CAR_Public/191121.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 233

                            Headlines

ADTRAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline
AFG FUNDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in California
AMAG INC: Faughnan Files PI Suit in New York
AMAZON WEB: Hryniewicki Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
ART OF SHAVING-FL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ASCENA RETAIL: Faces Hardmon Suit for Not Paying All Wages Owed
BARNES & NOBLE: Averts Cafe Managers' OT Pay Class Action
BENEFICIENT INC: Brown Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BLUE VALLEY: S.F.B., et al Seek to Certify Two Classes
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen, et al. Seek to Certify Class

BRETFORD MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Amos Files Falsely Labeling Suit
CANDY CLUB: Faces Nisbett ADA Class Action in NY
CHEMOURS COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline
CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE: Lisk Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers

COLUMBIA GAS: Residents Have Until Jan. 9, 2020 to File Claims
CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY: Addi Files PI Suit in Maryland
CRANKNYC INC:  Violates ADA, Conner Suit Asserts
DICK'S SPORTING: Class Suit From Ammunitions Distributor Nixed
DROPBOX INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Plaintiff Deadline

DUCK DONUTS: Faces Kiler Suit Alleging ADA Breach
ELDORADO RESORTS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov 22 Deadline
EPAY SYSTEMS: Hussein Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of BIPA
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Assoulyn Asserts Breach of FCRA
FETEER FACTORY: Zerbib Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, Samaritano Suit Asserts
FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class
FLORAVERE INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts ADA Violation
FMA ALLIANCE: Krajenka Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
FORSTER & GARBUS: Kola Alleges Violation under FDCA

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
I.C. SYSTEM: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
IROBOT CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
IROBOT CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
KAVA HOLDINGS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in California

LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California
LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims Suit over List Prices
LABORATORY CORP: Dismissal of Davis Class Action Reversed
LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Suit over Unpaid Commissions Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Merger-Related Ongoing

LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Bloomquist v. Covance
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Class Suit
LEVINBOOK LAW: Ejnes Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Ongoing

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation over COI Rates Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit Ongoing
LUXURY BRAND: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MACROGENICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
MANDARICH LAW: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MANDARICH LAW: Passee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MDL 2036: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class
MDL 2918: Elmazi vs. TDK over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: IT Worx v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Kluessendorf v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated

MDL 2918: Now Micro v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Oda v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MICHAEL KORS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MILACRON HOLDINGS: Akerman Opposes Proposed Sale to Hillenbrand
NEWELL BRANDS: Deceptively Sells Orthodontic Pacifiers, Benson Says

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Two Ex-Employees Entitled to Class Action Status
OMEGA RMS: Scavone Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
OMNICELL INC: Continues to Defend Heard Class Suit over Biometrics
PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
PERDUE FARMS: Conspires to Depress Workers' Wages, Avila Alleges

PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
PRINTOGRAPH INC: Hakopian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRODIGY PLUMBING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
PURDUE PHARMA: Alberta Government to Join Opioid Class Action

REAL TIME: Kola Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Faces Hayes Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
ROACH & MURTHA: Musarra Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Citizen Energy
RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. New York
SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
SRAH BAKERY: Settlement in Polanco Suit Wins Final Approval
STOVER MEDICAL: Certification of Mobile Phlebotomists Class Sought
SUMMIT ELEMENTARY: Faces Class Action Over Lead Levels

SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says
TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
TOMORROW ENERGY: Lindenbaum Sues to Stop Illegal & Unwanted Calls
TRADEMANGO: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANS UNION: Faces Lowenbien Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA

TRUE RELIGION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIMED INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit in New York
UNIQLO USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
UNITED STATES: DHS, ICE Must Face Immigration Records Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Treatment of Jailed Son
W.W. GRAINHGER: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAITR HOLDINGS: Zhang Files Securities Class Action
WALMART INC: Settles Pregnancy Bias Class Action for $14 Mil.
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Early Mediation to Occur Before the End of 2019

XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
ZENDESK INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action

                            *********

ADTRAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

The Chemours Company (CC)
Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc      

ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN)
Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn


Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  
  

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


AFG FUNDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFG Funding, LLC. The
case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFG
Funding, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-07438 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

AFG Funding, LLC is a Finance broker in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (323) 306-4234
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com



AMAG INC: Faughnan Files PI Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAG, Inc. The case
is styled as Teresa Faughnan and Jennifer Maltese, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAG,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01394-FJS-ML (N.D. N.Y., Nov. 12,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product
Liability.

