchese and
Jason Gorman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationwide Credit & Collection, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06262 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

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

Nationwide Credit & Collection is a financial services company
offering revenue collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Arnaud Sues Over False Ad for Beverage Refill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ARNAUD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09594 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17,
2019), is a consumer protection action seeking redress for, and a
stop to, the Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of marketing
and advertising unlimited beverage refills for a calendar day with
the purchase of its Coca Cola Freestyle Souvenir Cup product, and
the ability to purchase unlimited refills on subsequent days with
the possession of the souvenir cup for an additional price.

The Defendant advertised to the Plaintiff that the purchase of the
Products includes unlimited beverage refills from any of the many
Coca-Cola Freestyle machines located throughout UNIVERSAL'S three
(3) parks: UNIVERSAL Studios, UNIVERSAL'S Islands of Adventure, and
UNIVERSAL'S Volcano Bay.  The Defendant sells the Products with an
attached RFID chip. The RFID Chip, which stands for Radio Frequency
Identification, works similarly to a bar code, in that it
communicates via radio frequency, and is scanned by the Coca-Cola
Freestyle machine upon attempting to get a refill.  If you do not
pay for the Products, or if you do pay but the calendar day is
over, then the Coca-Cola Freestyle machines are able to read this
from your RFID chip and deny you a beverage.

Mr. Arnaud is a resident of Bronx County, New York, and purchased a
Coca-Cola Freestyle Souvenir Cup at UNIVERSAL'S Island of
Adventure, in Orlando, Florida, for the premium price of $16.99, on
July 31, 2019.  He returned to UNIVERSAL'S Volcano Bay, and
reactivated his souvenir cup for $8.99.  He contends that what he
did not know was that the RFID Chip also tracks how often he
received his refills, and the machine denied him a refill despite
the Defendant's claims and advertisements.  He asserts that the
RFID chips and Coca-Cola Freestyle machines are programmed by the
Defendant to limit refills to every ten (10) minutes, for a total
of only six (6) per hour, making its "Unlimited" representations
false and misleading.

NBCUniversal Media, LLC, is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware with its headquarters located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza,
in New York City.  The Defendant develops, manufactures, markets,
and sells the Products at its Universal Amusement Parks in Orlando
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


NEW DIRECTIONS: Krott Seeks Overtime Wages for UR Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Krott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW DIRECTIONS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, L.L.C., Case No.
4:19-cv-00915-DGK (W.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' failure to
pay the Plaintiff and other Utilization Review Employees for all
earned overtime pay.

The Defendant classified Utilization Review Employees as exempt
from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime
for all hours worked over 40 in an individual workweek, says the
complaint. The Utilization Review Work performed by the Plaintiff
was non-exempt work, however, due to the Defendant's
misclassification scheme, the Plaintiff and others were not paid
all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours
in individual work weeks in violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Utilization Review
Employee from March 2015 to June 2018.

The Defendant, as managed behavioral health organization, reviews
request for services and makes coverage determinations based on
medical necessity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: 816 875-5069
          Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 790-4454
          Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


OHIO: Class of Eligible Voters in Jail Certified in Mays v. LaRose
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson issued an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled Tommy Ray Mays, II, et al. v. Frank LaRose, Case No.
2:18-cv-01376-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;
   -- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
   -- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to exclude the
      testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert.

The Plaintiffs sue Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose
("Defendant") under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging Ohio
election regulations insofar as they establish, for a certain class
of eligible voters confined in a jail or workhouse ("Proposed
Class"), a deadline of 12:00 p.m. on the Saturday preceding an
election for submitting an application for an absentee ballot but,
for eligible so-called "hospital-confined voters," a deadline of
3:00 p.m. on Election Day for submitting an application for an
absentee ballot.  The Plaintiffs bring an as-applied challenge on
behalf of the Proposed Class. They allege that the deadline burdens
the Proposed Class members' fundamental right to vote in violation
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the disparate
treatment of Proposed Class members and hospital-confined voters
violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

At bottom, the Court says, the Defendant has not presented any
reason that justifies offering a more generous deadline for
submitting absentee ballot applications only to hospital-confined
voters except the Ohio legislature's potential determination that
such a group is "particularly worthy" and therefore entitled to
greater access to the ballot than those in the Class (or, indeed,
other absentee voters).

"But hospitalized persons are not more worthy of the additional
voting privileges under our Constitution than jail-confined
persons, and offering greater access to the ballot simply because
the legislature values the former's votes over the latter's is
exactly what the Equal Protection clause forbids," Judge Watson
opines.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have established an Equal
Protection violation and are entitled to summary judgment.

The Defendant's argument that other States provide similar
exceptions for people, who are hospitalized or face a medical
emergency, is, therefore, also not persuasive, Judge Watson notes.
"First, the Court has not found that any of the other State's laws
have been upheld on an Equal Protection challenge.  Second, the
parties have not provided full context for those laws," Judge
Watson explains.

Despite the narrow challenge to the differing absentee ballot
application deadlines and the limited briefing in this case, the
Plaintiffs seek broad relief and request that the Court order the
Defendant to treat Class members and hospital-confined voters
exactly alike in all respects.  They also seek relief geared toward
fixing perceived problems within the specific facilities of
incarceration.

The Court declines to opine on Equal Protection issues that were
not fully briefed in this case and is mindful that the Secretary of
State's reach is not without limit, Judge Watson notes.  Thus, in
crafting relief, the Court cannot and will not instruct the
Secretary of State to exceed his authority.  To the extent the
Plaintiffs ask for any relief that falls outside the bounds of this
lawsuit and ruling--for example, changes to jail-voting policies or
equal treatment beyond the deadline for submitting absentee ballot
requests--such relief is either beyond the scope of the Defendant's
authority or this equal protection ruling.

Hence, the Court orders as follows:

   A. The Defendant is enjoined from imposing a different
      deadline for the delivery of absentee ballot applications
      for Class members than for hospital-confined voters; and

   B. Unless and until the Ohio legislature equalizes the
      deadlines for delivering absentee ballot applications for
      those (at least) in the Class and hospital-confined voters,
      the Defendant shall direct Ohio's various Boards of
      Elections to accept an application for an absentee ballot
      that is properly delivered by or on behalf of a Class
      member by 3:00 p.m. on Election Day.[CC]


OLAM SPICES: Must File Bid for for Prelim OK of Beltran Deal by Dec
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLAM SPICES AND
VEGETABLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-LJO-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (i) vacated all pending
dates, and (ii) directed the parties to file a motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed the matter as a class action alleging
violations of California labor law on July 7, 2015, in Alameda
Superior Court.  On Sept. 9, 2015, the state court granted the
Defendant's request for a change of venue and the matter was
transferred to Fresno County Superior Court.  

