CAR_Public/191119.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 19, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 231

                            Headlines

AAA CHEAP: Aldana Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Landscapers
ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Complaint Pending
ACME ELECTRIC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Dismisses Baltimore's Antitrust Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Wants Securities Complaint Revised

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Faces Chester County Employees Retirement Fund Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Arce Asks Tex. Appeals Court to Review Ruling
ASC PROFILES: Faces Wicker Employee Suit in California Super. Ct.
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Rodriguez Suit Says

BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 17
BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit over Demand Deposit Pacts Underway
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Defend CheckMate-026 Class Suit

BUSTAMANTE REAL: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASPER'S ICE: Fat Boy Ice Cream Lacks Vanilla, Rogers Claims
COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Dismiss NJ Consolidated Class Suit Pending
COLE HAAN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Asks Court to Seal Declaration of B. Keough
D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Lopez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages
DAGER CORPORATION: Faces Northrip Suit in California Super. Court
DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Rafferty Says
DNC SERVICES: Pa Democratic State Panel Files Petition to Appeal

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Faces Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits
ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend Facial Recognition Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: March 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending

FACEBOOK INC: September 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending
FCA US: Class in Victorino Product Liability Suit Certified
FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Seeks to Certify Loan Originators Class
FLEX LTD: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit Due Dec. 4
FREE ENERGY: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Texts

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Peters, Wolf and Cheng Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Moves to Certify 3 Classes and 1 Subclass
GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GUESS INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOUSTON, TX: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Perez Claims

HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing in LIBOR-Related Suit Ongoing
IROBOT CORP: Faces Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $117M Deal Over Pelvic Mesh Devices Approved
JUST BRANDS: JustCBD Products Contain THC, Darrow Suit Claims

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Vatter Securities Class Suit
KBR INC: Appeal in Suit Against Former Subsidiary Still Pending
LAKE COUNTY, IL: Hardeman Files Class Certification Bid
LAWLESS INC: Killion Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Salespeople
LB METALS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data

LEVINBOOK LAW: Baum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
LIVE NATION: Settlement Reached in Dickey Class Action
LULULEMON USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
MANDARICH LAW: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MASIMO CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Healthsource Case
MCKESSON CORP: RelayHealth Unit Faces 3 Class Suits in Illinois
MCKESSON CORP: Trial in True Health Class Suit Set for Aug. 2020
MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Pension Fund Files Class Certification Bid
MDL 2873: Aguon v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products Consolidated

MDL 2886: Kenney v. Allura USA Over Siding Defects Consolidated
MDL 2918: Barry v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Cimino v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Fahey v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Kehilat v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated

MDL 2918: La Barbera v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Leff v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Zimmerman v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MECHANICS BANK: Faces Kramer-Bolds Class Suit in California
MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Savelstrov Class Suit Ongoing

MENN LAW FIRM: Cole Seeks Prelim. Nod of $5,000 Class Settlement
MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION: Faces Del Rio Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MIDLAND FUNDING: Navarroli Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
NESTLE USA: Cheslow Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
NORTH BEACH: Truffin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

PALCO INC: Peel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
PBF ENERGY: 2 Classes Certified in Goldstein Suit
PBF ENERGY: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kendig Suit
PHOENIX, AZ: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Puente Suit
POWER HOME: Reinert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

PRIME INC: Parker Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers
REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
RECKITT BENCKISER: Carrigan Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
SABRE CORP: NY Class Suit over Airline Ticket Prices Dismissed
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Class Action

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Class Suit
SOUTHWEST OFFSET: Faces Perez Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices
SPROUTS FARMERS: Deal Reached for Majority of Phishing Scam Suits
SQUEAKY KLEAN: Sosa Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Savage Seeks Damages for 401(k) Plan Losses
SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Action Ongoing
SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Stayed
TRANS CONTINENTAL: Gottdiener Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
TWILIO INC: Paid $1.7 Million to Fund Flowers Settlement

TWILIO INC: Settlement Reached in Bauman Suit over Spam Texts
UBS AG: Starostenko Sues Over Doctoring of Account Statements
WALMART INC: Legrier Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Ongoing
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing

WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration
WILLIAMS CO: Settlement with KS & MO Class Wins Final Approval
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
YTEL INC: Faces Williams Suit in N.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation

                            *********

AAA CHEAP: Aldana Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Landscapers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ELIAS RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JOSE E. RIVERA, and SANTIAGO
GUTIERREZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AAA CHEAP TREE & LANDSCAPING OF
L.I. INC., and THOMAS ALBINO, and ADAN SAGASTUME, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06084-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state
and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs'
employment at AAA.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for
hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The
Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiffs are or have been employed by the Defendants as tree
climbers, tree trimmers, drivers, and grounds keepers, or other
similarly titled.

AAA is a landscaping company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591
          Facsimile: 718 263-9598


ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647,
remains pending.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the hearing on the
request was set to be heard on November 14, 2019.  The motion to
dismiss previously scheduled for September 5, 2019 was rescheduled
for November 14, 2019.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported Company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against us and
certain of our current and former executive officers. Thereafter,
several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the
cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff.

On January 3, 2019, the court consolidated the cases under the
caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under
submission.

On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15,
2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
our business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that
adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened
initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to disclose
that we engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory
scrutiny.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on June 7, 2019 and the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition on July 23, 2019. Defendants' reply was due August 22,
2019.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss previously scheduled for
September 5, 2019 was rescheduled for November 14, 2019.

ACADIA said, "Given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, we
cannot predict the outcome of this matter. We are unable to
estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from
this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any amounts in
connection with this matter other than ongoing attorneys' fees."

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


ACME ELECTRIC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acme Electric Motor,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acme Electric
Motor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10385 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8,
2019).

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

Acme Electric Motor, Inc. retails tools and equipment. The Company
provides air, electrical, hand, flooring, landscaping,
reconditioned, power, plumbing tools, compressors, chainsaws,
heating, cooling, insulation, dust management, snow blowers, and
outdoor living products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Dismisses Baltimore's Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
in case captioned MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. GLR-18-3560. (D. Md.).

Actelion is a pharmaceutical company that produces and sells
Tracleer, the brand name for the drug bosentan, which is used to
treat pulmonary artery hypertension. Plaintiff Mayor & City Council
of Baltimore (the "City") filed its initial Complaint against
Actelion on November 19, 2018.

Upon the City and Government Employees Health Association's
("GEHA") unopposed Motion for Consolidation and Appointment of
Interim Class Counsel, the Court consolidated Government Employee
Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-3571-GLR (D.Md. filed Nov. 20, 2018) with the present
case on January 18, 2019. On January 25, 2019, the City and GEHA
(collectively, the "Named Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on behalf of the Named
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in thirty states and
U.S. territories. In their forty-six-count Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs allege: unlawful refusals to deal and attempts to
monopolize in violation of Sectio  2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2 (2018) (Count 1); violations of various state antitrust
laws (Counts 2-26); and violations of various state consumer
protections laws (Counts 27-46).  Plaintiffs seek declaratory,
injunctive, and equitable relief.

Plaintiffs generally allege that members of the putative class
purchased Tracleer within Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont,
and that Actelion attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of
bosentan within those states.

On February 25, 2019, Actelion moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition on March 27, 2019.  On April 11, 2019, Actelion filed
its Reply.

Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve
contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses. A complaint fails to state a claim if it
does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, or does not state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must examine the
complaint as a whole, consider the factual allegations in the
complaint as true, and construe the factual allegations in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. But the court need not
accept unsupported or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any
reference to actual events or legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations.

Actelion advances several arguments for dismissing Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint. First, Actelion asserts that all but four of
Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred by the relevant statutes of
limitations. Second, Actelion maintains that Plaintiffs lack
Article III standing to bring certain of their state claims.  

Statutes of Limitations

Actelion argues that all but four of Plaintiffs' forty-six claims
are time-barred because the relevant statutes of limitations are
four years or less and Actelion's last alleged anti-competitive act
its February 2014 settlement with the Generics took place more than
four years before the filing of the initial Complaint. Plaintiffs
concede that Actelion's anti-competitive behavior occurred only
between 2009 and February 2014, but they argue that their injuries
accrued when the Patent expired on November 20, 2015.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs submit that a separate cause of action
accrues each time they, as indirect purchasers, pay an unlawfully
high price for Tracleer.

The Court agrees with Actelion.

A Sherman Act claim is barred unless commenced within four years
after the cause of action accrued. A cause of action generally
accrues when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff's
business. Even when defendants continue to perform overt acts in
furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy within the statutory period,
plaintiffs' injuries also must fall within the limitations period
in order not to be time-barred.

Plaintiffs' first argument that the cause of action accrued when
the Patent expired on November 20, 2015 misses the mark. The
expiration of the Patent is not an overt act by Actelion; rather,
Actelion had no control over or involvement in the expiration of
the Patent, which was set to expire by law. Even if the expiration
of the Patent were an overt act by Actelion, Plaintiffs fail to
allege how the expiration of the Patent alone caused them any
injury. As such, Plaintiffs' cause of action did not accrue upon
the expiration of the Patent on November 20, 2015.

Turning to their second argument, Plaintiffs primarily rely on two
cases to support the contention that a cause of action accrues each
time they purchase Tracleer at an unlawfully high price: Klehr v.
A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997), and Berkey Photo Inc. v.
Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979). These cases are
inapposite.

In Klehr, the Supreme Court noted that each sale to the plaintiff
starts the statutory period running again in the context of a
price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, not a refusal-to-deal claim.
Likewise, Berkey Photo, which, in any event, is not controlling in
this circuit addressed allegations that the defendant used its
monopoly status to engage in predatory pricing.  

Though Plaintiffs allege that Actelion had the power to raise
and/or maintain the price of bosentan at supra-competitive leves
they do not allege that Actelion actually did so. Nor do Plaintiffs
allege that Actelion engaged in illegal price fixing or predatory
pricing. Plaintiffs merely allege that Actelion's scheme has forced
Plaintiffs and other purchasers to pay higher prices for bosentan
for far longer than they otherwise would have due to the absence of
competition from the Generics.  

Instead, Plaintiffs' cause of action accrued upon Actelion's last
overt anti-competitive act, which Plaintiffs identify as Actelion's
settlement with the Generics in February 2014. The four-year
statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' antitrust claims arising
from the February 2014 settlement agreement ran until February
2018. Because the City filed its initial Complaint on November 19,
2018, Plaintiffs' claims under the Sherman Act9 and various state
statutes are time-barred.

Therefore, the Court will grant Actelion's Motion as to those
counts.

Standing

In deciding whether a plaintiff has antitrust standing, a court
must consider five factors:
(1) the causal connection between an antitrust violation and harm
to the plaintiffs, and whether that harm was intended (2) whether
the harm was of a type that Congress sought to redress in providing
a private remedy for violations of the antitrust laws (3) the
directness of the alleged injury  (4) the existence of more direct
victims of the alleged antitrust injury and (5) problems of
identifying damages and apportioning them among those directly and
indirectly harmed.

Actelion advances two reasons why Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
their remaining state claims:
(1) Plaintiffs do not allege that Actelion engaged in any conduct
in Maine or Wisconsin, nor do they allege that the Named Plaintiffs
purchased or paid for Tracleer in those states, as required under
the Maine Antitrust Statute and Wisconsin Antitrust Act, and  

(2) Plaintiffs fail to allege that Actelion engaged in false or
deceptive conduct at all, let alone in Minnesota and Vermont, as
required by the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Vermont Consumer
Fraud Act. Plaintiffs respond that their allegations are sufficient
and the Court's determination on standing in a multistate class
action should be deferred until after class certification.

The Court agrees with Actelion.

Here, Plaintiffs generally allege that members of the putative
class purchased Tracleer within Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Vermont, and that Actelion attempted to monopolize the trade or
commerce of bosentan within those states. Plaintiffs fail to
allege, however, that the Named Plaintiffs suffered any specific
harm in Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Vermont. Indeed, Plaintiffs
only allege that the Named Plaintiffs suffered specific harm in
Maryland, California, and Florida the states in which the Named
Plaintiffs purchased Tracleer.  

The Court has already concluded that it will dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims under the laws of Maryland, California, and Florida because
the statutes of limitations on those claims have run. The Court
therefore need not wait until the class certification stage to
assess Plaintiffs' standing to bring claims under the laws of
Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont, where the Named
Plaintiffs have not pleaded any specific injury. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Actelion's Motion to Dismiss as to those counts.

The Court will grant Actelion's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6cznknv from Leagle.com.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by A.
Luke Smith , Radice Law Firm PC, 143 W. Walnut Ln., Philadelphia,
PA, 19144, pro hac vice, Donna M. Evans - devans@cohenmilstein.com
- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Gregory T.
Arnold - grega@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice, Hannah Schwarzschild - hannahs@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, John D. Radice , Radice Law
Firm PC, 143 W. Walnut Ln., Philadelphia, PA, 19144, pro hac vice,
Kristen A. Johnson - kristenj@hbssla w .com - Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon K. Robertson -
srobertson@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas Matthew Sobol - tom@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Joseph M. Sellers -
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC.

Government Employees Health Association, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by E.
David Hoskins , The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC, 16 E.
Lombard Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD 21210-1807, Thomas Matthew
Sobol , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Gregory T. Arnold , Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Hannah Schwarzschild ,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen A. Johnson ,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Sharon K. Robertson
, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. &
Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Gregory Todd Lawrence - greg@lawcfl.com - Conti Fenn and Lawrence
LLC, Damaris Hernandez - dhernandez@cravath.com - Cravath Swaine
and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel John McCartin  - Dan@lawcfl.com
- Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC & Katherine B. Forrest  -
kforrest@cravath.com - Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice.

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Wants Securities Complaint Revised
----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, has been granted
with leave to amend.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 25, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against Align and four of the company's executive officers alleging
similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock between April 25, 2018 and
October 24, 2018. On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On October 29, 2019, that motion to dismiss was granted with leave
to amend.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt
has been fully briefed.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and our former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 8, 2019, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint, or the
Complaint.

In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
names as defendants certain of the company's other executive
officers, and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20,
2017 and September 12, 2018 and seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of our product, ONPATTRO.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed
on September 30, 2019.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Faces Chester County Employees Retirement Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
has been named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund.