AMAG provides Ultrasonic, Clamp-on, Non-Invasive, accurate Flow and
Temperature Measurements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chantal Khalil, Esq.
   Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP
   445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
   White Plains, NY 10601
   Tel: (914) 298-3294
   Fax: (914) 298-3329
   Email: ckhalil@fbfglaw.com



AMAZON WEB: Hryniewicki Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asia Hryniewicki, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 19CH00001155 (Ill. Cir., Lake Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act relating to the collection and
storage of biometric data.

The BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as the
Defendant, may not store an individual's biometric information,
such as fingerprints and hand scans, or any biometric information,
including any data regardless of the manner from which it was
converted unless they first: inform that person in writing that
biometric identifiers or biometric information will be stored;
inform that person the specific purpose of the length of term for
which such biometric identifier or biometric information is being
stored; and receive a written release from the person for the
storage of their biometric identifier or biometric information.

Despite obtaining, storing, and possessing biometric information of
thousands of Illinois residents, including the Plaintiff's
biometrics, the Defendant failed to comply with the BIPA, says the
complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages
and other remedies as a result of the Defendant's conduct in
violating her biometric privacy rights under the BIPA.

The Plaintiff has been a resident of Lake County, Illinois.

The Defendant is a leading cloud provider in the United States,
offering its customers the ability to store their data, access
their data remotely, and create back-up copies of their data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                 aheldut@mcgpc.com


ART OF SHAVING-FL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Art of
Shaving-FL, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Art of Shaving-FL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10432
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

The Art of Shaving is a United States retail business of high-end
men's shaving and skin care accessories.[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


ASCENA RETAIL: Faces Hardmon Suit for Not Paying All Wages Owed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shyrome Hardmon, on her own and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-02207 (Cal.
Super., Riverside Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), challenges the Defendants'
systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of
the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class seek compensation from the
Defendants for the relevant time period because the Defendants
failed to: pay wages for all hours worked; provide meal and rest
breaks; pay all wages owed at termination; provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and provide standards to regulate
excessive indoor heat. The Defendants have engaged in, and continue
to engage in, unfair business practices in California by
practicing, employing and utilizing improper employment policies,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in Riverside,
California, from 2017 through July 18, 2019.

ASCENA RETAIL GROUP INC., is a Delaware corporation that conducts
business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Averts Cafe Managers' OT Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York federal judge has adopted a
magistrate judge's recommendation not to certify a proposed class
action accusing Barnes & Noble of misclassifying cafe managers as
being ineligible for overtime pay. [GN]

BENEFICIENT INC: Brown Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA BROWN, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons v. BENEFICIENT, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04040 (S.D.
Tex., Oct. 16, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiff and other
employees employed by or formerly employed by the Defendant, its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

Beneficient, Inc., is a Texas corporation and an "employer" as
defined by the FLSA.

Ms. Brown worked for the Defendant as a health care provider from
April 6, 2016, until July 10, 2019, providing her services in the
homes of the Defendant's patient clients--usually to multiple
patients per day.  She contends that during her tenure with the
Defendant, she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but
was not paid for all the hours she worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE VALLEY: S.F.B., et al Seek to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as S.F.B., et al., the
Plaintiffs v. Blue Valley et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02480-CM-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify Classes:

   Class 1:

   "all children cared for in a child care facility, as defined by
   K.S.A. 65-503, in the state of Kansas whose parents and
   guardians have made religious objections to vaccinations in
   2019-2020 to a child care facility"; and

   Class 2:

   "all parents and guardians that have a child enrolled in
   private or public school in the state of Kansas who have made
   religious objections in 2019-2020 on behalf of themselves or
   their child to vaccinations".

Kansas Department of Health & Environment requires each child care
facility in each county to enforce K.S.A. 65-508 and in particular
that in order to make a religious objection to vaccine injections
that the parent must be an adherent of a religious denomination
whose teachings are opposed to vaccinations. Every school district
in the state of Kansas is subject to enforcing K.S.A. 72-6262 and
in particular the requirement that in order to object to vaccine
injections a student must be an adherent of a religious
denomination whose teachings are opposed to vaccinations.  There
are 105 counties in the state of Kansas. There are 291 school
districts in the state of Kansas.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Linus L. Baker, Esq.
          6732 West 185th Terrace
          Stilwell, KS 66085-8922
          Telephone: 913 486 3913
          Facsimile: 913 232 8734
          E-mail: linusbaker@prodigy.net

BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen, et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-BLW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court on Nov. 13, 2019 to certify a class action.