After the parties reached a settlement agreement they filed motions
for preliminary approval in state court.  On April 11, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint alleging violations of
Fair Labor Standards Act and California law.  The action was
removed to the Eastern District of California on Dec. 10, 2018.

On Oct. 29, 2019, the parties filed a joint scheduling report which
included a fifth request to continue the mandatory scheduling
conference in the action.  The joint report states that the parties
have reached settlement in this matter and have finalized the
settlement agreement.  They request that the mandatory scheduling
conference be continued to allow time to prepare the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Magistrate Judge Boone finds that in the instance it serves no
purpose to continue the mandatory scheduling conference.  Given the
age of the action and the fact that the parties have reached a
settlement in the matter, he vacated all pending dates and ordered
that the motion for preliminary approval be filed.

Magistrate Judge Boone orders the parties to file a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on Dec. 11, 2019.  Given the
procedural history and the age of the action, the Magistrate Judge
is not inclined to grant any further requests for a continuance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oclAJw from Leagle.com.

Thomas Beltran, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Mario Martinez, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Juan Rivera, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act & Mariana Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
lfj@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Joanna Ghosh --
joanna@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers For Justice, PC.

Maria Claudia Obesto Cota, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated & Alexander
Solorio, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joanna Ghosh, Lawyers For Justice, PC &
Joseph Lavi -- jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP.

Olam Spices and Vegetables, Inc., also known as Olam West Coast,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan K. Hatmaker --
susan@hatmakerlaw.com -- Hatmaker Law Group.

ORTHODONTICS SPECIALISTS: Simon FLSA Suit Deal Gets Prelim. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON SIMON and LAINEY HOLLINGSWORTH, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN J.
ISON DMD PSC, d/b/a ORTHODONTIC SPECIALISTS and GID ORTHODONTICS
LLC, d/b/a ORTHODONTICS SPECIALISTS and DR. KEVIN J. ISON, DMD, MS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-458 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Litkovitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, (i) granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class, and (ii)
preliminarily approved the parties' Settlement Agreement.

The Magistrate Judge found that the Settlement Agreement appeared
on its face to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and to have been
the product of serious, informed, and extensive arm's-length
negotiations.

Accordingly, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court
certified the Settlement Class defined as: all persons who worked
as hourly and non-exempt employees for the Defendants, and who
worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek, and who were not paid
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours
worked in excess of 40 in any such workweek but excludes all
individuals who timely opt out of the Settlement. Members of the
Settlement Class who do not exclude themselves from the Class
Action are referred to as Participating Settlement Class Members.

The Court appointed (i) Finney Law Firm, LLC as the Class Counsel;
(ii) Plaintiffs Lainey Hollingsworth and Brandon Simon as the
Representative Plaintiffs; and (iii) Finney Law Firm, LLC as the
Claims Administrator.

The Settlement Fairness Hearing is set for Jan. 15, 2020 at 10:00
a.m.

The form of the Class Notice appended to the Settlement Agreement
in Exhibit 1 is approved and will be sent out pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendants will provide to the Class Counsel acting as the
Claims Administrator, an electronic database containing name,
address, Social Security Number, of each Settlement Class Member,
as well as the weeks each worked during the applicable period, in a
format and with sufficient time so that the Class Counsel can
prepare and timely send the Class Notice.  The Class Counsel will
maintain the data as private and confidential.

The Magistrate Judge approved the proposed procedure for opting out
of the Class as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Class
Notice.

All reasonable costs of settlement and claims administration,
including the mailing of Class Notice, will be paid for as provided
in the Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs will file motions for final approval of the
settlement agreement and requests for attorney fees, costs, and
awards, and for class representative fees no later than 14 days
before the Settlement Fairness Hearing.

It is further ordered that pending further order of the Court, all
proceedings in the matter except those contemplated herein and as
part of the settlement are stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kRvTDP from Leagle.com.

Brandon Simon & Lainey Hollingsworth, Plaintiffs, represented by
Bruce H. Meizlish -- brucelaw@meizgray.com -- Meizlish & Grayson,
Deborah R. Grayson -- deborahg@meizgray.com -- Meizlish & Grayson &
Stephen E. Imm -- Stephen@FinneyLawFirm.com -- Finney Law Firm.

Kevin J. Ison DMD PSC, doing business as Orthodontic Specialists,
GID Orthodontics LLC, doing business as Orthodontic Specialists &
DMD, MS Kevin J. Ison, Defendants, represented by Mark B. Gerano --
Mark.Gerano@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Ryan Michael
Martin -- Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &
Katherine B. Capito -- kcapito@hfdrlaw.com -- Hissam, Forman,
Donovan, Ritchie, pro hac vice.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tencent Music Entertainment
Group (TME), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Ovetstock.com (OSTK),
and Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class Period: December 12, 2018 to August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that the State
Administration of Market Regulation, China's antitrust authority,
was investigating exclusive licensing deals between Tencent Music
and major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent Music's American depositary share price fell
$0.92 per share, or 6.83%, to close at $12.57 per share on August
27, 2019.

The complaint, filed on September 26, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive
licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Tencent class action go to:
https://bespc.com/tme.

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

On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its
acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad also
acquired GeneSight through this acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). This acquisition provided
Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and Prelude—in the
expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing
markets, respectively. The company estimated that these markets
would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the
U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that 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: (i) GeneSight
lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in
their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to
GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's
acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the
company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for
its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to,
and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on
the company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 13, 2019 Myriad issued an earnings release, wherein the
company reported its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. In this release, it was disclosed that
"[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test"—i.e., Foresight.

Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and
analysts, it was revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the
GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with
clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight
Psychotropic, and that the company has "been in ongoing discussions
with the FDA regarding its request."

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K").
In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned
whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been
established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late
2018, the FDA had repeatedly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests, such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%
to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019.