On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of our November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to its
November 14, 2017 public stock offering. The complaint purports to
allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and generally alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other
things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the
results of the company's APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of
patisiran.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Arce Asks Tex. Appeals Court to Review Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bertha Arce filed an appeal from a decision in the
lawsuit captioned Bertha Arce, Individually and as Representative
of All Others Similarly Situated v. American National Insurance
Company, Case No. 07-19-00362-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals,
Seventh Court of Appeals.

The case type is stated as miscellaneous/other civil.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Bertha Arce is represented by:

          Mark A. Ticer, Esq.
          Jennifer Johnson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER
          10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 219-4220
          Facsimile: (214) 219-4218


ASC PROFILES: Faces Wicker Employee Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASC Profiles LLC. The
case is captioned as Kijana Wicker, On behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC Profiles
LLC, a Delaware Company; Bluescope Buildings North America, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; Does 1-100; and Steelscape, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00267971-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 30, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

ASC Profiles manufactures building products. BlueScope Buildings
provides innovative building solutions across the globe. Steelscape
is a national supplier of metallic-coated and pre-painted metal.
Aimed at servicing the construction industry, Steelscape’s
products can be used for a wide range of applications, from metal
buildings to architectural roofing to decking and framing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dpark@justicelawcorp.com


BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Rodriguez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Rodriguez, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEYER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01677 (E.D.
Wis., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act relating to the illegal practices of the Defendant,
who used false, deceptive, and misleading practices in connection
with its attempt to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff.

At the top left of the Defendant's collection letter it read, "RE:
Secure Parking - Milwaukee." In the first paragraph of the Letter
it states: "This law firm represents the above Creditor and Parking
Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. concerning the above PARKING NOTICE
and BALANCE DUE which is IN COLLECTION."

The Plaintiff contends it is unclear from the Letter, who the
creditor is. By dialed to identify the creditor of the Debt, the
Letter leaves the unsophisticated consumer in doubt about to whom
the alleged debt it is owed and if it is legitimate, says the
complaint.

Melinda Rodriguez is a natural person, who was a citizen of
Winnebago County, Wisconsin.

Beyer regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Phone (973) 379-7500
          Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                 Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                 Francis@SternThomasson.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that BOKF, NA still
defends class actions suits in the U.S. District Court for New
Mexico and the one appealed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.

On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.

On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action.

Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable in
either the now dismissed Texas action or the New Mexico action and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA, continues to face a
putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by bondholders
representing a set of municipal securities.

On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
second putative class action representing a different set of
municipal securities.

The bondholders in this second action allege two individuals
purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the
SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60
million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as
indenture trustee.

The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action.

BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this
second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings
against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is
cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is
not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by
counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these
bondholders.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the New Jersey
Federal District class action has been stayed until December 17,
2019.

On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action has been stayed
until December 17, 2019.

On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on
BOKF, NA's motion to dismiss.

Four separate small groups of bondholders filed arbitration
complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association
(FINRA) respecting the bonds and other bonds for which BOKF, NA
served as indenture trustee. BOKF, NA challenged the FINRA
proceedings in the United States District Court of Nevada. On
appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held BOKF, NA was not subject to FINRA jurisdiction. The four FINRA
complaints were then dismissed.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit over Demand Deposit Pacts Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that BOKF NA continues
to defend a putative class action suit in Oklahoma District Court
for Tulsa County alleging that BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit
Agreements.

On July 6, 2018, a plaintiff served a petition in a putative class
action in the Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa County Oklahoma
alleging BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit Agreements by charging
overdraft and not sufficient funds fees to deposit accounts on the
day of the transaction triggering the fee and by the bank's debit
hold process causing overdraft fees.

"Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated."

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Defend CheckMate-026 Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that an amended
complaint has been filed in the class action suit related to
CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.


The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical
trial in lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

The Company continues to believe these allegations are without
merit and will continue to defend the matter.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BUSTAMANTE REAL: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUSTAMANTE REAL ESTATE, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02080 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 29,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in order to solicit more business in
representing different properties, Bustamante utilizes an
autodialer. In the Plaintiff's case, Bustamante made an unsolicited
autodialed call, and sent autodialed, unsolicited text messages
after being specifically told not to call the Plaintiff again.
These calls were made despite the Plaintiff having his phone number
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) to prevent
such calls, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for
all persons injured by Bustamante's conduct.

Bustamante is a real estate company that serves the entire central
Florida market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buth-Na-Bodhaige,
Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10439
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019).

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

Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., doing business as The Body Shop, Inc.,
manufactures and retails cosmetics products. The Company offers
bath, body care, skin care, make-up, hair care, and fragrance
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASPER'S ICE: Fat Boy Ice Cream Lacks Vanilla, Rogers Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Casper's Ice Cream Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06064 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), targets the Defendant's
fraudulent intent by its failure to accurately indicate that its
Fat Boy vanilla ice cream products contained flavor from
non-vanilla sources on the front label.

The Defendant did so because it knows consumers prefer foods that
are flavored from food ingredients instead of added flavor
ingredients and contain enough of the characterizing food
ingredients to flavor the Products, the Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, Casper's Ice Cream manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products
purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing
flavor, vanilla, under their Fat Boy Ice Cream brand (Products).

The Products are labeled as containing vanilla ice cream between
chocolate wafers (5.0 Fl. oz/147 mL) and are sold in packages of
six and are available to consumers nationwide. The Products are
misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and
percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the
product, which is required and consistent with consumer
expectations, the lawsuit says. The Products' vanilla ice cream is
not flavored only by vanilla, but contains flavors derived from
non-vanilla sources, which is misleading to consumers, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Dismiss NJ Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey remains
pending.

In 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, naming the company and certain of its current and former
officers as defendants.

These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on
April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased our common stock during the period between February 27,
2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its
current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements related to potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA), the company's business, prospects and
operations, and the effectiveness of its internal controls over
financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures.

The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an
order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including
dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company,
and denied them in part.

On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the
August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an
order granting the company's motion, and staying the action pending
the outcome of the company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit.


On October 29, 2018, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the company's
petition without prejudice.

In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the
lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended
complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on June 10, 2019.

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

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.

COLE HAAN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cole Haan LLC. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cole Haan LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10440 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019).

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

Cole Haan is a global men's and women's footwear and accessories
brand that was founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1928.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Asks Court to Seal Declaration of B. Keough
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMIE RICHARDS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-02934-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Colgate asks the Court on Oct.
29, 2019, for an order to seal declaration filed in support of
notice of removal.

Pursuant to Local Rule 13.05, Colgate-Palmolive asks for good cause
shown that the Declaration of Brian Keough filed in support of
Colgate's Notice of Removal, be placed under seal.

The Declaration contain confidential information regarding retail
and net sales of Lady Speed Stick Stainguard antiperspirant during
the class period, including information obtained from the market
research firm The Nielsen Company (US), LLC ("Nielsen").

Colgate asserts that Nielsen keeps this information confidential
because it is proprietary and provided only to subscribers, and
Colgate keeps this information confidential because it is
contractually obligated to do so, and it gives Colgate a
competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products
company focused on the production, distribution and provision of
household, health care, and personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite No. 1
          Webster Groves, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 550-3717
          E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company is represented by:

          Lisa A. Pake, Esq.
          Matthew A. Martin, Esq.
          HAAR & WOODS, LLP
          1010 Market St., Suite 1620
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2224
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2227
          E-mail: lpake@haar-woods.com
                  mmartin@haar-woods.com


D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Lopez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL AMARO LOPEZ and JOSE TZUNUN TALE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D'ONOFRIO GENERAL
CONTRACTORS CORP. d/b/a D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, YUKON
ENTERPRISES INC., and JERRY D'ONOFRIO JR., as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06078-LDH-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state
and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs'
employment by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in
an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies
this Court deems appropriate.

Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants from May 2018 until
February 2019. Mr. Tale was employed in July 2017 until February
2019.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay their
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a
wage rate of one and a half (1.5) times the regular wage to which
they were entitled under New York Labor Law.

Established in 1991, D'Onofrio General Contractors is a full
service construction firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591
          Facsimile: 718 263-9598


DAGER CORPORATION: Faces Northrip Suit in California Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento SCS Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as Jocelyn Northrip and Savannah Perez
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dager
Corporation, Does 1-20, Sacramento SCS, Inc., and Supercuts, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00267774-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 28, 2019).

Sacramento SCS Inc. is in the Beauty Shops industry in Folsom,
California.

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
          CASTLE LAW CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          3200 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
          Roseville, CA 95661
          Telephone: (916) 245-0122


DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Rafferty Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Rafferty, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. DENNY'S INC., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-24706-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff all earned minimum wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy and practice
of paying its servers sub-minimum hourly wages, tip-credit wages
without informing them of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by enforcing this policy or
practice even when it required those employees to perform
non-tipped work that is unrelated to their tip occupation says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendant's Denny's
restaurant.

The Defendant owns and operates a chain of Denny's
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 740-1975
          Email: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Phone: (480) 382-5176
          Fax: (480) 304-3805
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                 chris@bendaulaw.com

               - and –

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          Andrew J. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 525-8890
          Fax: (216) 642-5814
          Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com

               - and –

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brady, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Pen Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Phone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
                 rgray@cwglaw.com


DNC SERVICES: Pa Democratic State Panel Files Petition to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Permission to Appeal was filed by the Defendants in
the class action styled as Bethany Katz, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. PENNSYLVANIA
DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE, DNC SERVICES CORP, DBA Democratic
National Committee, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 19-8043 (3rd
Cir., U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Nov. 7, 2019).

The Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee (PADSC) is the
governing body of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Founded in
1792, the Committee is responsible for directing and promoting the
guiding principles and core values of the institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Personal: 856-265-4620
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Personal: 856-685-7420
          Swartz Swidler
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          [NTC Retained]

The Defendants-Petitioners is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Christman, Esq.
          Fox Rothschild
          10 Sentry Parkway
          P.O. Box 3001, Suite 200
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Personal: 610-397-6500
          [NTC Retained]

               - and -

          Thomas J. Barton, Esq.
          Drinker Biddle & Reath
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Personal: 215-988-2834
          [NTC Retained]

               - and -

          William Stafford, Esq.
          Perkins Coie
          1201 Third Avenue
          Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Personal: 206-359-6217
          [NTC Retained]


ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Faces Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Environment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2019, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in two class action suits related to its
merger with WSP Global Inc. (WSP) entitled, Jordan Rosenblatt v.
Ecology & Environment, Inc., et al. and Randall Meidenbauer v.
Ecology & Environment Inc. et al., respectively.

On August 28, 2019, Ecology's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WSP. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ecology will
receive $15.00 in cash and a special dividend of up to $0.50 for
each share of Ecology common stock they own.

On October 8 and 14, 2019, two complaints challenging the Merger
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Ecology &
Environment, Inc., et al. and Randall Meidenbauer. v. Ecology &
Environment Inc. et al., respectively.

The Rosenblatt complaint was filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, while the
Meidenbauer complaint was filed as an individual action on behalf
of the named plaintiff only. Both complaints name as defendants the
Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.

The Rosenblatt complaint generally alleges violations of federal
securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies
in the preliminary proxy statement for the Merger that the Company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on
September 26, 2019, and the Meidenbauer complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported
disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement for the
Merger that the Company filed with the SEC on October 8, 2019.

The complaints seek various forms of relief, including a
preliminary injunction preventing the Company from proceeding with
the stockholders meeting or the consummation of the Merger until
the alleged material information omitted from the proxy statement
is disclosed, rescission of the Merger if it is consummated,
damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.

Ecology and Environment said, "The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaints but believe that the claims asserted
against them are without merit."

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (EEI) is a global broad-based
environmental consulting firm. The Company offers consulting
services in variety of sectors including energy, natural resource
management and restoration, green programs, hazardous material
services and health sciences. EEI serves both commercial and
government clients. The company is based in Lancaster, New York.


ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electronic
Commodities Exchange, L.P. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10397 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P. (trade name Ritani) is in the
Jewelry, Precious Stones and Precious Metals business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated class
action lawsuit against Evercore Group L.L.C. (EGL) remains
pending.

Beginning on or about November 16, 2016, several putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Adeptus
Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and certain others, including EGL as
underwriter, in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public
offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint was filed
asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in
connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant.

On November 21, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, and the defendants filed motions to dismiss on February
5, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss
were granted as to the claims relating to the initial public
offering and the May 2015 secondary public offering, but denied as
to the claims relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary
public offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 293 shares of common stock in the July
2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $30,800, but did not underwrite any shares
in the June 2016 secondary public offering. On September 25, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating only to the July
2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings.

On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition. On
February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
after having been granted leave to amend by the court.

On March 4, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to
the second amended complaint.

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

Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The company
was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name
to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend Facial Recognition Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to facial
recognition feature that violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief.

On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2018, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's
petition for review of the class certification order and stayed the
proceeding.

On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order.

The company plans to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the
decision of the Ninth Circuit. The district court has not yet
scheduled a trial date, but it could be scheduled as early as the
first quarter of 2020.

Facebook said, "Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit,
and we are vigorously defending it, we believe there is a
reasonable possibility that the ultimate potential loss related to
this matter could be material."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: March 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in connection
with a third-party cyber-attack.

Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with the company's platform and user data practices as
well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such
data with third parties in violation of our terms and policies, and
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages.

These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action described above relating
to the company's platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

The company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and it is
vigorously defending them. In addition, the company's platform and
user data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse
of certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), SEC, state attorneys general, and other
government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other
jurisdictions.

In July 2019, the company entered into a settlement and modified
consent order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which is pending federal
court approval, and the company also entered into a final
settlement to resolve the SEC inquiry.

Facebook said, "Among other matters, our settlement with the FTC
requires us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion and to significantly
enhance our practices and processes for privacy compliance and
oversight. We have recognized the penalty in accrued expenses and
other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of September 30, 2019."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: September 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend multiple putative class action suits in
connection with a third-party cyber-attack.

Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Facebook said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we
are vigorously defending them. In addition, the events surrounding
this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish Data Protection
Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries."

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

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FCA US: Class in Victorino Product Liability Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM
TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. Case No.
16cv1617-GPC(JLB). (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Carlos Victorino filed a putative first amended class
action complaint based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart
vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause
his vehicle's clutch to fail and stick to the floor. Defendant FCA
US LLC is the manufacturer of his vehicle.

The FAC alleges five causes of action for: violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); California's
unfair competition law (UCL); a state law breach of implied
warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(Song-Beverly Act); a federal law breach of implied warranty
pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and unjust
enrichment.