The case is a class action challenging fees allegedly charged in
contravention of the Idaho Constitution.  The Plaintiffs, who have
students attending schools in the Pocatello and Bonneville School
Districts, seek to proceed as class representatives of all patrons
-- that is, students and parents -- in the 115 school districts and
charter schools in the state of Idaho.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the fees charged by these school districts violate article IX,
Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution and constitute a due process
violation.  They seek declaratory relief, reimbursement of fees
charged for the past six years, and certification of a class of
plaintiffs and defendants.

The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho. The district was founded in 1865 under
the auspices of Idaho Territory.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Huntley, Esq.
          R. HUNTLEY LAW , PLLC
          815 W. Washington Street
          P.O. Box 2188
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: 208-388-1230
          Facsimile: 208-388-0234
          E-mail: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com

               - and -

          T. Jason Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW GROUP, PC
          1488 Midway Avenue
          Idaho Falls, ID 83406
          Telephone: (208) 497-0400
          Facsimile: (208) 932-4380
          E-mail: jason@woodlaw.net

BRETFORD MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliseo Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRETFORD MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 2019CH13292
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the proposed class members' sensitive, private,
and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards, which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised, biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA,
the Plaintiff contends.

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

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Amos Files Falsely Labeling Suit
--------------------------------------------------
GUNNAR AMOS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. BREW DR. KOMBUCHA, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, Case No. 3:19-cv-01663-BR (D. Ore., Oct. 16,
2019), seeks redress for the Defendant's sale of kombucha products
that were falsely advertised and labeled as having a significantly
higher amount of probiotic bacteria than the products sold actually
contained.

Brew Dr. Kombucha, LLC is an Oregon corporation with its principal
place of business located in Portland, Oregon.  The Defendant
produces a variety of kombucha products, as well as designs and
produces the labels for its kombucha products, in Oregon.

Kombucha is a drink that is made from tea and added bacteria that
cause fermentation to occur.  The product is often advertised and
promoted as having a variety of health benefits, including most
commonly that it contains various beneficial probiotic bacteria.

Mr. Amos contends that during the relevant time period, the
Defendant, like many other sellers of kombucha products that claim
to contain beneficial probiotics, advertised to consumers on its
product labeling and through its advertisements the high number of
probiotic bacteria that its kombucha drink products contained.
However, he asserts, independent laboratory testing has revealed
that the Defendant's product labeling and advertisements were false
and misleading because its kombucha drink products contained far
less probiotics than specifically represented by the
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com


CANDY CLUB: Faces Nisbett ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candy Club, LLC. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Candy Club, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10459 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

CANDY CLUB is the a place to buy premier candies and be delivered
to the customers' door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-71717
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

The Chemours Company (CC)
Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc      

ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN)
Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn


Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  
  

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE: Lisk Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Lisk and Orlando Buckles, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE AND RAIL, LLC,
CHRISTENSEN BUILDING GROUP, LLC, and MARK L. CHRISTENSEN, Case No.
4:19-cv-04500 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages, as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked with numerous other individuals, who were
paid on an hourly basis and who were misclassified as independent
contractors, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs assert these
individuals were also construction workers, who also regularly
worked over 40 hours per week, and were also not paid overtime pay
for hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the
Defendants also paid these other individuals straight time for all
hours that they worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Lisk worked for the Defendants as a welder and foreman
while Plaintiff Buckles worked for the Defendants as a foreman and
operator.

The Defendant is a Texas limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


COLUMBIA GAS: Residents Have Until Jan. 9, 2020 to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Huffaker, writing for Patch, reports that residents
have until Jan. 9, 2020 to file a claim to receive money from
Columbia Gas, under the class action settlement agreement,
according to details released by the plaintiffs' lawyers. All
residents, property-owners and business-owners of Andover, Lawrence
and North Andover on Sept. 13, 2018, the date of the deadly gas
explosions, are elligible for cash payments. Class members can also
apply for itemized compensation for specific extraordinary losses.