For more information on the Myriad Genetics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/MYGN

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that on
September 23, 2019, following months of media reports on the
erratic behavior of founder Patrick Byrne, who resigned as CEO in
August 2019 and subsequently sold over $91.98 million worth of
company stock within a three day period, the company later
disclosed the sudden and unexpected departure of CFO Gregory
Iverson the week prior, and that the company would lower guidance
to break even EBITDA for the year, eliminating the projected $17.5
million that Overstock had recently provided and which was critical
to support the launch of its tZERO service.

On this news, the price of Overstock shares fell from a closing
price of $14.97 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading day
prior to September 23, 2019, to close at $11.19 per share on
September 23, 2019.

For more information on the Overstock class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ostk.

Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)

Class Period: Securities purchased between May 17, 2018 to August
8, 2019 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant or traceable to
Waitr's November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in
its May 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

Waitr is an online food ordering and delivery services company that
was formed on November 15, 2018 through a public transaction
between Waitr Inc. and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. After the
transaction, its shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under
the symbol "WTRH."

On August 8, 2019, the company disclosed highly disappointing
financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019,
including the resignation of its CEO; that its integration of
BiteSquad.com, LLC, which it acquired in January 2019, was not
proceeding according to plan; that the company was laying off
personnel; and that losses were far higher than previously
anticipated.

On this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's market
capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on March
13, 2019.

For more information on the Waitr class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WTRH

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

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


PARETEUM CORP: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman has filed a class action complaint on behalf of
investors in Pareteum Corporation (NASDAQ: TEUM). The firm urges
TEUM investors who have suffered losses in excess of $100,000 to
submit their losses now to learn if they qualify to recover their
investment losses.

Class Period: Dec. 26, 2017 - Oct. 21, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 23, 2019

Sign Up Now: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TEUM

Contact An Attorney Immediately: TEUM@hbsslaw.com 510-725-3000

Hagens Berman's TEUM Securities Class Action:

The Complaint is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Pareteum Corporation securities during the
Expanded Class Period - between December 26, 2017 and October 21,
2019, inclusive. The Complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Singh v.
Pareteum Corporation, et al., (Case No. 1:19-cv-09795), pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the detailed Complaint filed by Hagens Berman,
Defendants misled investors throughout the Expanded Class Period by
materially misrepresenting Pareteum's true business operations and
financial results.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented
Pareteum 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 when in truth none of that was
true.

The Complaint alleges, unbeknownst to investors and contrary to
Defendants' statements, Pareteum contracted 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. Moreover, throughout the Expanded Class Period,
Defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP") by prematurely recognizing revenues and inflating accounts
receivable.

The truth emerged through a series of disclosures occurring between
June 7, 2019 and October 21, 2019, when the Company announced that
it will restate its 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.

As a result of these disclosures, the value of Pareteum stock has
consistently decreased, damaging investors.

"We're focused on recovering investors' substantial losses and
holding Pareteum and its senior management accountable for their
outright fraud," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.

Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Pareteum securities
during the Expanded Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

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

Contact:

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


PHILIPS NORTH: Whisenhunt Seeks OT Pay for Collections Specialists
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLEY WHISENHUNT, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00955 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees of
the Defendant regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without
receiving overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for the
Defendant in January 2018 and has worked in positions known as
"collections specialist" and "senior collections specialist."

The Defendant employs dozens of individuals whose job duty it is to
contact clients with past due balances to obtain a commitment to
pay. The Plaintiff and other individuals with this job duty work in
positions with job titles that include collection specialist,
senior collection specialist, and/or accounts receivable
specialist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Rothman Seeks to Enjoin Vote on VMware Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROTHMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., PAUL A. MARITZ,
ROBERT MEE, MICHAEL S. DELL, WILLIAM D. GREEN, ZANE C. ROWE, EGON
PIERRE DURBAN, MADELYN JOSEPH LANKTON, and MARCY S. KLEVORN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07066 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other public holders of the
common stock of Pivotal arising from the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Pivotal and VMware, Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps
to consummate a Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information is disclosed to Pivotal shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

On August 22, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's Class
A shareholders stand to receive $15 in cash for each share they own
and the Company's Class B shareholders stand to receive 0.0550 of a
share of VMware Class B common stock for each share they own.

On October 10, 2019, in order to convince Pivotal shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning:

   -- the financial projections for the Company that were
      prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in
      recommending that Pivotal shareholders vote in favor of the
      Proposed Transaction; and

   -- the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
      Pivotal's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in
      support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is
      fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote
to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff contends.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Delacruz Files Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Ruby Tuesday, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10319 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. is a company in the bar-and-grill category of
the U.S. casual dining restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10322 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

Ruth's Hospitality Group is a restaurant company with a focus on
American steakhouse restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Seeks to Stop Unwanted Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Fiorentine and Kim Kravits, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SARTON PUERTO RICO, LLC D/B/A IKEA
PUERTO RICO, a Puerto Rico Limited liability company, Case No.
1:19-cv-03424 (D.D.C., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant to secure redress for violation of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are natural persons, who were residents of the
District of Columbia and in Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Swedish-founded multinational group that designs
and sells ready-to-assemble furniture, kitchen appliances and home
accessories, among other useful goods and occasionally home
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: agold@tzlegal.com

               - and –

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

               - and -

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


SEAGLE PIZZA: Shanafelt Class Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seagle Pizza and Joseph M. Seagle remove the case captioned JOSHUA
SHANAFELT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. SEAGLE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA; and
JOSEPH M. SEAGLE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-CI-00565
(Filed Oct. 3, 2019), from the Henderson Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on Oct. 28,
2019.

The Western District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00146-JHM-HBB to the proceeding.

Seagle Pizza is in the pizzeria chain business.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig Siegenthaler, Esq.
          Paul E. Goatley, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          220 West Main Street, Suite 1700
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561-3990
          Facsimile: (502) 561-3991
          E-mail: csiegenthaler@fisherphillips.com
                  pgoatley@fisherphillips.com


SECURITY BENEFIT: Class Action Suit Targets Proprietary Index
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hilton, writing for Insurance News Net, reports that three
consumers filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Security
Benefit Life Insurance Co. defrauded consumers by implementing a
"fraudulent scheme" involving a proprietary index used in two fixed
indexed annuities.

The plaintiffs, from Illinois, Arizona and California, where the
suit was filed Oct. 16, claim the company misrepresented returns.

"Security Benefit's fraudulent scheme included the development and
marketing of a series of misleading and deceptive annuity products
purporting to provide above-market returns through purported
‘uncapped' 100% participation in the gains in certain
‘proprietary' indexes artificially engineered specifically for
use in these new annuity products," the lawsuit reads.