Before the District Court is Plaintiff Carlos Victorino's renewed
motion for class certification after the stay in the case was
lifted when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Nguyen v.
Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019).

In the renewed motion for class certification, Plaintiff has
abandoned his prior class definition which included a nationwide
implied warranty class and included used vehicles. Now, Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class to include "All persons who purchased or
leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new Class
Vehicle."

In the present case, Plaintiff moves for class certification solely
on the Song-Beverly claim and not the MMWA or the UCL claims.
Accordingly, the District Court limits its ruling solely on the
issue of whether a Song-Beverly class should be certified.

Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)

Defendant's focal argument is that Plaintiff has not proven, with
evidence, that common questions of law or fact predominate on the
question of whether there is a defect in ALL class vehicles at the
time of purchase on the claim for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability. The fact that Plaintiff's vehicle has not yet
exhibited the defect demonstrates that not all class vehicles have
a defective reservoir hose.

Consequently, Plaintiff's failure to prove there is a defect in all
Class Vehicles renders his motion for class certification deficient
on predominance as well as whether the defect caused the claimed
damages, whether the proposed damage methodology fits his theory of
liability and whether typicality and adequacy have been satisfied.
In response, Plaintiff argues that common evidence shows that every
Class Vehicle had a defective reservoir hose at the time of sale.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members. Predominance is
satisfied when common questions present a significant aspect of the
case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a
single adjudication. In addition, class damages must be
sufficiently traceable to plaintiff's liability case.  

As a threshold matter, the District Court addresses both parties'
argument that the Court made certain findings in prior orders that
support their positions on whether predominance has been satisfied.
Plaintiff argues that the Court concluded that ALL Class Vehicles
contain the clutch defect while Defendant argues that the Court
found that Plaintiff cannot prove that ALL the Class Vehicles have
the defective clutch reservoir hose.

The District Court disagrees with both parties' construction of its
prior orders.

On summary judgment, the Court, on June 14, 2017, stated that FCA
recognized in its reply brief that Plaintiff's vehicle may have a
reservoir hose that could leach plasticizer.  Contrary to
Plaintiff's argument, the Court did not conclude that FCA admitted
that all Class Vehicles were equipped with a defective reservoir
hose, but only that the Class Vehicles may be equipped with one. On
May 10, 2018, on FCA's motion for reconsideration, the Court
granted summary judgment on the CLRA, related UCL and unjust
enrichment claims, which require a showing of the existence of a
defect, because Plaintiff had not presented evidence that his
vehicle suffered from a defective reservoir hose that leaked
plasticizer.  

Based on this, Defendant argues that the Court concluded that not
all Class Vehicles were defective at the time of sale. However, the
Court only concluded that Plaintiff had not yet come forward with
evidence that the clutch defect in his vehicle was caused by a
defective reservoir hose that was leaking plasticizer for purposes
of the CLRA and related claims and not on the breach of implied
warranty claim. The fact that Plaintiff's vehicle has not yet
manifested a defect is not a required showing on class
certification and is a merits-based question.
  
The Court declines to consider or rely on the parties'
misconstruction of the Court's prior orders in ruling on the
instant class certification motion and instead considers whether,
on the existing record, Plaintiff has demonstrated that common
issues of fact and law will predominate on the claim for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) provides
that every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this
state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer's and the retail
seller's implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. Unless
specific disclaimer methods are followed, an implied warranty of
merchantability accompanies every retail sale of consumer goods in
the state. An implied warranty of merchantability under the
Song-Beverly Act requires that consumer goods are fit for the
ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

Here, the FAC alleges that the implied warranty included, among
other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their
Clutch Systems were manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or
sold by FCA were safe and reliable for providing transportation and
(ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their Clutch Systems
would be fit for their intended use while the Class Vehicles were
being operated.

In his motion, Plaintiff argues that common issues predominate
regarding whether the Class Vehicles are merchantable and whether
the defect constitutes an unreasonable safety risk because all
Class Vehicles were equipped with the same defectively designed
Clutch System at the time of sale.  

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to prove
with evidentiary support that common questions predominate on the
issue of whether there was a defect in all Class Vehicles at the
time of sale; therefore, individual questions will predominate over
common ones. Defendant explains that this is not an issue
concerning manifestation of a defect but whether each Class Vehicle
had a defect at all. FCA asserts that this is also not an issue
concerning a design defect that applies to all vehicles but a
non-uniform manufacturing defect that affected only a limited
number of Class Vehicles. FCA maintains that it has admitted that a
limited number of the Class Vehicles were sold with a reservoir
hose that were found to leach excessive plasticizer that could
contaminate the clutch system and cause the pedal down issue.

The parties present a factual dispute on the merits of whether
there was a defect on all Class Vehicles at the time of sale and is
not proper on a motion for class certification. The Court's role on
class certification is to determine whether common issues of fact
or law predominate over individual questions.   

On this question, Plaintiff does not need to prove the existence of
a defect. In order to determine whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement is met, the Court need only consider
Plaintiffs' theory of the case and the type of evidence that
Plaintiffs will use to prove this theory.

Since the beginning of the litigation, Plaintiff has alleged that
the Class Vehicles contain a design defect that was inherent in all
Class Vehicles at the time of sale. Plaintiff's expert has also
opined that the defect was present at the time of sale in all Class
Vehicles. Plaintiff's theory of the case is that the Class Vehicles
had a defective Clutch System at the time of sale and was not
remedied by the X62 Extended Warranty.  

Damages

Plaintiff contends that his damages model comports with his theory
of liability following the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Nguyen where
the court found that the plaintiff's benefit-of-the-bargain damages
model, similar to the one proposed by Victorino, is cognizable
under the Song-Beverly Act and comported with his theory of
liability.  

Plaintiff must present a damages model that is consistent with his
liability case, and the court must conduct a rigorous analysis to
determine whether that is so. Plaintiff must be able to show that
his damages stemmed from the defendant's actions that created the
legal liability. While a plaintiff must present the likely method
for determining class damages, it is not necessary to show that
this method will work with certainty at this time.

Comcast demands that Plaintiff demonstrates, with evidence, that
there is a class-wide method of determining damages that is
consistent with his theory of liability.  

In Nguyen, the plaintiff alleged a defect in the manual
transmission of his vehicle arguing that the CSC had a design flaw
because of its material make-up, including aluminum/plastic, that
did not effectively transfer heat. The plaintiff's theory of
liability was that the defect was inherent in each of the Class
Vehicles at the time of purchase, regardless of when and if the
defect manifested" and was not based on the performance of the
clutch system.  

Here, similarly, Plaintiff's theory is that all the Class Vehicles
inherently had a defective Clutch System at the time of sale and
the benefit of the bargain theory purports to measure the economic
harm at the point of sale or before based on the difference in
value between a defective and a defect-free Clutch System.  

This benefit of the bargain theory claims to measure the difference
in the value represented and the value actually received, what the
vehicle is worth with and without the defect and are susceptible of
measurement across the entire class. In arriving at this
measurement, Boyles proposes that payment in the amount of the cost
necessary to cure the Clutch Defect would make Class Members whole
and provide them with the benefit of their bargain.

Therefore, under the ruling in Nguyen, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has presented a benefit of the bargain damages model that
is consistent with his theory that all Class Vehicles were equipped
with a defective reservoir hose at the time of sale.  

In sum, predominance has been satisfied under Rule 23(a)(3).

Superiority under Rule 23(b)(3)

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must also demonstrate that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Superiority requires a
consideration of (A) the class members' interests in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions (B) the
extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
already begun by or against class members (C) the desirability or
undesirability of concentrating the litigation in the particular
forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

The superiority requirement tests whether classwide litigation of
common issues will reduce litigation costs and promote greater
efficiency.

Plaintiff asserts that the four factors to support superiority are
met given the size of the class and the costs of litigating on an
individual basis relative to the potentially small recovery.
Defendant responds that numerous individual issues would require
separate mini-trials and make the case unmanageable. However, as
analyzed above, the Court concludes that common issues predominate
and having class members file separate lawsuits will increase
litigations costs and not be efficient. A determination whether a
defect exists in all vehicles will not require individual
determinations, and therefore, a class action is the superior
method of efficiently and fairly adjudicating Plaintiff and the
class members' claims in this case.   

Consequently, the Court finds the superiority requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) met.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)

Numerosity and Commonality

Plaintiff argues that the class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy
Rule 23(a) and commonality has been met. Defendant does not
challenge Plaintiff's argument that the putative class is
sufficiently numerous nor that commonality has been satisfied.

To establish numerosity, a plaintiff must show that the represented
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.


Plaintiff states that over 2000 class vehicles were sold in
California. Based on these numbers, the Court concludes that the
numerosity element has been met.

As to commonality, Rule 23(a)(2) requires Plaintiff to show there
are questions of law or fact common to the class. Commonality
requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have
suffered the same injury.

Plaintiff asserts that the common question on the breach of implied
warranty is whether the defectively designed Clutch System renders
the Class Vehicles unmerchantable. He argues that common evidence
will show that the Class Vehicles were not fit for their ordinary
purposes and that all Class Vehicles were unmerchantable when they
were sold. He further contends that the existence of the Clutch
Defect is also a common question as Defendant implemented the X62
Extended Warranty to apply to all Class Vehicles to address the
alleged defect without distinguishing between models or model
years. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff's commonality argument
under Rule 23(a)(2).

Again, as it found in the prior order denying class certification,
the Court agrees with Plaintiff and concludes that common questions
apply to the entire class and commonality has been met.

Typicality

Under typicality, the Court must determine whether the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class.

Plaintiff argues that his claims concern the purchase or lease of
the Class Vehicle equipped with a defectively designed clutch
system at the time of purchase and his and the proposed class'
common injury is the overpayment of his Class Vehicle when he
purchased it which is typical of the class.

In response, Defendant argues that Victorino's self-serving
statement that his claims are based on the purchase or lease of a
new Class Vehicle equipped with a defectively designed Clutch
System is not proof that his vehicle is equipped with a defective
reservoir hose.

FCA challenges to typicality is premised on its argument that
Plaintiff has not provided any proof that his vehicle has a
defective reservoir hose that leaches plasticizer, and therefore,
his claim is not typical of the class. Because the Court rejected
FCA's argument that Plaintiff did not have to prove that his
vehicle has a defective reservoir hose on class certification,
FCA's argument is without merit. Victorino as well as the proposed
class members allege their Clutch Systems were defective when they
purchased their vehicles and seek damages for breach of the implied
warranty.   
Plaintiff's injuries and those of the class align as they all
suffered the same injury, the overpayment of their vehicles, and
typicality has been demonstrated.

Adequacy

As to adequacy, Rule 23(a)(4) provides that class representatives
must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In
analyzing whether Rule 23(a)(4) has been met, the Court must ask
two questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have
any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the
named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously
on behalf of the class?

Plaintiff asks the Court to rely on its prior ruling finding
adequacy. Defendant argues that adequacy is lacking because
Plaintiff will be subject to unique defenses that will become the
focus of the litigation. FCA admits that 164 of the proposed class
members have a defective reservoir hose but Plaintiff is not one of
them; therefore, he is not adequate because the defense against his
claim will be focused on whether his vehicle was not merchantable
due to a defective reservoir hose.

Plaintiff's theory of liability is that he and all putative class
members were harmed at the time of purchase irregardless if the
defect manifested at that time. Whether Plaintiff's vehicle had
manifested a defect is not relevant at this stage and his case
rises or falls based on the common proof he claims he will
introduce at trial. Therefore, the fact that Plaintiff's vehicle
had not yet manifested a defect does not make the defense the focus
of the litigation.  

The Court concludes that adequacy has been met.

Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff Victorino's
renewed motion for class certification. The Court certifies a Class
consisting of: All persons who purchased or leased in California,
from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.

Carlos Victorino is appointed as Class Representative, the Court
further rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order at
https://tinyurl.com/y25lpo35  from Leagle.com

Carlos Victorino, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R.
Padgett - Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Mark
Alan Ozzello - mcampbell@murphycampbell.com - Capstone Law, APC,
Robert Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -
Capstone Law APC, Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com
- Capstone Law APC & Trisha K. Monesi
-Trisha.Monesi@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law, APC.

Adam Tavitian, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett -
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Jordan L.
Lurie - Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com - Pomerantz LLP, Robert
Kenneth Friedl  -robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law
APC & Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone
Law APC.

FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski , 505 N 7th St, St. Louis,
MO 63101, Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101,
pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N
7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101,  pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr. ,
Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101,  pro hac
vice, William M. Low , Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin Mendelson
Boniske , Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP, 401 West A Street, Suite
2600, San Diego, CA 92101


FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Seeks to Certify Loan Originators Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL MCDERMOTT and DOUGLAS
FINNEGAN, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, JOHN T. CALK, and STEVE CALK,
Case No. 14 CV 6657 (WFK)(SJB) (E.D.N.Y.), asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23 class consisting of the forty-nine
      (49) loan originators who worked for DE Capital, A Division
      of The Federal Savings Bank under the Marketing Services
      Agreement entered into between The Federal Savings Bank and
      Douglas Elliman Real Estate;

   2. appointing Named Plaintiff Michael McDermott as Class
      Representative;

   3. appointing the law firms of Neil H. Greenberg & Associates,
      P.C., Erik H. Langeland, P.C., and Stephan Zouras, LLP as
      Class Counsel; and

   4. approving the Proposed Notice of Class Action and directing
      that such notice be distributed to the Class Members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Reilly, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Telephone: (516) 228-5100
          E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
          ERIK LANGELAND, P.C.
          733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354-6270
          E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


FLEX LTD: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit Due Dec. 4
--------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2019, that defendants have a December 4,
2019 deadline to move to dismiss the putative class action pending
before the Northern District of California federal district court.


On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and the Securities and Exchange
Commisssion (SEC) filings made during the putative class period of
January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the
Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the
case.

On November 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and analyst and
investor conferences and expanding the putative class period
through October 25, 2018. On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its
prior order appointing lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel
and reopened the lead plaintiff appointment process.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. Lead plaintiff's deadline to
file a further amended complaint is November 8, 2019, and
Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss is December 4, 2019.

Flex said, "Any existing or future lawsuits could be
time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the
attention and resources of our management and other key employees,
as well as harm our reputation, business, financial condition or
results of operations."

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.