"Class Members may also be eligible to apply for itemized
compensation of extraordinary losses or expenses incurred as a
result of the Incident, including among other things: property
damage, evacuation expenses, heating expenses, lost wages, lost
business income, and emotional distress," according to the
announcement, notes the reports. "All extraordinary loss
applications will be reviewed by the Settlement Administrator and
must be substantiated. An application for extraordinary losses does
not guarantee receiving additional compensation and will delay
receipt of your settlement award."

Otherwise, settlement amounts will take into account factors
including "geographic location, household size and length of
service disruption," notes the report. The total settlement is for
$143 million, of which the lawyers asked for nearly 20 percent. The
breakdown of settlements will be subject to a "fairness hearing" on
Feb. 27, 2020.

This settlement is separate from the $80 million settlement between
Columbia Gas and the three municipalities.

According to the report, claimants must file a claim in order to
receive any compensation, which they must do by submitting a claim
form by mail. The claim form and details on how to file are
available at columbiagasexplosionsettlement.com. Class action
members can also object to the terms of the settlement, by Dec. 10,
2019.

The lump sum settlement amounts are estimated to range from $50 for
a nominal disruption to $15,000 for a major disruption, but they
may be bigger or smaller based on how many people file claims.

The settlement details come one day after the National
Transportation Safety Board issued its final report, finding "weak
engineering management" led to the gas explosions. The explosion
skilled one, injured 22 and damaged 131 structures, as well as
taking gas service offline and forcing the evacuation of hundreds
of homes. [GN]


CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY: Addi Files PI Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corvias
Management-Army, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Addi, Juliea
Addi, Kylie Bowers, Antoine Bowers, A. B., Minor, Derek Buitrago,
Sandra Buitrago, M.S., Minor, D. B., Minor, Daniel Chubb, Casey
Chubb, C. C., Minor, L. C., Minor, E. C., Minor, K. C., Minor,
Scott Gerber, Sandy Gerber, Andrew Gilliland, Shannon Gilliland,
Alexander Nunez, Liza Nunez, individually and as next friend for
their minor children, M. N., Minor, E. N., Minor, Youn Pascal,
Noreen Pascal, individually and as next friend for their minor
children, Y. P., Minor, K. P., Minor, Tyquan Scullark, Chauntay
Scullark, individually and as next friend for their minor children,
I. S., Minor, T. S., Minor, L. S. Minor, N. S., Minor, Andrew
Ziemann, Kelly Ziemann, individually and as next friend for their
minor children, M. S., A. Z., Minor, S. Z., Minor, Plaintiffs v.
Corvias Management-Army, LLC and Meade Communities, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03253-ELH (D. Md., Nov. 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed for Breach of Contract.

Corvias is a fully integrated development, construction and
property management company, providing housing for America's
service members and their families.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Kevin B Collins, Esq.
   Covington & Burling LLP
   One CityCenter
   850 Tenth Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20001
   Tel: (202) 662-5598
   Fax: (202) 778-5598
   Email: kcollins@cov.com



CRANKNYC INC:  Violates ADA, Conner Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cranknyc, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Cranknyc, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06372 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Cranknyc, Inc. is in the Physical Fitness Instruction
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DICK'S SPORTING: Class Suit From Ammunitions Distributor Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Pensylvannia Record, reports that an
ammunition distributor involved in a legal wrangle with a major
sporting goods retailer cannot file an amended complaint that seeks
to convert the dispute into a class action, a federal judge has
ruled.

Battle Born Munitions (BBM) made the move to turn its complaint
against Dick's Sporting Goods into a class action involving
multiple vendors allegedly harmed by their products not making it
onto shelves at Dick's, the judge ruled. Dick's has famously
stopped selling assault-rifle weapons, and its CEO is possibly
considering a run for President.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Oct. 22 dismissed the amended complaint and barred
the company from filing a new one on behalf of three proposed
classes.

Battle Born sued the retailer, alleging fraudulent inducement,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract over a deal for
the delivery of ammunition to Dick's.

The ammunition supplier in 2016 entered into an agreement to supply
ammunition within Dick's Field & Stream packaging. BBM alleged it
paid two manufacturers around $4.5 million for the ammo, which was
available in November 2016.