Michael T. Castino, director of public relations for Security
Benefit, sent InsuranceNewsNet a brief statement: "SBLIC believes
that it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged and intends
to vigorously defend itself in the action."

The insurer has not yet been served with the complaint, the
statement said.

Critics and regulators have been targeting proprietary indexes,
saying they overstate performance in illustrations used to sell
indexed annuities.

Two FIAs Targeted

The lawsuit targets two of Security Benefit's FIAs, the Total Value
and Secure Income annuities, both of which offer the Annuity Linked
Trader Vic Index (ALTVI), which is based on commodities and
currencies futures along with a volatility control. The index is
offered as an option along with traditional indexes such as S&P
500.

The ALTVI is among many proprietary indexes created by indexed
annuity sellers to help keep products attractive during a
low-interest-rate environment, said Sheryl Moore, president and CEO
of Moore Market Intelligence.

Generally, annuities are marketed with a cap or participation rate
that leaves owners with less than 100% of the market gains. In
exchange, the client is protected against market losses.

The plaintiffs say Security Benefit marketed its TVA products as
"uncapped" and with a "100% participation" rate.

"Using uniformly misleading marketing materials and illustrations
to implement the scheme, Security Benefit deceptively illustrated
the performance of the Synthetic Indices as capable of producing
double-digit returns to the purchasers of a Secure Income or Total
Value Annuity," the lawsuit reads.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and common law fraud under the
laws of California and Illinois.

Another lawsuit that was dismissed this summer claimed the
company's use of the proprietary index amounted to racketeering.

In July, a Kansas District Court judge dismissed a similar lawsuit
brought by Albert Ogles. According to the lawsuit, Ogles purchased
a TVA in Alabama in July 2012 for approximately $145,000 and
allocated 100% of his funds to the ALTVI.

Ogles earned zero interest after five years. Although Ogles
acknowledged he did not lose money, he claimed the product was
misrepresented. Judge Holly Teeter ruled that Ogles failed to offer
enough evidence that the annuity he bought was fraudulently
designed.

Racketeering Claims

The Ogles lawsuit made racketeering claims against Guggenheim
Partners, which purchased Security Benefit in 2010. His lawsuit
claimed the company defrauded investors with risky annuities, and
siphoned off cash for various purposes, including to help its
billionaire chief executive Mark Walter buy the Los Angeles
Dodgers.

The new lawsuit seeks a class action certification, which would
open it to all affected customers who come forward. The suit asks
for restitution and punitive relief on behalf of class members and
asks the judge to enjoin Security Benefit from "misrepresenting or
concealing the expected performance of the Synthetic Indices."

The defendants are Howard Rosen of California, Terri L.
Stauffer-Schmidt of Arizona and Michael A. Webber of Illinois. The
lead attorney in the case, Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. --
mmuecke@bffb.com --  of Bonnett Fairbourn Freidman & Balint, a
Phoenix-based law firm, did not return phone and email messages
seeking comment.

Proprietary indexes have been drawing attention from regulators and
consumer groups. A National Association of Insurance Commissioners'
working group is trying to tighten up regulation of indexes based
on components that haven't been in existence for long enough to
have a history.

"There are over 100 different indices being used to offer indexed
interest on annuities today," Moore said. The new lawsuit could be
a "warning to other product manufacturers," she added, because it
mentions issues that are salient to many of those in the indexed
insurance space.

As for Security Benefit, "when it comes to marketing indexed
annuities," Moore said, "they are not any better or worse than
anyone else in this industry.

"However, they were one of the first to offer this type of index,
it is limited in its distribution, and the product doesn't credit
interest until the end of five years. If the index is down, that
means clients are getting no gain, which is a hard pill for many to
swallow if not diversified in their allocation." [GN]


SEQUIUM ASSET: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SEQUIUM ASSET
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Lombardi, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, VIVINT, INC., JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05269-ER (E.D. Penn., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is an Accounts Receivable Management
Company with over 17 years of experience in the ARM Space. Sequium
brings innovation in the Debt collection industry utilizing
specialized and advanced collection tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Ave-Ste 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


SF MARKET: Court Dismisses Smock Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case,
ANTHONY SMOCK and RAFAEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SF
MARKET LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05607-AB-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

The Parties have stipulated to dismiss the case in its entirety
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).  The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the
file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jZfOYj from Leagle.com.

Arogant Hollywood, Individually, Plaintiff, pro se.

City of South Pasadena, City of South Pasadena Police Department,
Police Chief Arthur Miller, Officer Craig Phillips, Sergeant
Spencer Louie, Detective Michael Palmieri, Sergeant Matthew Ronnie
& Sergeant Jim Valencia, Defendants, represented by David M.
Ferrante -- dferrante@wzllp.com -- Wesierski and Zurek LLP.


SHAW INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Fitch Suit to State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's order remanding the case, RANDOLPH FITCH, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of
the general public, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.;
SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
19-56119 (9th Cir.), to the state court.

Shaw appealed from the district court's sua sponte remand of
Fitch's putative class action against it for allegedly not properly
paying its hourly non-exempt workers.  The district court held that
Shaw had not made the requisite showing that the matter in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Shaw's notice of removal plausibly
alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, and accordingly it
vacated the district court's sua sponte remand order.

On remand, should the district court again consider remanding the
action to the state court, it should follow the Court's holdings in
Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott that: (1) a removing defendant's
notice of removal 'need not contain evidentiary submissions' but
only plausible allegations of the jurisdictional elements; (2) when
a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged,
the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy may rely on
reasonable assumptions; and (3) when a statute or contract provides
for the recovery of attorneys' fees, prospective attorneys' fees
must be included in the assessment of the amount in controversy,
rules the Ninth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit Court's Oct. 30, 2019
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/qMAY7c from Leagle.com.



SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who acquired SmileDirectClub,
Inc. ("SmileDirectClub" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SDC) Class A
common stock (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
September 12, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO"), or (b) during
the period from September 8, 2019 through October 2, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 2,
2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The suit asserts claims against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, the IPO underwriters, and the Company's
controlling shareholder. Claims are asserted pursuant to Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the Company: (i) made materially false
and misleading statements in the IPO offering documents related to
the promotion, design, and efficacy of its purported
"teledentistry" products, resulting in an inflated IPO price of
$23.00 per share; (ii) knowingly concealed deceptive marketing
practices prior to the IPO; and (iii) failed to reveal the extent
of its litigation liability in several states for operating as a
dentist without proper licensing.