FREE ENERGY: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREE ENERGY SAVINGS COMPANY, LLC,
D/B/A QUALITY CONSERVATION SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02072 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited autodialed text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, part of QCS's marketing plan includes
sending text messages en masse to consumers directing them to
enroll to see if they qualify for energy saving programs by
visiting QCS's website QCSCA.com/enroll. Unfortunately, QCS caused
such text messages to be sent using an autodialer without first
obtaining the necessary prior express consent. To make matters
worse, consumers have received multiple text messages despite
having registered their phone numbers on the Do Not Call registry,
the lawsuit says.

QCS is a for-profit company that provides energy-saving
improvements to residences in California's Bay Area and the State's
Greater Los Angeles Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Afshin Siman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AFSHIN SIMAN
          74 6210 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 211
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (424) 229-9778
          E-mail: siman@simanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Peters, Wolf and Cheng Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suits entitled, Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 4:19-cv-00114) Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), and Cheng v. Total System Services, et
al. (Case No: 1:19-cv-01513-UNA) have been voluntarily dismissed

On May 27, 2019, Global Payments and Total System Services, Inc.
("TSYS") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger
Agreement") providing for the merger of TSYS with and into Global
Payments, with Global Payments as the surviving entity (the
"Merger"). TSYS is a leading global payments provider, offering
seamless, secure and innovative solutions across the payments
spectrum - for issuers, merchants and consumers.

Six putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were
filed.

Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System
Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on
July 18, 2019.

The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et
al. (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019.

The fourth lawsuit, captioned Hickey v. Total System Services,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019.

The fifth lawsuit, captioned, Cason v. Total System Services, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-07471) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 9,
2019.

The sixth lawsuit, captioned, Cheng v. Total System Services, et
al. (Case No: 1:19-cv-01513-UNA) was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on August 13, 2019.

The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other matters,
claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement
with the SEC.

Global Payments and TSYS released supplemental disclosures relating
to the Merger in late August 2019, and the Peters lawsuit, the Wolf
lawsuit and the Cheng lawsuit have been voluntarily dismissed.

Global Payments Inc., incorporated in September, 2000, is a
provider of payment technology services. The Company provides
payment and digital commerce solutions. The Company operates
through three segments: North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The
company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Moves to Certify 3 Classes and 1 Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ADTRADER, INC., et al. v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), seek an order
certifying the DBM Advertiser Class, DBM-AdX Advertiser Subclass,
AdX Advertiser Class, and AdWords Advertiser Class.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the DBM
Advertiser Class, DBM-AdX Advertiser Sub-Class, AdX Advertiser
Class, and AdWords Advertiser Class only as to the issue of
Google's liability for breach of contract relevant to each
class/sub-class.

Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML Consult Ltd.,
Ad Crunch Ltd., and Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc., define
the four proposed classes for the specified claims:

   1. The DBM Advertiser Class for breach of the DBM Agreement.
      The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, and
      Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this
      class.  The members of this class are defined as:

      All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Bid
      Manager advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick
      Advertising Platform Agreement for the United States; (2)
      who were charged by Google through their DoubleClick Bid
      Manager accounts for clicks or impressions on
      advertisements appearing on the website of any third-party
      publisher; and (3) who did not receive refunds or credits
      from Google even though it withheld payment to that
      publisher for those clicks or impressions;

   2. The DBM-AdX Advertiser Sub-Class for breach of the
      DBM Agreement, breach of the AdX Advertiser Agreement,
      violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
      and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
      ("UCL").  The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML,
      and Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this
      class.  The members of this class are defined as:

      All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Bid
      Manager advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick
      Advertising Platform Agreement for the United States;
      (2) whose Google DoubleClick Ad Exchange advertiser
      accounts were subject to the DoubleClick Ad Exchange Master
      Service Agreement for the United States; (3) who were
      charged by Google through their DoubleClick Bid Manager
      accounts for clicks or impressions on advertisements
      appearing on any Ad Exchange publisher website at any time
      during the applicable limitations period; and (4) who did
      not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it
      withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or
      impressions in connection with any invalid activity or any
      breach of contract, including any policy violation;

   3. The AdX Advertiser Class for breach of the AdX Advertiser
      Agreement, violation of the FAL and violation of the UCL.
      The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, and
      Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this
      class.  The members of this class are defined as:

      All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Ad
      Exchange advertiser accounts were subject to the
      DoubleClick Ad Exchange Master Service Agreement for the
      United States; (2) who were charged by Google through their
      Ad Exchange Buyer accounts for clicks or impressions on
      advertisements appearing on any Ad Exchange publisher
      website at any time during the applicable limitations
      period; and (3) who did not receive refunds or credits from
      Google even though it withheld payment to that publisher
      for those clicks or impressions in connection with any
      invalid activity or any breach of contract, including any
      policy violation; and

   4. The AdWords Advertiser Class for breach of the AdWords
      Agreement, violation of the FAL, and violation of
      the UCL.  The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML,
      Ad Crunch, and SCB be appointed class representatives for
      this class.  The members for this class are defined as:

      All persons and entities: (1) whose Google AdWords
      advertiser accounts were subject to the Google Inc.
      Advertising Program Terms for the United States; (2) who
      were charged by Google through their AdWords accounts for
      clicks or impressions on advertisements appearing on any
      DoubleClick Ad Exchange publisher website at any time
      during the applicable limitations period; and (3) who did
      not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it
      withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or
      impressions in connection with any invalid activity or any
      breach of contract, including any policy violation.

Excluded from the proposed classes are Google's officers,
directors, managerial employees, and their immediate families, as
well as this Court and the Court's immediate family members.  The
Plaintiffs ask that Gaw Poe LLP be appointed class counsel for each
class.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 20, 2020, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML CONSULT Ltd.,
Ad Crunch Ltd., Fresh Break Ltd., and Specialized Collections
Bureau, Inc., are represented by:

          Randolph Gaw, Esq.
          Mark Poe, Esq.
          Samuel Song, Esq.
          Victor Meng, Esq.
          Flora Vigo, Esq.
          GAW POE LLP
          4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-7451
          Facsimile: (415) 737-0642
          E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com
                  mpoe@gawpoe.com
                  ssong@gawpoe.com
                  vmeng@gawpoe.com
                  fvigo@gawpoe.com

GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grizzly Industrial,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grizzly Industrial,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10390 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Grizzly Industrial, Inc. is a national retail and internet company
providing a wide variety of high-quality woodworking and
metalworking machinery, power tools, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUESS INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guess, Inc. The case
is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guess, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10441 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019).

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

Guess is an American clothing brand and retailer. In addition to
clothing for both men and women, Guess markets other fashion
accessories such as watches, jewelry, perfumes, and shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOUSTON, TX: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Perez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, upheld the
trial court order dismissing of Perez' claims in the case captioned
ELIZABETH C. PEREZ, Appellant, v. SYLVESTER TURNER, MAYOR, KARUN
SREERAMA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING, AND THE CITY OF
HOUSTON, Appellees, Case No. 01-16-00985-CV. (Tex. App.).

The case is a suit contesting a City of Houston drainage fee
ordinance.  Elizabeth Perez sought a judgment declaring the Houston
drainage fee ordinance invalid, an injunction against the
assessment, collection, and expenditure of taxes and fees pursuant
to the ordinance and reimbursement, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated persons or entities, of taxes and fees
assessed and collected pursuant to the ordinance and paid under
duress.

On December 9, 2016, the trial court dismissed Perez's lawsuit for
want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court found that
Perez's "purported constitutional claims" were not ripe for
adjudication; that Perez had "no standing to challenge the
validity, legality, and/or constitutionality of the assessment
and/or collection of City of Houston drainage fees, the November
2010 Pay-As-You-Go charter amendment [Proposition I], and/or the
April 2011 [D]rainage [Fee] [O]rdinance because she has suffered no
particularized injury as a matter of law;" that she had "no
standing to seek money damages and/or a refund as a taxpayer as a
matter of law;" and that governmental immunity also barred her
refund claim.

Perez appealed.

On review, the Appellate Court concludes that the trial court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims dependent on the
Charter Amendment's having been declared void, and, thus, it
properly dismissed those claims based on the City's plea to the
jurisdiction.

The Appellate Court opines that Perez cannot rely on the line of
cases she cites in her brief on appeal, which provide for, as she
characterizes it, "reimbursement of illegal fees and taxes . . .
when the public entity compels compliance with a void law and
subjects a person to punishment if he refuses or fails to comply."
Those cases do not apply to a situation, like the one here, where
the underlying law, here, the Drainage Fee Ordinance has not been
declared invalid and no specific showing of any illegality of the
fees collected has been made, the Appellate Court states.

The Appellate Court further disagrees with Perez's argument that
her pleadings and jurisdictional evidence are sufficient to
establish her standing to pursue her claims for a judgment
declaring the Drainage Fee Ordinance illegal.

"We agree with the City that Perez has failed to plead or
demonstrate that the City has actually expended a significant
amount of specifically identified funds illegally. Accordingly, we
conclude that Perez has failed to establish that she has taxpayer
standing to challenge any illegal expenditures by the City as
pleaded in this case. Because Perez lacks standing to pursue the
claims she filed here, and her lack of standing is sufficient to
support the trial court's grant of the City's plea to the
jurisdiction, we need not address her remaining issues regarding
governmental immunity and ripeness," the Appellate Court opines.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 17, 2019 Opinion
at https://tinyurl.com/y5ep8bwm from Leagle.com. Appellate panel
consists of Justices Evelyn Keyes, Lloyd, and Kelly.

Collyn A. Peddie , Lyric Centre440 Louisiana, Ste. 900, Houston, TX
77002-4205, Patricia L. Casey , One Briarlake Plaza Suite 150, 2000
W. Sam Houston Pkwy, Houston, TX 77042-3644, for Sylvester Turner,
Mayor, Karun Sreerama, Director of Public Works and Engineering and
The City of Houston, Appellee.

Dylan Benjamen Russell , Galleria Tower II, 5051 Westheimer, Suite
1200, Houston, Texas 77056, Andy Taylor  -
ataylor@andytaylorlaw.com - Joseph O. Slovacek , Galleria Tower II,
5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas 77056, for Elizabeth C.
Perez, Appellant.


HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits alleging violation of
antitrust laws.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The Company
disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will defend its
interests vigorously.

Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity."

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

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing in LIBOR-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that briefing on
the motion to dismiss in the LIBOR-related class action suit is
ongoing.

On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical
purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively,
Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two
municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia,
Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE
Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA") (the "ICE Defendants"), as
well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective
subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Panel Bank Defendants").

On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on
behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the
Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union.

IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks,
including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based
upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the
Panel Bank Defendants). On July 1, 2019, the various plaintiffs
referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
ICE and Panel Bank Defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the
period February 1, 2014 to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially
low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing
payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported
class.

As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended
complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton
Antitrust Acts and seeks unspecified treble damages and other
relief. The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on August 30, 2019 and briefing
of these motions is not yet complete. ICE intends to vigorously
defend the matter.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


IROBOT CORP: Faces Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837.

On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements
and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on
Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company’s subsequent
financial performance.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's
allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $117M Deal Over Pelvic Mesh Devices Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that Johnson & Johnson has agreed to a $117
million multi-state settlement over allegations it deceptively
marketed its pelvic mesh products, which support women's sagging
pelvic organs.

Ohio's attorney general said October 17 an investigation found J&J,
the world's biggest health products maker, violated state consumer
protection laws by not fully disclosing the devices' risks.
Numerous women have come forward claiming the hammock-like devices
caused severe pain, bleeding and infections.

The settlement, which covers 41 states and the District of
Columbia, requires the company to fully disclose risks and stop
making inaccurate safety claims. J&J said that the settlement
doesn't include admission of any misconduct.

More than 2 million women implanted the medical devices commonly
used to repair weak or damaged tissue and provide support in the
event of a pelvic organ prolapse, or POP. But then patients across
Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States filed
tens of thousands of cases against Johnson & Jonson and other
pelvic mesh device makers on the devices. By 2017, more than 700
women in Australia filed a class-action suit against Johnson &
Johnson.

That same year a record jury verdict of $57 million against Johnson
& Johnson was awarded to a Pennsylvania woman who was injured by
the product. "I'm in excruciating pain when I'm standing, it hurts
when I'm sitting," Ella Ebaugh, 51, told CBS Philadelphia at the
time.

This year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April also
flagged the mesh products when Boston Scientific was ordered to
stop selling and distributing the mesh products. The FDA said the
company had not proven the efficacy or safety of the products.

The settlement comes as J&J is swamped with thousands of other
lawsuits claiming patients were harmed by products including baby
powder, opioid painkillers and prescription drugs. The publicly
traded consumer products and pharmaceutical giant has
underperformed the S&P 500 stock index this year.

An Oklahoma judge recently determined J&J should pay nearly $500
million to help address the state's opioid crisis. [GN]


JUST BRANDS: JustCBD Products Contain THC, Darrow Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Darrow, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Just Brands USA, Inc., SSGI Financial
Services, Inc., and Just Brands, FL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:2019cv07079 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of
purchasers of "JustCBD" products in the state of Illinois alleging
that the Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' "JustCBD" products
contain a label that there is "NO THC." However, the Defendants'
"JustCBD" products contain THC. THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is
the chemical responsible for most of marijuana's psychological
effects.

The World Health Organization says, "Cannabidiol (or CBD) is a
naturally occurring cannabinoid found in cannabis plants. CBD is
used by consumers for numerous medical conditions, including
without limitation, epilepsy, insomnia, chronic pain, arthritis,
and anxiety.

The Defendants manufacture, label, distribute, and sell "JustCBD"
products in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron Rapier, Esq.
          RAPIER LAW FIRM
          1770 Park St., Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (815) 782 5478
          Facsimile: (815) 327 3449
          E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Vatter Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned IN RE KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17 Civ. 1944 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

In this putative class action against Kandi Technologies Group,
Inc., Co-Lead Plaintiffs, Gary Vatter and Gerald Klein assert
causes of action pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
individually and on behalf of similarly situated shareholders.
Current and/or former Kandi executives XiaoMing Hu, Bing Mei,
XiaoYing Zhu and Cheng Wang are also named as defendants. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq.

Defendants Kandi, Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu, Cheng Wang
filed a motion to dismiss the CAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.  

LEGAL STANDARDS

When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true
and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Heightened Pleading Standard under Rule 9(b)

A complaint alleging securities fraud must satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) by
stating the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity.
These requirements apply whenever a plaintiff alleges fraudulent
conduct, regardless of whether fraudulent intent is an element of a
claim.  