It is alleged Dick's did not take delivery for a year and refused
to pay for the product during that period, while BBM was unable to
sell the merchandise to anyone else because of the distinctive
package. The distributor alleged it lost $200,000 storing the ammo,
while also losing $5 million on another deal because of cash flow
issues.

The fraud and misrepresentation counts were dismissed after earlier
hearings, leaving a part of the breach of contract count to be
decided.

In the current instance, the federal court was deciding whether to
allow BBM's amended complaint that included the request to convert
the dispute into a class action.

"In its proposed class action, Battle Born seeks to bring breach of
contract claims against Dick's on behalf of three separate classes
of similarly situated vendors," Fischer noted. "Battle Born
maintains that it has shown good cause for the proposed amendments
and that Dick's will not be prejudiced by same because it was made
aware of the potential class action at the outset of this
litigation.

"Dick's counters that it has been prejudiced by Battle Born's
delays given the fact that discovery was scheduled to end Oct. 10,
2019, and further asserts that this case should proceed as to the
remaining breach of contract claim between these two entities
only."

Fischer concluded that BBM has failed in its argument to be allowed
file the amended complaint and it was wrong to add the class action
claim just two weeks before the end of the discovery period.

"The court believes that Dick's will be significantly prejudiced if
the class action claims are permitted because this straightforward
case between a retail sporting goods chain and one of its vendors
alleging a breach of a single agreement would be transformed into a
class action involving possibly hundreds of vendors," Fischer
ruled. [GN]


DROPBOX INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of shares of Dropbox, Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with Dropbox's March 23, 2018 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO") of the important December 3, 2019 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Dropbox investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Dropbox class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Dropbox had
materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2)
Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were negatively
impacting Dropbox at the time of the IPO; (3) Dropbox was tracking
below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of
the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
3, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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




DUCK DONUTS: Faces Kiler Suit Alleging ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duck Donuts
Franchising Company, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Duck Donuts Franchising Company,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06375 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Duck Donuts is an American doughnut company based in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELDORADO RESORTS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 22, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Eldorado Resorts, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ERI) investors who purchased securities between March 1,
2019 and September 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On September 3, 2019, Eldorado revealed that CEO Tom Reeg,
president and chief operating officer Anthony Carano, executive
chairman Gary Carano, and director James Hawkins had received
subpoenas in May pertaining to an ongoing investigation of the
executives trading in an undisclosed company tied to James
Hawkins.

On this news, Eldorado's share price fell $3.09, or over 8%, to
close at $35.42 on September 3, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that several of the Company's executive officers,
including CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect
to the securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) that
as a result, Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eldorado securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 22,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

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



EPAY SYSTEMS: Hussein Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of BIPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafi Hussein, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. EPAY SYSTEMS, INC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Case No. 2019CH13250 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 15,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant captured, stored, used, and/or disseminated the
biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members without their
informed written consent as required by law, says the complaint.
The Defendant did not obtain consent from the Plaintiff for any
dissemination of his biometrics to third parties, the Plaintiff
contends. He asserts that by failing to comply with BIPA, the
Defendant has violated his substantive state rights to biometric
privacy.

The Plaintiff has worked for one of the Defendant's customers
located in Illinois.

EPAY is a leading provider of payroll, timekeeping, HR, tax, and
compliance services for business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Fax: (312) 275-7895
          Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                 tkingbury@mcgpc.com
                 aheldut@mcgpc.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Assoulyn Asserts Breach of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services LLC. The case is styled as Meir Assoulyn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Newrez LLC doing business as: Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-20078 (D. N.J., Nov. 12, 2019).

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

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FETEER FACTORY: Zerbib Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NABIL ZERBIB and VERA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated v. FETEER FACTORY INC. (dba
LUXOR EGYPT FETEER FACTORY) and MOURAD A MOURAD, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-06472 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, in order to remedy the Defendants' wrongful
withholding of the Plaintiffs' earned wages and overtime
compensation.