On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by
dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors for false advertising, fraud,
negligence, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The lawsuit
alleges that inaccurate statements were made in the Company's IPO
offering documents, that SmileDirectClub is subject to litigation
for operating as a dentist without proper licensing in several
states, and that SmileDirectClub and certain of its officers and
directors engaged in efforts to cover up criticisms from dental
professionals and consumers. On this news, the Company's share
price fell nearly 9%, from $17.15 to $15.68. The share price
continued to fall over the next two trading days to reach a low of
$12.94. On October 23, 2019, the day this securities class action
was filed, the Company's stock was trading as low as $9.44 per
share, a decline of nearly 60% from the $23.00 per share IPO
price.

If you acquired SmileDirectClub securities, have information, or
would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Ira M.
Press or Robert H. Familiar of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600,
by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this
contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to
these matters without any cost to you. If you are interested in
joining this action, you may do so by completing the applicable
certification form, found on the firm's SmileDirectClub litigation
page.

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


SODEXO INC: Stokes Seeks Minimum Wages for Housekeeping Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMETRA STOKES, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-302 (E.D. Tenn.), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages to the Plaintiff and other housekeeping employees stemming
from an unpaid orientation.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all current
and former hourly-paid housekeeping employees, who have been
employed and worked for the Defendant during the past three years.

The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid housekeeping employee of the
Defendant and performed job duties on its behalf at the Erlanger
Health Systems' Hospital in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The Defendant is a food services and facilities management company
with over 420,000 employees worldwide, including thousands of
employees in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


SUBARU CORP: Lawsuit Alleges Windshield Defect Foresters, Outbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post, reports that a class-action
lawsuit seeks damages for the drivers of Subaru vehicles alleged to
have defective windshields.

The lawsuit, filed against Camden-based Subaru of America, contends
2017-19 Forester and Outback models have "dangerous" windshields
that are prone to "cracking, chipping and otherwise breaking."

It asserts replacement windshields are no better - and contends the
defect prevents "the safe and proper operation" of technology
intended to prevent collisions.

The suit was brought on behalf of Christine Powell, a Wisconsin
woman who says the windshield on her 2018 Forester cracked twice in
an 18-month period.

The Oct. 18 complaint was the second class-action lawsuit to be
filed against Subaru in less than a month.

A suit filed Sept. 24, alleges claims a recent recall has worsened
engine-stalling problems and increased the risk of crashes for
drivers of Subaru's 2103 BRZ and XV Crosstrek models and 2012-14
Imprezas.

That suit also seeks to cover drivers of the 2013 Toyota Scion
FR-S, which has a Subaru-designed engine.

Both suits were filed in Camden federal court by attorney Peter
Muhic, Esq. of Philadelphia and attorneys for a Pittsburgh-based
firm, Carlson Lynch LLC.

"Subaru's known for having a loyal customer base and it's entirely
unfair for these consumers to be forced to bear expenses that they
reasonably should not be incurring," said Muhic.

"It's unfair and it's wrong," the attorney said.

A Subaru spokesman declined to comment October 25.

Toyota North America said it will respond to the Sept. 24 lawsuit
"in the appropriate forum."

"The safety and security of our customers is a top priority," the
company said in a statement.

According to Powell's lawsuit, hundreds of Subaru drivers have
reported windshield problems to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

The suit includes more than a dozen complaints from the federal
agency's online database, including some that assert a windshield
crack occurred while a car was parked.

The suit says Subaru requires drivers to pay for new windshields,
as well as to recalibrate their vehicles' EyeSight Driver Assist
Technology. It says windshield cracks hamper the EyeSight program,
which monitors traffic movement and warns motorists if they sway
outside their lane.

Those costs can range from $1,000 to $2,000, Muhic said.

The Sept. 24 lawsuit contends work performed under an ongoing
recall is causing "widespread and catastrophic engine failures" and
is "increasing the risk of traffic crashes" for drivers of the
affected vehicles.

It also cites reports of "fire erupting in the engines after the
recall work."

It demands Subaru and Toyota "accept responsibility for the engine
failures resulting from the recall work and make the consumers
whole."

The suit was brought on behalf of Christian Nunez, a Texas man
whose Toyota Scion FR-S stalled while he was driving on a highway
in September of this year.

It says Nunez faced a bill of about $6,500 to replace his engine in
his car, which had undergone recall work about a week earlier.

The recall was announced in December 2018 to replace defective
valve springs in an estimated 165,000 vehicles, the suit says.
[GN]


SUNOCO INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Cline Case Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO
PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Defendants, Civil Action No.
6:17-cv-313-JAG (E.D. Okla.), Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Sunoco's
motion to stay the case pending its appeal of the Court's class
certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in Oklahoma.
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals,
L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's wells.
Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to Cline.
If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline interest on
the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's Production Revenue
Standards Act.  Cline has sued Sunoco for paying his production
proceeds late without paying the required interest.

On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Cline's motion to maintain a
class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and
did not pay interest.  On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to
stay the case pending its appeal of the Court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  On Oct.
17, 2019, Sunoco filed its appeal.

When deciding a motion to stay, courts generally consider the same
factors as those used when deciding motions for preliminary
injunctions: (1) the likelihood of the moving party's success on
the merits of the appeal; (2) whether the moving party will suffer
irreparable harm if the case proceeds; (3) whether staying the
action will substantially injure the non-moving party; and (4) the
public interest.

Regarding the first prong, Sunoco advances several arguments to
show that it will likely succeed on the merits.  For many of the
same reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion on class
certification, Judge Gibney does not find that these arguments
raise legal questions that the Tenth Circuit has not previously
addressed.  Nor does Sunoco raise questions so serious,
substantial, difficult, and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground
for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation.

As for the second prong, Sunoco argues that it will incur
substantial litigation costs preparing the case for trial and
trying the case on a class basis, and that all that work will have
been for naught if the appeal succeeds.  Even if Cline proceeded
individually and not on behalf of the class, however, Sunoco would
incur many of the same litigation costs related to defending
against the merits of the action.  Further, Judge Gibney recognizes
that the parties will have incurred unnecessary costs identifying
the class members if the Tenth Circuit decertifies the class.  But
he does not conclude that this amounts to irreparable harm to
Sunoco.