Specifically, Rule 9(b) requires that a securities fraud claim
based on misstatements must identify: (1) the allegedly fraudulent
statements (2) the speaker (3) where and when the statements were
made and (4) why the statements were fraudulent.  

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

To state a private civil claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
a plaintiff must plead that: (1) the defendant made a material
misrepresentation or omission (2) with scienter, i.e., a wrongful
state of mind (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security and (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation
or omission, thereby (5) causing economic loss.  

Scienter

To satisfy the PSLRA's pleading requirements for scienter, a
plaintiff must allege facts with particularity that would give rise
to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required
state of mind. To allege the scienter of a corporate defendant, a
plaintiff needs not name a specific individual who acted with the
requisite scienter he needs only plead facts that create a strong
inference that someone whose intent could be imputed to the
corporation did so.
The scienter of an employee acting within the scope of employment
can be imputed to the employer.  
A plaintiff may establish scienter by alleging facts that either
(1) show that the defendant had both the motive and opportunity to
commit the alleged fraud or (2) constitute strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness Where the
plaintiff pleads scienter by conscious misbehavior or recklessness
rather than motive, the strength of the circumstantial allegations
must be correspondingly greater.

Here, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter
based on motive and opportunity are inadequate because they fail to
allege a concrete and personal benefit to Defendants.  
The Court agrees. To adequately plead a strong inference of
scienter based on motive and opportunity, a plaintiff must allege
that defendants benefitted in some specific and personal way from
the alleged fraud, usually with allegations of insider trading by
corporate insiders. Here, the Individual Defendants were
high-ranking corporate officers of Kandi at all relevant times,
which gives rise to the presumption of an opportunity to commit
fraud.   However, Plaintiffs do not allege that the Individual
Defendants sold any shares at any relevant time. Instead,
Plaintiffs only plead a motive to artificially inflate and maintain
the market price of Kandi securities, a motive that has been
routinely rejected by courts in this Circuit.  

The court nevertheless bears in mind that the relevant inquiry for
the Court is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively,
give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any
individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that
standard. Still, a plaintiff must plead a strong inference of
scienter for each alleged misleading statement. Therefore, the
Court considers Plaintiffs' allegations as a whole with respect to
each set of misrepresentations by Defendants to determine whether
they support a strong inference of scienter.

Kandi's Accounts Receivable

Here, Plaintiffs argue that that CAC adequately pleads strong
circumstantial evidence of Defendants' knowledge of facts
indicating that their classification of Kandi's accounts receivable
was not accurate.  Specifically, Plaintiffs identify the following:
(1) a comment letter from SEC on November 12, 2013 that raised
questions about Kandi's reported $80.8 million investment in the JV
Company and its outstanding accounts receivable (2) Defendants'
repeated disclosures of their weak internal controls in the 2013
10-K, the 2014 Q1 10-Q and 2014 Q2 10-Q and (3) that Wang, who was
the CFO of Kandi, was deeply involved in Kandi's day-to-day
operations.

Accepting Plaintiffs' pleadings as true, they nevertheless fail to
point to any specific fact that the Individual Defendants either
knew or should have known that they were misclassifying the
accounts receivable from the JV Company. Plaintiffs' only
allegation concerning the SEC comment letter states that the letter
raised questions about Kandi's outstanding accounts receivable.

However, Plaintiffs' own pleadings show that Kandi only began to
either receive or assign notes receivable in the year 2014.The SEC
letter could not have provided contradictory facts to Defendants'
later misclassification of notes receivable. As such, Plaintiffs'
reliance on In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec. Derivatives, &
ERISA Litig., 763 F.Supp.2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) is misplaced as
defendants did not dispute that the SEC memorandum provided
contradictory facts to defendants' alleged misrepresentations in
the complaint in that case.

Plaintiffs have not made such allegations here. As such, Plaintiffs
fail to specifically identify the reports or statements that
contradict Defendants' alleged misrepresentations on this regard.


Related Party Transactions

Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' misrepresentations of
their disclosures controls suffer similar defects.

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

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

Falsity

To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must establish that
Defendants made a statement that was `misleading as to a material
fact. A violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 premised on
misstatements cannot occur unless an alleged material misstatement
was false at the time it was made. A statement believed to be true,
but later shown to be false, is insufficient to establish
actionable falsity.  

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs plead falsity inadequately
because they fail to plead that Defendants knew at the time that
their alleged misrepresentations regarding their internal controls
were misleading. Plaintiffs respond by arguing that Kandi's
restatements constitute an admission of falsity. To begin with, the
court in that case was merely addressing motions in limine to
exclude evidence of restatements and did not make any determination
on falsity. While a true statement, Plaintiffs' argument fails to
address the defect in their pleadings regarding Defendants'
knowledge that their assertions were false when made. Falsity is a
failure to be truthful it is not a misapprehension,
misunderstanding or mistake of fact at the time a statement was
made.

As such, Plaintiffs' factual allegations have not specifically
shown that Defendants were aware of any facts contradicting the
statements regarding internal controls when made. As such, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that
Defendants' statements regarding internal controls were false when
made. Plaintiffs' pleadings regarding Defendants'
misclassifications of Kandi's notes receivable also fail for
substantially the same reasons.

Section 20(a) Claims

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act provides as follows:

Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person
liable under any provision of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally
with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person
to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling
person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly
induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of
action.

Defendants argue that because a claim under Section 20(a) is
predicated on a primary violation of securities law, the Section
20(a) claims must be dismissed. It is axiomatic that liability for
a Section 20(a) violation is derivative of liability for a Section
10(b) violation. In light of Plaintiff's failure to adequately
plead a primary violation, the Section 20(a) claims against the
Individual Defendants cannot stand. Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim is therefore GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6oxn9qd from
Leagle.com.

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

Gerald W. Klein, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Thomas
James McKenna - tjmckenna@gme-law.com - Gainey McKenna & Egleston &
Murielle Jacqueline Steven , Pomerantz LLP.
Igor Tavrovsky, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Alexander Hood, II , Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman ,
Pomerantz LLP & Murielle Jacqueline Steven , Pomerantz LLP.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu
& Cheng Wang, Defendants, represented by Richard Joseph lamar
Lomuscio , Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, 1177 Avenue of The Americas
Fl 41, New York, NY 10036-2714 & Ronald Zachary Ahrens –
rahrens@riker.com -Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP.

KBR INC: Appeal in Suit Against Former Subsidiary Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit initiated by former employees of the company's former
Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), is still
pending.

In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action
suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the
early 2000's. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case.

The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or
around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The
Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid
overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25 million
which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI. The
second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Chad.

The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims.  

SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December
2018.  A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019,
the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.


SSI and Exxon have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon
and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019.
The plaintiffs have not yet filed a submission to the Court of
Appeals.

KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter, and therefore we have not
accrued any loss provisions. SSI is no longer an existing entity in
Chad or the United States.  Further, we believe any amounts
ultimately paid to the former employees related to this adverse
ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the applicable
contract."

KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.


LAKE COUNTY, IL: Hardeman Files Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TAPANGA HARDEMAN, DANIEL WILLIAMS, LEWIS
MYLES, QUENTA LAMAR WASHINGTON, and LAVONTE MUREL v. COUNTY OF
LAKE, OFFICE OF THE LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF MARK CURRAN, CHIEF
DAVID WATHEN, and JOHN DOE OFFICERS and SUPERVISORS, Case No.
1:17-cv-08729 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiff Tapanga Hardeman submits her
First Amended Complaint, moves the Court for an Order certifying
this case to proceed as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves the Court to appoint
O'Connor Law Firm, LTD., as Class Counsel.

Ms. Hardeman, both individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint on December 4,
2017.  The Class Action Complaint is premised on the Defendants'
violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to humane
conditions of confinement in the Lake County Adult Correctional
Facility ("the Jail"), actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Specifically, for a three-to-four-day period, the Defendants
shutoff the Jail's water and provided inadequate alternative water
sources for hydration, hygiene, and medical purposes, subjecting
all detainees and inmates housed therein to inhumane conditions of
confinement.

The Plaintiff and all other putative Class Members were confined in
the Jail between November 7, 2017, and November 10, 2017.  At the
time of their confinement, the Plaintiff and putative Class Members
were being held as either pretrial detainees or post-conviction
inmates.  Beginning on November 7 and ending on November 10, 2017,
all sources of running water available to the Class Members were
turned off; the Plaintiff and the other individuals in the Jail
were provided 5 or fewer bottles of drinking water per day, and
were forced to use shared trashcans full of water for all personal
health and hygiene needs (including but not limited to bathing,
cleaning the surfaces within the cells, and rinsing accumulated
urine and fecal waste from the inoperable toilets in the cells).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff pled that Defendants violated the
inmates' and detainees' constitutional right to humane conditions
of confinement by shutting off the Jail's water, implementing
policies that threatened the health, safety, and well-being of all
class members, and unconstitutionally punishing detainees who
requested relief from the inhumane conditions.

The Plaintiff proposes organizing the Class into 2 subclasses,
separated into (1) a class of pretrial detainees and (2) a class of
post-conviction inmates.  Alternatively, for purposes of
calculating damages, the Court could split the 2 subclasses further
by dividing the putative Class Members based on: (1) the
individual's status as either a pretrial detainee or a
post-conviction inmate; and (2) the number of days a putative Class
Member spent in the inhumane conditions caused by the
Defendants.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin W. O'Connor, Esq.
          O'CONNOR LAW FIRM, LTD.
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 906-7609
          Facsimile: (312) 263-1913
          E-mail: koconnor@koconnorlaw.com


LAWLESS INC: Killion Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Salespeople
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DWANE KILLION, behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LAWLESS INC. and RICHARD J. LAWLESS, JR., the
Defendants, Case No. 1981CV03186 (Mass. Super., Oct. 30, 3019),
seeks damages based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages,
including overtime pay, for all hours worked above 40 hours in one
week in violation of Massachusetts General Laws.

The Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for the Defendants from
February 2018 through February 2019. The Plaintiff, as well as
other members of the Class, was compensated through a commission
program.

The Defendants' company-wide compensation structure for salespeople
was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week
was based on a percentage of each sale made by the employee. The
Defendants allegedly did not pay any additional compensation for
such work beyond the draws and commissions, the lawsuit says.

Lawless Inc. operate an automobile dealership located in Woburn,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          One State Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


LB METALS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
TORRION BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LB METALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH12577 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 29, 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.

While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
the Defendant mandated and required that employees have finger(s)
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. 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.

For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, such as in the recent Equifax, Uber,
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or
misuses, employees have mo means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of
this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says.

Biometric identifiers include fingerprints, retina and iris scans,
voiceprints, and scans of hand and face geometry.

LB Metals is a DOT registered motor carrier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEVINBOOK LAW: Baum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Levinbook Law
Firm, P.C. The case is styled as Sean Baum, Danielle Baum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06353 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., focuses on real estate transactions
and collections, to recover commercial and consumer debt.[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


LIVE NATION: Settlement Reached in Dickey Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled,
Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al.

In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The
parties reached a settlement in October 2019, and the case will be
dismissed with prejudice shortly.

The following putative class action lawsuits were filed against
Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster in the United States and Canada:

     Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois,
filed September 2018);

     Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of California,
filed September 2018);

     Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of
California, filed September 2018);

     Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018);

     McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018);

     Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al.
(Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed
September 2018);

     Gaetano v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern
District of New York, filed October 2018);

     Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed October 2018);

     Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, filed October 2018);


     Smith v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed October 2018);

     Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed November 2018); and

     Niedbalski v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed December 2018).

In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The
parties reached a settlement in October 2019, and the case will be
dismissed with prejudice shortly.

In April 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Lee lawsuit and dismissed the case. Lee
subsequently appealed the District Court's ruling to the Ninth
Circuit.

The Gaetano lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the
plaintiff in April 2019.

The Ameri lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019 in light of the
parties' agreement to arbitrate the matter, and the Vaccaro lawsuit
was settled and dismissed in June 2019.

The Messing and Niedbalski lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome
of the appeal in the Lee matter.

The remaining lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live
Nation and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended
to encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at
elevated prices.

Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts violations of
different state/provincial and federal laws. Each plaintiff also
seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased tickets on
a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in each plaintiff's
complaint.

The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known to
management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring
at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations. Further, we do not currently
believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and
considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that
will be asserted against us. We intend to vigorously defend these
actions."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.  


LULULEMON USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lululemon USA Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lululemon USA Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10430 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Lululemon USA Inc. (lululemon athletica) is a technical athletic
apparel company for yoga, running, training and most other sweaty
pursuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT
Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the
Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material
misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures
concerning the Company's and International-Matex Tank Terminals
(IMTT's) business and the sustainability of the Company's dividend
to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.

On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint. In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated
class action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the
Company's November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.
The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

Macquarie said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously
contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes are
entirely meritless."

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.


MANDARICH LAW: Lee 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 Myung Lee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06355 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 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:

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


MASIMO CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Healthsource Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that a new trial date
has not been set in the class action suit initiated by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha
Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17,
2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.


On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2019.

On October 15, 2019, the District Court issued a tentative order
denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in
part and denying in part the motions for summary judgment. On
October 18, 2019, the District Court heard arguments on the
motions. The District Court has not yet issued a final order on the
motions. The trial date previously set for November 5, 2019 was
continued by the District Court and a new trial date has not been
set.

Masimo said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the class claims, but there is no guarantee that the
Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether
any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such
loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company
in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


MCKESSON CORP: RelayHealth Unit Faces 3 Class Suits in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary RelayHealth Corporation was served with three purported
class action complaints filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by six pharmacies.

The complaints, filed in October 2019, allege that RelayHealth
violated the Sherman Act by entering into an agreement with
co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not to compete in the electronic
prescription routing market, and by conspiring with Surescripts,
LLC to monopolize that market, Powell Prescription Center, et al.
v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated
Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v. Surescripts, LLC, et al.,
1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v. Surescripts LLC, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-06627.

The complaints seek treble damages and attorney fees and costs.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.



MCKESSON CORP: Trial in True Health Class Suit Set for Aug. 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has set a
trial date of August 30, 2020, in the class action suit entitled,
True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et
al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG).

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson
sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG).

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation
plus injunctive relief. True Health Chiropractic later amended its
complaint, adding McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an
additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a
defendant.

Both plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by
sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out
of receiving the faxes.

On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and on August 22, 2016, the court denied this motion, based, in
part, on the grounds that identifying solicited faxes would require
individualized inquiries as to consent.

On August 13, 2019, the court denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether the provision of fax numbers
through product registration and the End User License Agreement
constituted prior express invitation or permission to receive the
disputed faxes. Also on August 13, 2019, the court granted
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

The court has set a trial date of August 30, 2020.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Pension Fund Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary
Retirement Systems Administration moves the Court for an order
certifying the action captioned BRS v. Volkswagen AG, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-3435 (N.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Bondholders Securities Action is part of the multidistrict
litigation entitled IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The proposed Class consists of: all persons and entities
("Bondholders") who purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen's
debt securities (the "VW Notes") exempt from registration with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") under Rule 144A of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, 17 C.F.R. Section 230.144A ("Rule
144A"), between May 23, 2014, and September 22, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby.

The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as the Class
Representative, and to designate Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
as counsel for the certified Class.

The action seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, arising from Volkswagen's material omissions and
failure to disclose in the Bond Offering Memoranda that the company
was using an illegal defeat device in millions of diesel cars
worldwide to cheat on emission tests and was at risk of losing
billions of dollars as a result, which caused investors to purchase
the VW Notes at artificially inflated prices.[CC]

Lead Plaintiff Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary
Retirement Systems Administration is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com


MDL 2873: Aguon v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is captioned as Raymond Aguon, Johnny Arceo, Benny Baza,
William Castro, David G Cepeda, Greyorio Cruz, Michael Cuasito,
Francisco C Duenas, Delfino V Garcia, Steve Hagen, Alfred C.
Ignacio, James T. Linnel, Mark Merfalen, Andrew R. Mesa, Van W.
Murer, Rudy Paco, Vicente Perez, Michael Roberto, Randy Sablan,
Lewis Santos, Ray Taitague, Edward Terlaje and Anthony Quinene,
Plaintiffs v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co.; Tyco Fire Products LP; Chemguard Inc.; Buckeye
Fire Equipment Company; Kidde-Fenwal Inc.; National Foam Inc.;
Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co.; The Chemours
Company; and The Chemours Company FC, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00141 (Oct. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Guam to the the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Oct. 29,
2019.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03057-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Honorable Richard M. Gergel. The lead case is Case No.
2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for medical monitoring and
property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated
with toxic chemicals resulting from the Defendants' harmful and
defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other
materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and the Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Aguon case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Berman, Esq.
          BERMAN, O'CONNOR AND MANN
          Bank Of Guam Building, Suite 503
          111 Chalan Santo Papa
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Telephone: (671) 477-2778
          Facsimile: (671) 477-4366
          E-mail: mjberman@pacificlawyers.law


MDL 2886: Kenney v. Allura USA Over Siding Defects Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Karen Kenney, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allura USA LLC; Plycem USA LLC,
doing business as: Allura, Plycem USA; Elementia USA Inc.;
Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01226 (Filed
Oct 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Oct 29, 2019.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03070-DCN to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the siding of the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' homes suffers from an inherent defect resulting in the
Siding cracking, splitting, warping, and breakage. The cracking
splitting, warping, and breakage create paths for eventual water
and moisture intrusion as a result.

Despite the Defendants' representations that the Siding meets the
applicable standards and building codes for performance and weather
resistance, the Siding fails prematurely and is not suitable for
use as an exterior building product, the Plaintiff alleges. As a
result of the defect in the Siding, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have incurred and will incur thousands of dollars in damages to
replace the Siding.

The Defendants' actions in connection with the manufacturing and
distributing of the Siding evidences a lack of good faith, honesty
in fact, and observance of fair dealing, so as to constitute
unconscionable commercial practices in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the lawsuit says.

The Kenney case is being consolidated with MDL 2886 in re: ALLURA
FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel Multidistrict
Litigation on April 2, 2019.

The Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning
alleged defects in exterior fiber cement siding products
manufactured and sold by common defendants Plycem USA, LLC,
Elementia USA, LLC, and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., which allegedly
are close corporate affiliates and act as alter egos of one
another.

More specifically the actions commonly allege that (1) the
Defendants' fiber cement siding products sold under the names
Allura and Maxitile are defective because they have a propensity to
crack, peel, warp, and break off soon after installation; (2) the
Defendants misrepresent that the products have a service life of 50
years, but fail in less than five years; and (3) the Defendants
uniformly misrepresent to customers that the problems are caused by
improper installation, rather than a known product defect.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class
certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its April 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the
District of South Carolina is an appropriate transferee forum. One
action on the motion is pending there, and the district is
conveniently located for a number of parties and potential
witnesses in the southeastern region of the country. The Defendants
support this district if centralization is granted over their
objection. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. David C. Norton. The
lead case is Case No.2:19-mn-02886-DCN.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 East Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 299-6350
          Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Samuel David Harrison, Esq.
          PEPPER, HAMILTON LAW FIRM-PHILADELPHIA OFFICE
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4267
          E-mail: harrisons@pepperlaw.com


MDL 2918: Barry v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Brian Barry, Plaintiff v.
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP
PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN)
CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD.,
NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK
SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD.,
AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12582 (Filed
Sept. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Eastern of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28,
2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07059-MMC to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Barry case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK
DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese
multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic
materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage
media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through
creativity." Headway Technologies provides recording head products
to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides
solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard
disk drive industry for customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent John LaPointe, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: blapointe@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


MDL 2918: Cimino v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as VINNY CIMINO, Plaintiff v.
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP
PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN)
CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD.,
NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK
SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD.,
AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.0:2019cv02406 (Filed Aug.
30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07057-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Cimino case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions
to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vildan Teske, Esq.
          Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
          TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL PLLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
          E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com
                  katz@tkkrlaw.com

               - and -

          George F. Farah, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 477-8090
          Facsimile: (804) 300-1952
          E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com


MDL 2918: Fahey v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Peter Sanchez and Brian Fahey,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.,
MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING
CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS
(H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:2019cv12407 (Filed Aug. 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07061-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Fahey case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK
DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions
to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P. Allen, Sr., Esq.
          ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC
          400 Monroe, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 962 7777
          E-mail: jamesallen@allenbrotherspllc.com


MDL 2918: Kehilat v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as KEHILAT ROMEMU CORP., on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:2019cv12459 (Filed Aug. 21,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07060-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Kehilat case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and
uninterrupted flow.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          Nyran R. Rasche, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          CAFFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864 2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864 2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
                  nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
                  ctourek@caffertyclobes.com


MDL 2918: La Barbera v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH LA BARBERA, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEADWAY
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION
TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD.,
NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK
SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD.,
AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:19cv02570-SRN-DTS
(Filed Sept. 24, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28,
2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07056-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The La Barbera case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and
uninterrupted flow. Headway Technologies provides recording head
products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company
provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of
the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conchohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (612) 940 4000
          Facsimile: (612) 940 4007
          E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com


MDL 2918: Leff v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as James Sallinger, Lauren
Sallinger and Jordan Leff, Plaintiffs v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT
PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12759 (Filed Sept. 20,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07062-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Leff case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK
DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and
uninterrupted flow. Headway Technologies provides recording head
products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company
provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of
the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          Tifanny Ellis, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (313) 800 4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  dgonaj@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopolos@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Penn Plaza, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com


MDL 2918: Zimmerman v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as PAUL THOMAS ZIMMERMAN, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12636 (Filed Sept. 9,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07058-MMC.

The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit
arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their
co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Zimmerman case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and
uninterrupted flow.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          Tiffany Ellis, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
          Detriot, Michigan 48202
          Telephone: (313) 800 4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  dgonaj@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
                  tellis@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342 0700
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com


MECHANICS BANK: Faces Kramer-Bolds Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mechanics Bank, et
al. The case is captioned as Rebecca Kramer-Bolds, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Defendant Does 1-100 and Mechanics Bank, Defendant, Case No.
34-2019-00267893-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 29, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Mechanics Bank is a community banking financial institution
headquartered in Walnut Creek, California. It was founded in 1905
and serves markets in Northern California. It operates in the San
Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas.

The Bank has over $3.5 billion in assets and over 500 associates at
30 retail branches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Savelstrov Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action styled as, Pavel
Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On November 8, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case No.18-CIV-06049, was filed in state court in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of its current executive officers and its
directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.

On January 28, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Hugh McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No.19-CIV-00574, was filed in state court in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of its current executive officers and its directors, and
certain underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. The McKay action has been consolidated with the
Savelstrov action and the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2)
has been dismissed.

Menlo said, "The Company believes that the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Accordingly, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future
charges, and the Company has not recorded any accrual for a
contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings."

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


MENN LAW FIRM: Cole Seeks Prelim. Nod of $5,000 Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KAITLYN COLE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MENN LAW FIRM, LTD., Case No.
1:19-cv-00527-WCG-JRS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff, on consent of
the Defendant, asks the Court to enter an order, which:

     (i) preliminarily approves the parties' Class Settlement
         Agreement;

    (ii) certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
         as defined in Paragraph 8 of the Agreement;

   (iii) appoints STERN THOMASSON LLP as Class Counsel;

    (iv) appoints the Plaintiff as representative of the
         Settlement Class;

     (v) sets dates for Class Members to seek exclusion from, or
         to object to, the Settlement;

    (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the Agreement;

   (vii) approves the mailing of notice to Class Members in the
         proposed form; and

  (viii) finds that mailing of such notice satisfies the
         requirements of due process.

On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (the "Litigation").  The Litigation
alleged Menn violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. by mailing consumers
initial collection letters to collect defaulted medical debts
which, inter alia, failed to accurately provide the information and
rights required by Section 1692(g)(a), contradicted the consumer's
dispute rights, and otherwise made false, deceptive, and misleading
representations including, but not limited to, that the letters
were mailed without meaningful attorney involvement.

For the purposes of settlement, the Parties stipulate to
certification of the Settlement Class, which is defined as:

     All persons to whom Menn Law Firm, Ltd. mailed an initial
     written communication to an address in the State of
     Wisconsin, between April 12, 2018 and May 3, 2019, in the
     form attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
     [Doc. 15], which was not returned as undeliverable.

Menn's business records indicate there are 175 persons, who fit
within the class definition and, therefore, are in the Settlement
Class.

Menn will create a class settlement fund of $5,000 ("Class
Recovery"), which a Third-Party Settlement Administrator
("Administrator") will distribute pro rata to each Class Member
whose Class Notice is not returned undeliverable and does not
exclude him/herself from the Settlement.  Class Members will
receive their share of the Class Recovery by check which will be
void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance.

Subject to Court approval, Menn agrees to pay the Plaintiff $2,500
for her statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(a)(2)(B), which also takes into account her services to the
Settlement Class.  In connection with Class Counsel's application
for approval of attorney's fees and costs, the Parties stipulate
that, if the Court grants the Final Order, then the Litigation is a
"successful action" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(a)(3) notwithstanding that Menn does not admit liability.  As
such, and subject to court approval, Menn agrees Class Counsel
shall be entitled to receive $39,000, which covers all fees and all
expenses arising out of the Litigation.  The award of fees, costs,
and expenses to Class Counsel shall be in addition to, and shall
not in any way reduce, the Class Recovery.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com


MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION: Faces Del Rio Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael's
Transportation Service, Inc. The case is captioned as Jacqueline
Del Rio, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Does 1-50 and Michael's Transportation Service, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00267968-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct 30, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Michael's Transportation was founded in 1983. The company's line of
business includes providing local bus charter services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436-4535
          Telephone: (818) 208-9236


MIDLAND FUNDING: Navarroli Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that his
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action entitled NICHOLAS
NAVARROLI, on behalf of himself and the class members v. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02047 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a
class action against the Defendants.

Mr. Navarroli seeks to certify a class defined as:

     (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a
     letter was sent on behalf of Defendants to collect a debt,
     (c) which debt was a credit card on which the last payment
     had been made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d)
     which letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and
     did not state that any payment may restart the statute of
     limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after July 5,
     2017 and on or before April 11, 2018.

Based on the Defendants' records and discovery responses, there are
84,207 individuals, which meet the class definition.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class and the Plaintiff
as the Class Representative.

The case arises out of the Defendants' practice of sending
individuals form letters, which offer settlement or payment plans
on time-barred credit card debts, without disclosing that making a
payment, as requested, may restart the statute of limitations.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


NESTLE USA: Cheslow Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Cheslow and Steven Prescott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NESTLE USA, INC., and DOES 1
THROUGH 100, inclusive, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Cruz to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 13,
2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-07471 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri E, Borders, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: (213)-229-9509
          Fax: (213)-625-0248
          Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                 kborders@mayerbrown.com


NORTH BEACH: Truffin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER TRUFFIN and VICTOR ARRUBARRENA, and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NORTH BEACH TAVERN LLC d/b/a
NORMAN'S TAVERN, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JASON MAMANE,
individually, and ALESSANDRO DOINO, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-24468-XXXX (Fla. Cir., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks damages
exceeding $15,000, excluding attorneys' fees or costs, for unpaid
wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs began working for the
Defendants on November 12, 2018, until January 18, 2019. Throughout
the Plaintiffs' employment, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiffs at the
required minimum wage and/or overtime rate of one and a half times
their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a
single work week, the lawsuit says.

North Beach is a local tavern featuring craft beers and spirits,
PNW wines, pizza and pub food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason, Remer, Esq.
          Miriam Brooks, Esq.
          Manuel A. Antommattei, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  mbrooks@rgpattorneys.com
                  maa@rgpattorneys.com


PALCO INC: Peel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felisha Peel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PALCO, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00795-BSM (E.D. Ark.,
Nov. 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the minimum wage and overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wages Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, the
Plaintiff contends. The Defendant failed to pay all employees a
minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 in one week and to pay
one and one-half times their regular ages for all hours worked over
40 in a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health care
worked from 2017 until September 2019.

The Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PBF ENERGY: 2 Classes Certified in Goldstein Suit
-------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the judge in Arnold
Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., certified two
limited classes of property owners, rejecting two other proposed
subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification. On April 15, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth Circuit for Permission
to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. The
appeal is currently pending with the Ninth Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.

The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.

PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF ENERGY: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kendig Suit
------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in
Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining
Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company, have reached a tentative agreement in principle
to settle the class action suit.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets. On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal
Court, California Central District.

A mediation hearing between the parties was held on August 23,
2019. From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a
tentative agreement in principle to settle.