Regarding the third prong, Sunoco has admitted that it has the
ability to calculate the interest owed to an interest owner, but
has declined to do so unless an owner requests that interest.
Sunoco, therefore, is sitting on millions of dollars owed to the
interest owners that it has the ability to pay, but Sunoco has
simply declined to do so pursuant to business practices that it has
not changed since Cline initiated this action.  Staying the action,
therefore, presents a harm beyond just a "delay of the
proceedings," Judge Gibney opines.  Moreover, even if the Tenth
Circuit decertifies the class, a ruling on the equitable relief
Cline seeks will necessarily affect whether Sunoco continues to
follow its current business practices for paying all interest
owners.  Thus, Sunoco has not established that staying the
deadlines will not substantially injure Cline, and that the
potential of class confusion outweighs other considerations before
the Court.

As for the fourth prong, Sunoco reiterates its argument about class
confusion, but that does not outweigh other considerations at play.
Sunoco also argues that judicial economy favors a stay.  The Court
has already expended resources deciding the motion for class
certification, so staying the case at this point would not
significantly conserve judicial resources.  The Court will also
inevitably expend resources deciding pretrial matters regardless of
whether Cline proceeds individually or on behalf of the class.
Given the nature of the claims, Judge Gibney does not conclude that
the class claims will present substantially different pretrial
issues than those the parties will raise if Cline proceeds
individually.  Thus, Sunoco has not shown that the public interest
favors a stay.

Because Sunoco has not established that the Court should stay the
action pending the appeal, Judge Gibney denied its motion to stay.
The Clerk will issue an appropriate Order.  The Clerk will send a
copy of the Opinion to all the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/7grzSt from Leagle.com.

Perry Cline, on behalf of himself & Perry Cline, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew G.
Pate -- dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson & Roach, Bradley E.
Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson, LLP, Jason A.
Ryan --  jryan@ryanwhaley.com -- Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen
Peters & Webber, PLLC, Jeffrey J. Angelovich --
jangelovich@npraustin.com -- Nix Patterson, LLP, Lawrence R.
Murphy, Jr., Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., PC, 624 South BostonSuite
900Tulsa, OK 74119, Lisa P. Baldwin -- lbaldwin@nixlaw.com -- Nix
Patterson & Roach, pro hac vice, Michael Burrage, Whitten Burrage,
Patrick M. Ryan -- pryan@ryanwhaley.com -- Ryan Whaley Coldiron
Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, Paula M. Jantzen --
pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com -- Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters &
Webber, PLLC, Phillip G. Whaley -- pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com -- Ryan
Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC

Sunoco, Inc. & Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, LP,
Defendants, represented by Daniel M. McClure --
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Kevin W. Yankowsky -- kevin.yankowsky@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Mark D.
Christiansen, McAfee & Taft & Rebecca J. Cole --
rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice.

TENCENT MUSIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tencent Music Entertainment
Group (TME), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Ovetstock.com (OSTK),
and Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class Period: December 12, 2018 to August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that the State
Administration of Market Regulation, China's antitrust authority,
was investigating exclusive licensing deals between Tencent Music
and major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent Music's American depositary share price fell
$0.92 per share, or 6.83%, to close at $12.57 per share on August
27, 2019.

The complaint, filed on September 26, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive
licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Tencent class action go to:
https://bespc.com/tme.

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

On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its
acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad also
acquired GeneSight through this acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). This acquisition provided
Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and Prelude—in the
expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing
markets, respectively. The company estimated that these markets
would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the
U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that 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: (i) GeneSight
lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in
their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to
GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's
acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the
company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for
its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to,
and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on
the company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 13, 2019 Myriad issued an earnings release, wherein the
company reported its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. In this release, it was disclosed that
"[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test"—i.e., Foresight.

Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and
analysts, it was revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the
GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with
clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight
Psychotropic, and that the company has "been in ongoing discussions
with the FDA regarding its request."

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K").
In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned
whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been
established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late
2018, the FDA had repeatedly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests, such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%
to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019.

For more information on the Myriad Genetics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/MYGN

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that on
September 23, 2019, following months of media reports on the
erratic behavior of founder Patrick Byrne, who resigned as CEO in
August 2019 and subsequently sold over $91.98 million worth of
company stock within a three day period, the company later
disclosed the sudden and unexpected departure of CFO Gregory
Iverson the week prior, and that the company would lower guidance
to break even EBITDA for the year, eliminating the projected $17.5
million that Overstock had recently provided and which was critical
to support the launch of its tZERO service.

On this news, the price of Overstock shares fell from a closing
price of $14.97 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading day
prior to September 23, 2019, to close at $11.19 per share on
September 23, 2019.

For more information on the Overstock class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ostk.

Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)

Class Period: Securities purchased between May 17, 2018 to August
8, 2019 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant or traceable to
Waitr's November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in
its May 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

Waitr is an online food ordering and delivery services company that
was formed on November 15, 2018 through a public transaction
between Waitr Inc. and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. After the
transaction, its shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under
the symbol "WTRH."

On August 8, 2019, the company disclosed highly disappointing
financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019,
including the resignation of its CEO; that its integration of
BiteSquad.com, LLC, which it acquired in January 2019, was not
proceeding according to plan; that the company was laying off
personnel; and that losses were far higher than previously
anticipated.

On this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's market
capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on March
13, 2019.

For more information on the Waitr class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WTRH

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

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


TJX COMPANIES: Dominguez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10340 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

The TJX Companies, Inc. is an American multinational off-price
department store corporation, headquartered in Framingham,
Massachusetts. It was formed as a subsidiary of Zayre Corp. in
1987, and became the legal successor to Zayre Corp. following a
company reorganization in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL SAFETY: Gerstmann Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gerstmann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04470 (S.D.
Tex., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours
but refunding to compensate them for their employment in excess of
forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half time the
regular rate at which they are or ere employed," Mr. Gerstmann
contends. He adds that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing
to maintain accurate pay records of its employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Safety Technician
from February 2017 to June 2019.

The Defendant is an oilfield services company that does business in
the territorial jurisdiction of this court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALEZ, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Phone: (970) 214-0562
          Email: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Neuworth Files Suit under FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Sandra Neuworth and Israel Baum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Transworld Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06275 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019).

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

Transworld Systems, home of Accelerator and the Profit Recovery
System.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 3, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Uber Technologies, Inc.
("Uber" or the "Company") (NYSE: UBER) investors who purchased
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's May 2019 initial public offering
("IPO").  

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

In May 2019, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO") in which it sold 207 million shares at $45 per share.

On August 8, 2019, Uber announced its second quarter 2019 financial
results, reporting $5.24 billion loss and $2.87 billion revenue.
The Company also disclosed that its ridesharing revenue only grew
2% and that its sales and marketing expenses had increased by $507
million, or 71%, due to driver incentives, consumer discounts,
promotions, refunds, and credits.

Since the IPO, Uber's stock has traded as low as $36.45 per share,
significantly below the $45 offering price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that at the time of the IPO, Uber was rapidly
increasing subsidies for drivers and customer's rides and meals in
a bid for market share, which caused the Company's sales and
marketing expenses to swell; (2) that Defendants were cutting (or
planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's
central growth opportunities; and (3) that as a result, defendants
statements about Uber's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Uber securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement, you may move the
Court no later than December 3, 2019 to request appointment as lead
plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of
the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about
this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the
pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]


US SOCCER FEDERATION: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Morgan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Gary Klausner grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Alex Morgan, et al. v.
United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

The Court grants:

   (1) certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, defined as:

       All WNT players on the team at the date of final judgment,
       or the date of the resolution of any appeals therefrom,
       whichever is later;

   (2) certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, defined as:

       All WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
       from February 4, 2015 through the date of class
       certification; and

   (3) conditional certification of a collective action pursuant
       to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), defined as:

       All WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
       from March 8, 2016 through the present.

Named Plaintiffs Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd, and Becky
Sauerbrunn are appointed as Class Representatives.  Winston &
Strawn LLP is appointed as Class Counsel.

Judge Klausner also directs the Defendant to produce a class list
to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 calendar days from the date of
this Order, and the Parties to meet and confer regarding the class
notice and collective notice and submit final agreed upon notices
to the court within 14 calendar days from the date of this Order.

On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs, who are female professional
soccer players on the United States Senior Women's National Soccer
Team (WNT), filed this putative collective action and class action
against the United States Soccer Federation, Inc.  The Plaintiffs
assert two claims against the Defendant: (1) violation of the Equal
Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 206; and (2) violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e.

The Defendant is the single, common employer for the WNT and the
United States Senior Men's National Soccer Team ("MNT").  The
Defendant "centrally manages and controls every aspect of the
senior national team program for both" the WNT and the MNT,
including "setting and providing them with their pay[,]" hiring
their coaches, deciding the number of games they will play, and
coordinating travel.

The lawsuit arises from an alleged pay discrepancy between the MNT
and the WNT.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant refused
to pay WNT players for losing a game, tying a game, or winning a
game against a team ranked outside of the top ten.  Another example
of the pay discrepancy between the MNT and the WNT can be found in
the way players are compensated for winning non-tournament games
called "friendlies."  If each team were to play and win twenty
friendlies in a year, WNT players would earn a maximum of $99,000
(or $4,950 per game).  MNT players, in contrast, would earn an
average of $263,320 (or $13,166 per game), the Plaintiffs
asserts.[CC]


VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
VF Outdoor LLC removes the case captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an
individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf
of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on
behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a
California limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. HG19032747 (Filed Aug. 27, 2019), from the
Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Oakland Division) on Oct. 28,
2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-07090 to the proceeding.

Th complaint asserts causes of action for the Defendants' failure
to pay minimum and regular wages; to pay all overtime wages; to
provide timely and/or off-duty meal periods and rest periods; to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and to pay all wages
within a timely manner pursuant to the California Labor Code.

VF Outdoor LLC was founded in 2000. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of men's and boy's clothing. VF Outdoor
operates in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Potter, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
                  JimT@potterhandy.com

Defendant VF OUTDOOR, LLC, is represented by:

          Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
          Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
                  slee@fisherphillips.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Kelly Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Kelly, Chaim
Rosenfeld individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06314 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2019).

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

Vital Recovery Services, LLC ("VRS") is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip
tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


WAITR HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tencent Music Entertainment
Group (TME), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Ovetstock.com (OSTK),
and Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class Period: December 12, 2018 to August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that the State
Administration of Market Regulation, China's antitrust authority,
was investigating exclusive licensing deals between Tencent Music
and major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent Music's American depositary share price fell
$0.92 per share, or 6.83%, to close at $12.57 per share on August
27, 2019.

The complaint, filed on September 26, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive
licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Tencent class action go to:
https://bespc.com/tme.

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

On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its
acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad also
acquired GeneSight through this acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). This acquisition provided
Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and Prelude—in the
expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing
markets, respectively. The company estimated that these markets
would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the
U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that 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: (i) GeneSight
lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in
their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to
GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's
acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the
company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for
its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to,
and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on
the company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 13, 2019 Myriad issued an earnings release, wherein the
company reported its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. In this release, it was disclosed that
"[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test"—i.e., Foresight.

Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and
analysts, it was revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the
GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with
clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight
Psychotropic, and that the company has "been in ongoing discussions
with the FDA regarding its request."

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K").
In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned
whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been
established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late
2018, the FDA had repeatedly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests, such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%
to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019.

For more information on the Myriad Genetics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/MYGN

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 27, 2019, alleges that on
September 23, 2019, following months of media reports on the
erratic behavior of founder Patrick Byrne, who resigned as CEO in
August 2019 and subsequently sold over $91.98 million worth of
company stock within a three day period, the company later
disclosed the sudden and unexpected departure of CFO Gregory
Iverson the week prior, and that the company would lower guidance
to break even EBITDA for the year, eliminating the projected $17.5
million that Overstock had recently provided and which was critical
to support the launch of its tZERO service.

On this news, the price of Overstock shares fell from a closing
price of $14.97 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading day
prior to September 23, 2019, to close at $11.19 per share on
September 23, 2019.

For more information on the Overstock class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ostk.

Waitr Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)

Class Period: Securities purchased between May 17, 2018 to August
8, 2019 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant or traceable to
Waitr's November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in
its May 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

Waitr is an online food ordering and delivery services company that
was formed on November 15, 2018 through a public transaction
between Waitr Inc. and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. After the
transaction, its shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under
the symbol "WTRH."