PBF Energy said, "Although the settlement resolution has not been
finalized, we presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PHOENIX, AZ: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Puente Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting in part and denying in past Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned Puente, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-18-02778-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.).

On August 22, 2017, President Donald Trump held a rally at the
Phoenix Convention Center, and approximately 6,000
demonstrators--both pro-Trump and anti-Trump--gathered outside the
Convention Center.

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

At issue is Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification, the
Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Class Certification
Record, Motion to File Exhibit under Seal , and Motion for Leave to
File a Sur-Reply, as well as Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions
of Defendants' Supplements or Alternatively for Leave to Respond to
Defendants' Filings.


LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

Proposed Damages Class

Failsafe Class Definition

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition
fails, somewhat ironically, because it is failsafe that is, it
limits membership to plaintiffs described by their theory of
liability in the class definition such that the definition
presupposes success on the merits.  

Put another way, Defendants argue that, by limiting class
membership to those who did not engage in any conduct justifying
the Defendants' use of force against them, the class definition
requires that the Court examine the merits of each individual's
claim before it can determine whether the individual is a member of
the class, which Defendants contend is unacceptable.

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

Plaintiffs and Defendants interpret the proposed damages class
definition differently. Plaintiffs represent that they intended to
define a class not by presupposing that they win the legal question
at issue, but rather by limiting the class to individuals who did
not engage in certain conduct. Defendants focus not on the conduct
of the class members, but rather the conclusion that must be drawn
from that conduct that it did not justify Defendants' use of force
against them.  

Here, the Court finds the defect in Plaintiffs' proposed damages
class definition to be somewhat akin to a defective complaint in
which a claim relies on allegations couched as legal conclusions
instead of non-conclusory allegations of fact. If the class
definition were to focus on the individuals' conduct, as Plaintiffs
intended, concerns about having to reach the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims in identifying class members would no longer be present.
Moreover, the conduct Defendants have identified as justifying
their use of force was only two-fold: individuals attempting to
breach the free speech zone barrier and individuals throwing
objects (including CS gas cannisters) at PPD officers.

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

Numerosity, Commonality, Predominance, and Damages

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

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

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

Proposed Damages Subclass (a) - Gas/Chemical Agents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Class
Certification Record is granted and the Court directed the Clerk of
Court to file on the docket the documents currently lodged at Docs.
139 and 140.

The Court also grants the Motion to File Exhibit under Seal and
directs the Clerk of Court to file under seal the document
currently lodged under seal at Doc. 142.

The Court denied as moot Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply.

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants'
Supplements or Alternatively for Leave to Respond to Defendants'
Filings is denied.

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

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

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

POWER HOME: Reinert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH REINERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWER HOME REMODELING GROUP LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-13186-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by placing telemarketing calls using an Automatic Telephone Dialing
System to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Power Home Remodeling is an American corporation headquartered in
Chester, Pennsylvania, that provides services predominantly related
to energy and cost-saving exterior remodeling products such as
replacement windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Fascimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 965-8006
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


PRIME INC: Parker Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA PARKER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-09269 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), targets Prime's systemic
denial of minimum wage and compliant meal and rest periods in
violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law.

The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Otis D Wright, II.

The case is a class action and law enforcement action brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals,
who have worked for Prime Inc. as non-exempt, over-the-road truck
drivers in California. The Drivers work away from home or weeks on
end hauling freight in long-haul semis, either alone, or as part of
a two-driver team, the Plaintiff says.

Prime does not compensate and/or fully compensate the Drivers for
much of the time they are on, near and/or confined to the truck,
the lawsuit says.

Prime is a large truckload motor shipping carrier in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Leslie Joyner, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com


REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the claims period
in the class action suit involving Napster ends December 31, 2019.

In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class
action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called
"mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other
similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted
musical works."

On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement
terms during a mediation session.

The long form Settlement Agreement was executed effective on
January 16, 2019. The damages payable under the Settlement
Agreement will be calculated on a claims made basis, subject to an
overall maximum of $10.0 million.

RealNetworks said, "We have not recorded an accrual related to this
settlement as of September 30, 2019 as the amount payable is not
reasonably estimable. In May 2019, public notice was posted about
the settlement informing purported class members that they can make
claims or object to the settlement. The claims period ends on
December 31, 2019, on which date (or shortly thereafter), Napster
expects to know the total amount of damages payable in respect to
validly made claims. Damages for valid claims are expected to be
paid in the second quarter of 2020."

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

In January this year, RealNetworks doubled its stake in Rhapsody
International, which owns music streaming service Napster, from 42%
to 84%, according to a report by GeekWire.com.

RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media
applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media.
RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Carrigan Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MAUREEN CARRIGAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07073 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify an Illinois class for RB's alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The proposed Class is defined as: "all persons who purchased Move
Free in the state of Illinois between May 28, 2015, and the date
class notice is disseminated."  Additionally, the Plaintiff asks to
be appointed as Class Representative, and for Timothy G. Blood,
Esq., and Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq., of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP, to be appointed Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff's case is a sister case to a certified class action
pending against Defendant Reckitt Benckiser, LLC's ("RB") in the
Northern District of California: Yamagata, et al. v. Reckitt
Benckiser LLC, No. 17-cv-03529-VC (N.D. Cal.).  As here, the
Yamagata plaintiffs allege that RB falsely advertises that its
glucosamine-based products—called "Move Free"--provide joint
health benefits when, in fact, the products do not.  In June 2019,
the Yamagata court certified California and New York classes for
violations of the consumer protection statutes in those states.
Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117599
(N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019).

As in Yamagata, certification is appropriate here because the
central, predominating question at the heart of this litigation is
whether the packaging of RB's Move Free products is likely to
mislead a reasonable consumer, the Plaintiff contends.  That
question is common to all Class members and will be resolved
through the presentment of evidence common to all Class
members--mainly Move Free's packaging and evidence demonstrating
that the products do not provide the promised joint health
benefits.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


SABRE CORP: NY Class Suit over Airline Ticket Prices Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
dismissed the remaining claims in the class action suit related to
airline ticket prices with prejudice.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and two other Sabre global distribution system (GDSs), in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs, who sought to assert claims on behalf of a putative
class of consumers in various states, generally alleged that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim.

In July 2016, the court granted, in part, the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims were
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages.

The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an
injunction under federal antitrust law. In October 2018, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification with
prejudice.

The company subsequently settled with each of the individual
plaintiffs for a nominal amount, and on September 26, 2019, the
court dismissed the remaining claims in the case with prejudice.

Sabre Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre Holdings
Corporation, provides technology solutions to the travel and
tourism industry worldwide. It operates in three segments: Travel
Network, Airline Solutions, and Hospitality Solutions. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Southlake, Texas.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in IN RE SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. CIV-12-1341-G (W.D. Okla.).

Lead Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants
SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SandRidge) and its senior executives Tom L.
Ward, James D. Bennett, and Matthew K. Grubb had violated the
federal securities laws in 2011 and 2012. Following dismissal of
various claims, there remain pending allegations of violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
78j(a), as amended, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Lead Plaintiffs request certification of a class consisting of all
purchasers of SandRidge common stock between February 24, 2011 and
November 8, 2012, inclusive, who were damaged thereby.

Class Certification Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 prescribes the requirements for
class certification.

Rule 23(a) requires the party seeking certification to demonstrate
that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (numerosity) (2) there is a question of law or fact
common to the class (commonality) (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class (typicality) and (4) the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy).
Rule 23(a)

Numerosity

To satisfy the element of numerosity, Lead Plaintiffs must show
that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. This element, which is rarely disputed in securities
fraud class actions, is not contested by Defendants and is clearly
met here.  

Commonality

To establish commonality, Lead Plaintiffs need only demonstrate a
single question of law or fact common to the class. Here, Lead
Plaintiffs' claims all depend upon at least one common contention,
i.e., that Defendants made material misrepresentations as to the
makeup of the Mississippian formation, that is of such a nature
that it is capable of classwide resolution which means that
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is
central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

Defendants do not contest that this element has been met and the
Court likewise finds it so.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. Defendants contend that two Lead Plaintiffs cannot make this
showing due to varying defenses between them and the remainder of
the class.  

Angelica Galkin

The record reflects that Angelica Galkin, through her brokerage
account, purchased more than two million shares of Sandridge stock
after the allegedly fraudulent nature of Defendants' statements was
revealed on November 8, 2012. Defendants cite cases to support
their argument that these post-class-period purchases support
Defendants raising a unique defense against Ms. Galkin and thereby
render Ms. Galkin atypical. But other decisions have found that
such post-disclosure purchases do not automatically make those
plaintiffs unique and do not automatically defeat typicality  
Here, Defendants do not explain why the timing of Ms. Galkin's
purchases automatically makes it unique  other class members may
also have purchased SandRidge common stock after partial adverse
disclosures by the company. And even if Ms. Galkin is revealed to
be the only class member that bought additional stocks after the
disclosures, Defendants have not shown that this issue threatens to
become the focus of the litigation or that she was not relying on
the integrity of the market in the later purchases of the stock.  

St. Louis Trust

St. Louis Trust has participated in eleven securities class actions
since 2005, including ten where it was represented by current
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP  or a predecessor, and it
sought to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in each. Defendants
argue that this litigation history and the fund's longstanding
relationship with its counsel will require St. Louis Trust to meet
unique defenses and therefore St. Louis Trust should be found
atypical.  

Lead Plaintiffs correctly point out, however, that Defendants rely
on authority that predates the 1995 Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA) for this contention. The now-enacted PSLRA was
designed to increase the likelihood that institutional investors
will serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court finds persuasive a fellow
district court's lack of undue concern over a plaintiff's continued
relationship with a particular law firm.  

In sum, the cited factual distinctions and potential defenses do
not defeat typicality here, as the claims of the class
representatives and class members are based on the same legal
theory and establishment of the class representatives' claims will
establish the bulk of the elements of each class member's claim.  

Fair and Adequate Representation

Defendants additionally argue that Lead Plaintiffs will not fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class as required by
Rule 23(a)(4). The Tenth Circuit has identified two questions whose
resolution determines the adequacy inquiry:  (1) do the named
plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with
other class members? and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their
counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?

Defendants assert that Lead Plaintiffs are inadequate
representatives because they lack sufficient knowledge and
understanding of this lawsuit and have repeatedly abdicated all
responsibility for litigation to their counsel.

Having reviewed the relevant record, the Court does not find
evidence to support the contention that Lead Plaintiffs have
abandoned their responsibilities or given improper control to their
law firm as a de facto plaintiff. Although the relevant individuals
are fuzzy on some details on the litigation, their depositions
reflect that they do possess reasonable understanding of this
lawsuit and their expected role in it, including their monitoring
responsibilities.
  
Both of the institutional investors retain counsel independent of
Robbins Geller to assist with this lawsuit and others. Lead
Plaintiffs present a persuasive reply that Defendants'
conflict-of-interest argument is moot and that even if the supposed
conflict had arisen, it could have been remedied procedurally by
the Court. And Defendants' omission of any direct challenge to the
appointment of Robbins Geller as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)
undermines its challenge to adequate representation.  

Rule 23(b)(3)

Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been met, the Court
must determine whether Lead Plaintiffs have shown that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual class members and that a
class actions is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Lead Plaintiffs' Damages Model

As part of their certification request, Lead Plaintiffs have
presented the expert report and damages calculations of Bjorn
Steinholt. Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiffs have failed to
show predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because they have not
proposed a method to measure damages on a classwide basis
consistent with their theory of liability.  

According to Defendants, Mr. Steinholt's proposed damages model, an
event-study framework, suffers from two deficiencies that render it
inadequate. First, they argue, Mr. Steinholt's model cannot
separate any damages attributable to the allegedly unlawful
misrepresentations and omissions from those shareholder losses
attributable to other unrelated events. Second, they assert that
the model "inaccurately assumes that any purported inflation in
SandRidge's share price remained constant throughout the proposed
class period despite numerous changes that would have impacted the
amount of price inflation under Plaintiffs' theory of liability.

These may be tenable objections in the context of a Daubert
challenge6 or a summary-judgment motion. For current purposes,
however, the alleged flaws in Mr. Steinholt's damages model do not
demonstrate that his model is entirely nonviable or that there
would be material differences between each class member's damages
determination that would require individualized inquiries. If Mr.
Steinholt's model improperly fails to consider certain other losses
or to account for inflation changes during the class period, it
would seemingly be flawed in this manner as to every member of the
class. The focus of the 23(b)(3) class certification inquiry
predominance is not whether the plaintiffs will fail or succeed,
but whether they will fail or succeed together.  

Defendants' attack on the damages model does not persuade the Court
against finding predominance.  

Issues of Investor Knowledge

For every securities-fraud claim, the complaint shall specify each
statement alleged to have been misleading and the reason or reasons
why the statement is misleading. And when allegations are made on
information and belief the complaint shall state with particularity
all facts on which that belief is formed.

Defendants first argue that if such production data was publicly
available, Lead Plaintiffs' claims must fail because that data
would have been reflected in the price of the SandRidge stock,
precluding a claim that the market was misled by the alleged
misrepresentations. Lead Plaintiffs accurately argue that this
amounts to Defendants raising a truth-on-the-market defense, which
is inappropriate on a motion for class certification and more
properly a matter for summary judgment or trial.  

Defendants alternatively contend that if such production data was
publicly available, but not readily available and so not reflected
in the stock price, the Court will be required to conduct
individualized inquiries to gauge each investor's knowledge of this
information and that the predominance requirement therefore cannot
be met.  The possibility that some investors had knowledge of this
data, however, does not direct a finding that common issues do not
prevail over those issues subject only to individualized proof.
Defendants' cited authorities do not persuade the Court otherwise.

Importantly, Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants affirmatively
refuted findings based upon the public data. Further, with respect
to the elements Lead Plaintiffs in this action must prove, any
individualized investor knowledge of the public data would be most
relevant to whether that knowledge precluded a particular investor
from relying upon the alleged misrepresentation or omission in
purchasing SandRidge Stock.

Here, the record before the Court, including the allegations
regarding data transmitted by SandRidge to the Oklahoma Tax
Commission, does not support a finding that individual questions
predominate over common ones or are more prevalent or important
than the common, aggregation-enabling issues in the case. Having
considered the arguments and the record, the Court finds that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members.