On August 8, 2019, the company disclosed highly disappointing
financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019,
including the resignation of its CEO; that its integration of
BiteSquad.com, LLC, which it acquired in January 2019, was not
proceeding according to plan; that the company was laying off
personnel; and that losses were far higher than previously
anticipated.

On this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's market
capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on March
13, 2019.

For more information on the Waitr class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WTRH

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

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


WARNER MUSIC: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Williams Suit to State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's order remanding the case, LEONARD WILLIAMS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; THE LENNY
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-56121 (9th Cir.), to the state
court.

Warner Music and Warner Records ("WBR") appealed from the district
court's sua sponte remand of Williams' putative class action
alleging that WBR underpaid royalties owed to potentially thousands
of persons and entities for sound recordings streamed in foreign
countries.  The district court held that WBR had not made the
requisite showing that the matter in controversy exceeds $5
million.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that WBR's notice of removal "plausibly
alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction," and accordingly,
it vacated the district court's sua sponte remand order.

On remand, should the district court again consider remanding the
action to the state court, it should follow the Court's holdings in
Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott that: (1) a removing defendant's
notice of removal 'need not contain evidentiary submissions' but
only plausible allegations of the jurisdictional elements; (2) when
a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged,
the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy may rely on
reasonable assumptions; and (3) "when a statute or contract
provides for the recovery of attorneys' fees, prospective
attorneys' fees must be included in the assessment of the amount in
controversy, rules the Ninth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit Court's Oct. 30, 2019
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/m0nAxS from Leagle.com.

WASHE INC: Fails to Pay Washers Minimum and OT Wages, Meza Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Meza, in his representative capacity under the Private
Attorney General Act v. WASHE INC., a Delaware Corporation; WASHE
SOLUTIONS CA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV40823 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 13, 2019), accuses the Defendants of not paying their washers
minimum and overtime wages, among other things.

The Defendants willfully misclassifies its washers as independent
contractor to deprive them of fundamental employment rights, such
as the right to minimum wages, overtime wage, mandated meal breaks,
mandated rest breaks, premium wages for missed meal and rest
breaks, accurate itemized wages statements, prompt payment full
wages within time limits designated by law and be reimbursed for
necessary business expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California.

WASHE is an on-demand mobile car wash company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Phone: (661)949-2595
          Facsimile: (661)949-7524


WELLS FARGO: Hernandez's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Refile Nov. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled ALICIA
HERNANDEZ, EMMA WHITE, KEITH LINDNER, TROY FRYE, COSZETTA TEAGUE,
IESHA BROWN, RUSSELL and BRENDA SIMONEAUX, JOHN and YVONNE
DEMARTINO, ROSE WILSON, TIFFANIE HOOD, GEORGE and CYNDI FLOYD,
DEBORA GRANJA, and DIANA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:18-cv-07354-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class foreclosure action, the Plaintiffs move for
class certification, according to the Order.

"Given plaintiffs' deficient briefing of their class certification
motion and the reasons stated on the record, the motion is DENIED
without prejudice to allow for fresh briefing.  The corresponding
motion to exclude Dr. Kilpatrick's opinion is also DENIED without
prejudice," Judge Alsup opines.

"Plaintiffs shall file their new motion for class certification BY
NOVEMBER 21 AT NOON on a 49-DAY TRACK.  Plaintiffs should be
cognizant of the previous deficiencies in their briefing and
proposed trial plan in drafting this motion," Judge Alsup adds.

Before the motion is even filed, however, the Plaintiffs must pay
$10,000 to counsel for the Defendant to reimburse them for the
costs associated with having to re-brief this new motion, Judge
Alsup states.  Any remaining costs associated with re-briefing, if
any, shall be paid at a later date.[CC]


WELTMAN WEINBERG: White Files Suit Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., LPA. The case is styled as Jonathan C. White,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-19936 (D. N.J., Nov. 6, 2019).

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

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Company, L.P.A. provides legal services.
The Company offers bankruptcy, consumer and commercial collection,
compliance, litigation, and real estate default services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



ZENDESK INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-zendesk-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of Zendesk, Inc. (NYSE:ZEN) common stock during the
period between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Northern District of
California and is captioned Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No.
19-cv-06968.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Zendesk common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran or Mary K. Blasy of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com or mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of
the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-zendesk-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The complaint charges Zendesk and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Zendesk is a Software as a Service ("SaaS") provider that purports
to help clients better communicate with their customers through
online customer chats and data analysis.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and financial results.
Specifically, the Company concealed material information and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) Zendesk's clients had been subject to
data breaches dating back to 2016; (b) Zendesk was experiencing
slowing demand for its SaaS offerings, particularly in Germany, the
United Kingdom, and Australia, due in large part to political
uncertainty and China trade issues there; and (c) as a result of
the foregoing, Zendesk's business metrics and financial prospects
were not as strong as defendants had led the market to believe
during the Class Period. As a result of this information being
withheld from the market, the price of Zendesk common stock was
artificially inflated to more than $93 per share during the Class
Period. While Zendesk common stock was trading at these
artificially inflated prices, certain of the Company's officers
and/or directors cashed in, selling approximately 409,000 of their
personally held Zendesk shares, reaping more than $32.7 million in
proceeds.

On July 30, 2019, Zendesk announced disappointing financial results
for the second quarter of 2019. In addition, Zendesk disclosed that
its sales growth in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA")
and Asia-Pacific ("APAC") regions "didn't quite live up to
[defendants'] own expectations, and lagg[ed] other regions."
Zendesk blamed a mix of macro and operational issues that had been
driving the weakness. With respect to fiscal 2019 guidance, the
Company cautioned that it was "maintaining a prudent view on the
year as [defendants] gain[ed] a better understanding of the
dynamics, internal and external, in EMEA and APAC," and thus
expected ongoing revenue growth of just 30%. Following these
disclosures, the price of Zendesk common stock declined
precipitously, falling nearly $10 per share to close at $83.56 per
share on July 31, 2019.

Prior to September 24, 2019, a third party alerted Zendesk to the
fact that the personally identifiable data of its chat and support
accounts had been breached. By September 24, 2019, the Company's
internal investigation had revealed that some 10,000 accounts
opened before November 2016 had been breached. On October 2, 2019,
Zendesk for the first time publicly disclosed the data breach,
stating that the data breach only affected customers who had signed
up prior to November 1, 2016. On news of the data breach, the price
of Zendesk common stock fell another $2.90 per share to close at
$69.81 per share on October 2, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Zendesk common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

Contact:

         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                 mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***