For all these reasons, Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is GRANTED. Lead Plaintiffs' proposed class is
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) to
pursue the pending securities-fraud claims. With the exception of
Vladimir Galkin, the Lead Plaintiffs--Laborers Pension Trust Fund
for Northern Nevada, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater
St. Louis, and Angelica Galkin--shall continue as Class
Representatives. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed as
Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2dlbpp4 from Leagle.com.

James Glitz, on behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated & Rodger A Thornberry, on behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Darren B.
Derryberry , Derryberry & Naifeh LLP, 4800 North Lincoln Boulevard,
Oklahoma City, OK  73105, David A. Rosenfeld -
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Evan J. Kaufman - ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Mario Alba - malba@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Judith Greenberg, Charles Blackburn & Ted Odell, Plaintiffs,
represented by Darren B. Derryberry , Derryberry & Naifeh LLP &
Evan J. Kaufman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Sandridge Energy Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy H. Bond -
abond@cov.com -  Covington & Burling, C. Williams Phillips -
cphillips@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Christopher Yuk Lun Yeung
- cyeung@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Elisa S. Solomon -
esolomon@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Evan G.E. Vincent -
evan.vincent@crowedunlevy.com - Crowe & Dunlevy, Herbert Beigel ,
Law Offices of Herbert Beigel, Jordan S. Joachim- jjoachim@cov.com
- Covington & Burling, Kiran A. Phansalkar - kphansalkar@cwlaw.com
- Conner & Winters, Mark P. Gimbel - mgimbel@cov.com - Covington &
Burling, Mitchell D. Blackburn  - mblackburn@cwlaw.com - Conner &
Winters & Swati R. Prakash , Covington & Burling.

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
securities class action suit entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.


The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against antitrust class action litigation
commenced by purchasers of pork products.

On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and 11 other indirect purchasers of
pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and
Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data
sharing service.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaints were amended and consolidated, for pre-trial
purposes, into three consolidated putative class actions brought on
behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers
and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers.

The amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an additional
defendant. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.

Subsequent to the original filings, a putative class member is
proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims,
and others may do so in the future. The individual complaint was
filed in the District of Minnesota.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting
production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through
Agri Stats, Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state laws,
including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection statutes, and state common law claims for unjust
enrichment. The complaints also allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8,
2019, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
class action cases, but ordered that plaintiffs have 90 days from
the date of the order to file an amended complaint.

As of this date, no such amended complaint has been filed, and the
period for filing an amended complaint has not expired. The
individual complaint also filed in the District of Minnesota was
not before the Court when the defendants moved to dismiss the class
cases and remains pending.

On July 9, 2019, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a similar
class action complaint against Seaboard Foods LLC and Seaboard
Corporation in the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico making
essentially the same contentions as set forth in the cases filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, but also
alleging violations of Puerto Rican antitrust law. Seaboard intends
to defend these cases vigorously.

Seaboard said, "It is impossible at this stage either to determine
the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting
from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the
suits."

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

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.


SOUTHWEST OFFSET: Faces Perez Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSWALDO CUEVAS PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST OFFSET PRINTING CO.,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 trough 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV39114 (Cal. Super., Oct. 28, 2019),
seeks to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code
and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from 2008 to  Feb. 11, 2019, in California. The Plaintiff
last worked as Lead in the Bindery Department.

During his employment, the Defendants still utilize a timekeeping
system, which resulted in the Plaintiff not being compensated for
all hours actually worked, whether by time-shaving and/or rounding
practice, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants offer printing services, including pre-press,
post-press, binding, mailing and fulfillment, and digital printing
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SPROUTS FARMERS: Deal Reached for Majority of Phishing Scam Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company
has reached an agreement in principle to settle the majority of the
class action suits related to "Phishing" Scam.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of our team
members.

The complaints allege that the company failed to properly safeguard
the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints seek
damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

After consolidation and transfer of the cases to the federal court
in the District of Arizona, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the company's motion to stay proceedings in the
case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether
arbitration agreements like those signed by each of the named
plaintiffs are enforceable.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named
plaintiffs signed in this matter.

On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of
Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not
subject to our arbitration agreement and attempts to pursue those
team members’ claims in federal court.

In late August 2019, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the majority of these claims. Primary funding for the
settlement will come from the company's cyber insurance policy, and
the settlement will not have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements. A small group of less than fifteen (15)
individual claimants will proceed with arbitration of their claims.


Sprouts Farmers said, "We intend to defend the arbitrations
vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the
arbitrations."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SQUEAKY KLEAN: Sosa Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY MATOS SOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SQUEAKY KLEAN SERVICES, INC., a Foreign
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00226-AW-GRJ (N.D.
Ga., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On April 1, 2017, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a
non-exempt laborer to polish floors. The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant on various projects cleaning, waxing, and polishing
floors for the Defendant's clients throughout Florida, Tennessee,
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Mississippi.

From at least April 1, 2017, and continuing through May 30, 2019,
the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff at rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single work week. The Plaintiff contends he should be
compensated at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
for those hours that he worked in excess of 40 hours per week as
required by the FLSA.

Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of the
Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages
and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per week, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides commercial janitorial and facility
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 3273013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Savage Seeks Damages for 401(k) Plan Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Savage, David Leidlein, Ronald Cohen, and James Sherburne,
individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons,
and on behalf of the Plan v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.,
CVAGS, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW GROUP, SHILPA KONDA, DIANE MOHORTER,
LORI D'AMBORSIO, KATHLEEN DECANN, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No.
6:19-cv-06840 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to recover damages
for losses suffered by the Plan and the Plaintiffs' retirement
savings, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief for the
Plan, the Plaintiffs and other Plan participants and beneficiaries
arising from the Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Sutherland Global Service, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to properly
minimize the reasonable fees and expenses of the Plan. The
Defendants instead incurred expenses that were excessive,
unreasonable and/or unnecessary. The Defendants failed to take
advantage of the Plan's bargaining power to reduce fees and
expenses. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants impaired the
participants' returns by offering actively manages retail class
mutual funds as investments options instead of identical investor
class mutual funds with low operating expenses.

To the extent any fiduciary responsibilities were properly
delegated, the Defendants failed to ensure that any delegated tasks
were being performed prudently and loyally in accordance with
ERISA, says the complaint. Through this conduct, the Defendants
violated their fiduciary obligation under the ERISA and caused
damages to the Plan and to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.

Sutherland Global Services provides process transformation
services. It offers human resources management, operational
analytics, robotic process automation, and cloud services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Annette M. Gifford, Esq.
          Adam T. Sanderson, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone (585) 272-0540
          Email: milingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                 agifford@theemploymentattorneys.com
                 asanderson@theemploymentattorneys.com


SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377,
is ongoing.

On March 1, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019.


The action, captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No.
19-7377 (D.N.J.), names the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants and alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements about its business, operations, and
prospects.

The plaintiffs seek awards of compensatory damages, among other
relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 28, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs in the Vaitkuviene action filed
a motion to intervene and to transfer this action to the Eastern
District of North Carolina, and the Company filed its response on
April 22, 2019.

On April 30, 2019, a shareholder filed a motion seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead
counsel.

On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff, by November
8, 2019, file proof of service of the Complaint in Compliance with
Rule 4, or otherwise show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for failure to properly serve Defendants (the "Order to
Show Cause").

The Court further ordered that the action is stayed and that both
motions are administratively terminated pending the Court's
resolution of the Order to Show Cause.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in the
complaint and intend to defend vigorously against these claims. In
the Company's opinion, the ultimate outcome of this matter is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al., has been
stayed.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders. The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC
Research, Inc., et al, No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.), names as defendants
the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald, Michael Gilbertini,
and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"), and the second action,
Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.),
filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as
defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Initial Defendants").

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017.

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel. On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action,
without prejudice, and as to all defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the
"Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was
misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on September 20, 2018. Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to such motion on
November 21, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to such response on
December 5, 2018.

On May 23, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filings in
Related Case regarding the New Jersey shareholder action filed on
March 1, 2019 captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No.
19-7377 (D.N.J.), and Defendants filed their response on May 31,
2019.

On September 26, 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, that
this action is stayed in light of the litigation filed on March 1,
2019, pending before the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Syneos Health said, "The Company and the other defendants deny the
allegations in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously
against these claims. In the Company's opinion, the ultimate
outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


TRANS CONTINENTAL: Gottdiener Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Continental
Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Toby Gottdiener,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-10416 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. (TCC) is a third-party
collection agency that specializes in healthcare collections.[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


TWILIO INC: Paid $1.7 Million to Fund Flowers Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company made a payment of
$1.7 million to fund the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela
Flowers v. Twilio Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the
interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a
customer’s request and are in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as
well as monetary damages.

On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The
court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified
time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications
involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that
were recorded.

Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long
form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10.0 million
into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates
to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation.

On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an
amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order.

The court entered a final order and judgment approving the
settlement on June 17, 2019.

Previously, the Company had a $1.7 million reserve on the condensed
consolidated balance sheet for the estimated potential liability,
net of insurance coverage.

On August 30, 2019, Twilio made a payment of $1.7 million to fund
the settlement.

A final compliance hearing has been scheduled for February 25,
2020. Any additional loss related to this matter is not probable or
estimable at this time.

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


TWILIO INC: Settlement Reached in Bauman Suit over Spam Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case,
Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al., have filed an unopposed motion
for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from
the action without prejudice.

On September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First
Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy
Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class
members.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on
September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e).

On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class under the NDTPA. On February 13, 2019, the court
issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs'
NDTPA claim.

On February 22, 2019, the court stayed the case and directed all
parties to mediation, which was conducted on May 15, 2019. On May
17, 2019, the original defendants (the "Saxe Defendants") and the
Company entered an agreement, which among other things, obligates
the Saxe Defendants to fully fund all monetary and non-monetary
aspects of the settlement of the matter and to obtain the dismissal
of the plaintiffs’ and the class’s claims against the Company
with prejudice.

On October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from the
action without prejudice.  

Based on, among other things, the dismissal motion and the
Company’s agreement with the Saxe Defendants, the Company does
not believe a loss is reasonably possible or estimable.

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


UBS AG: Starostenko Sues Over Doctoring of Account Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
YURI STAROSTENKO and IRINA TSAREVA, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UBS AG (A SWISS BANK), Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-0993-UA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019),  accuses the Defendant
of violating securities laws and the Sherman Act and seeks common
law claims of unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, between June 2013 through April 2015,
UBS AG conducted through its Bahamian subsidiary fraudulent schemes
by unlawfully not carrying out actions as instructed by the
Plaintiffs, by not sending or routing to and not representing or
executing on national securities exchanges the Plaintiffs' orders
to but (sell) equity securities traded publicly on these exchanges,
which must yield priority, parity and precedence.

As a result, the Defendant did not effect any transaction on any
national securities exchange to their account with respect to which
it acted as agent, the Plaintiffs assert.

The fraudulent scheme involved illicit and unauthorized actions by
UBS Bahamian subsidiary to steal directly from the Plaintiffs, by
doctoring account statements and other records or financial
information issued and delivered to the Plaintiffs, intended for
the purpose to defraud the public, including the Plaintiffs, the
lawsuit says.

UBS Group AG is a Swiss multinational investment bank and financial
services company founded and based in Switzerland. Co-headquartered
in the cities of Zurich and Basel, it maintains a presence in all
major financial centers as the largest Swiss banking institution in
the world.[BN]


WALMART INC: Legrier Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is styled as Jennifer Legrier, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10433 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
case Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living
Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., is still
ongoing.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).

On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint that, among other things, added two other former
executive officers as defendants, one of whom subsequently was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the
defendants' favor on March 28, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On June 24, 2019,
plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal. Plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of one former executive officer and only
appealed the district court's conclusion that the remaining
defendants did not make statements concerning the Company's
compliance programs with the requisite intent.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Western Union
Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), a company
subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in Argentina.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages.

The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint
formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was
served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a
response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of
limitations and standing grounds.

In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed and the case is currently in the
evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case entitled,
Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., is still stayed
pending arbitration.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil
theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the
caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(DPA), the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consent
Order, and the New York State Department of Financial Services
(NYDFS) Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required. On
March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the action
pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.

To date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of the matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WILLIAMS CO: Settlement with KS & MO Class Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Nevada
Federal District Court has approved the settlement with the Kansas
and Missouri class members and a final judgment of dismissal with
prejudice has been entered in the class actions related to alleged
manipulation of published gas price indices.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company had agreed to
indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc., the
court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the
company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to the company, entering final judgment in our favor.
Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed
the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10,
2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the
appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case was
remanded to the Nevada federal district court and subsequently has
been remanded to its originally filed court, the Kansas federal
district court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada
federal district court.

The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily
approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and
Missouri class members. The final fairness hearing on the
settlement occurred August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of
dismissal with prejudice was entered the same day.

Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court.

Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved
issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure
at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these actions and our related indemnification
obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to
our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification,
we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter,
and as a result, have exposure to future developments.

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits initiated by
its wrestlers.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the
Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status. On March 31, 2015, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on
July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.  

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  

Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.  

The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents’ contracts with WWE,
which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November
23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne,
which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and
December 21, 2015, respectively.

On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21,
2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint,
which the Company opposed.

The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases
pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016,
the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on
three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such
discovery was completed by June 1, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions
to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss
the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and,
on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion
in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April
27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the appeals
were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of
the consolidated cases.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was
granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified
as independent contractors rather than employees denying them,
among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law,
and various state Worker's Compensation laws.

This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr.
McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this
complaint on October 19, 2016.  

On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis
case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the
Windham case.

The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that
within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended
pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  

The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court’s September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer.

On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response
that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and
dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and
award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because
the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's September
29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs have
attempted to appeal these decisions.

On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the
appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis
case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second
Circuit issued an order referring the Company's motions to dismiss
to the panel that will determine the merits of the appeals.

The plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019.
The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees' brief on October
7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October
28, 2019.

World Wrestling Entertainment said, "The Company believes all
claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various
lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and that all
are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself
against the attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously."

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


YTEL INC: Faces Williams Suit in N.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ytel, Inc. The case
is captioned as Laura C. De la Cabada and Debra Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Ytel, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-07178-JSC (N.D. Cal., Oct 30, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley.

Ytel Inc. operates as a software company. The Company offers
platform for cloud contact center, reporting, e-mail, messaging,
dashboard, real-time provisioning, and other communications
solutions. Ytel serves customers in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Daniel Schneider, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N LaSalle St., 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: dschneider@edelson.com



                            *********

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 ***