The Defendants repeatedly suffered or permitted the Plaintiffs to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them the
appropriate premium overtime pay of one and one-half times the
statutory minimum wage, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendants also
willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping
requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate
and complete timesheets and payroll records, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate an Egyptian themed restaurant called
LUXOR EGYPT FETEER FACTORY.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, Samaritano Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Connie L Samaritano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06377 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM KIVETT, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05131-WHA (N.D. Cal.,
Filed Aug. 22, 2018), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying class of persons similarly situated;

      "all persons who on or after April 18, 2014 had mortgage
      loans serviced by Flagstar Bank FSB on 1-4 unit residential
      properties in California and paid Flagstar money in advance
      to hold in escrow for the payment of taxes and assessments
      on the property, for insurance, or for other purposes
      relating to the property, but did not receive interest on
      the amounts held by Flagstar in their escrow accounts
      (excluding, however, any such persons whose mortgage loans
      originated on or before July 21, 2010)";

   2. appointing his attorneys Thomas E. Loeser of Hagens Berman
      Sobol Shapiro LLP and Peter B. Fredman of the Law Office of
      Peter Fredman PC as counsel for the Class; and

   3. appointing himself as representative of the Class.

The Plaintiff asserts that Flagstar did not pay interest on escrow
(IOE) on those loans as required by section 6 2954.8(a) of the
California Civil Code, which act constitutes unlawful and unfair
business practices within the meaning California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

The Plaintiff seeks restitution of all unpaid IOE accruals within
the four-year statute of limitations, pre-judgment interest, and an
injunction against Flagstar's continued flouting of section 2954.8,
the lawsuit says.

Flagstar Bank is a bank headquartered in Michigan. It is the
primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding
company. It is one of the largest residential mortgage servicers
and is on the list of largest banks in the United States.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff for himself and persons similarly
situate are:

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
          2550 Ninth Street, Suite 111 (South Hall)
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

FLORAVERE INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floravere Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Floravere Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10461 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Floravere is an integrated, direct-to-consumer wedding dress brand.
The company takes the hassle out of the wedding dress buying
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-71717
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


FMA ALLIANCE: Krajenka Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN KRAJENKA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FMA ALLIANCE LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1678 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification
in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic
class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case
from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting
to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Brian Krajenka, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

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

FORSTER & GARBUS: Kola Alleges Violation under FDCA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP.
The case is styled as Age Kola, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus LLP and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-10496 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
12, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP is a New York debt-collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Greenlane
Holdings, Inc. (GNLN).

You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the links below
or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN)

Class Period: securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering.

Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/gnln

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the City of San Francisco had introduced a major
initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three
major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the
headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) if
approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the
Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Greenlane's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



I.C. SYSTEM: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. SYSTEM, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Ingrid Ward, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-20064 (D.N.J., Nov.
11, 2019).

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

IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider and one of
the largest collection companies in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic st
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


IROBOT CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against iRobot Corporation (Nasdaq: IRBT) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of iRobot
from November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for iRobot investors
under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRobot's explosive
growth was not based on increased demand, expanding margins, and
product innovations, as it claimed, but rather based on channel
stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to conceal its actions by
acquiring its distributors in Europe and Asia; (3) these
acquisitions were designed to clean up the company's global
inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) as a result, iRobot's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 23, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]



IROBOT CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman alerts investors in iRobot Corporation (IRBT) to a
recently filed federal securities class action against the Company
and its senior officials.  The firm urges IRBT investors who have
suffered losses in excess of $100,000 to submit their loss now to
learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses.

Class Period:  Nov. 21, 2016 - Oct. 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  Dec. 23, 2019
Sign Up Now: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/IRBT
Contact An Attorney Immediately:  IRBT@hbsslaw.com

                                  10-725-3000

iRobot Corporation (IRBT) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, iRobot
reported explosive, double-digit revenue growth, which it
attributed to increasing demand for its Roomba products, expanded
gross margin due to distributor acquisitions, greater brand
awareness and technological innovation.  In reality, iRobot was
engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its sales and
revenues figures, and had acquired two of its largest distributors
in order to facilitate and conceal this deceptive practice.  As a
result of these misrepresentations, iRobot shares traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

The market learned the truth about iRobot's fraud through a series
of disclosures between April 23, 2019 and October 22, 2019, when
the Company, unable to continue its channel-stuffing scheme,
announced disappointing quarterly revenues and poor financial
guidance.  All told, these disclosures caused iRobot shares to
decline precipitously, wiping out significant shareholder value.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether the company
inflated its reported revenues," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

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

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

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

Contact:

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



KAVA HOLDINGS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lymayre Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees v. KAVA HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A BEL-AIR HOTEL, a corporation
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV41220 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought to remedy the Defendants'
violations of wage-and-hour laws.

The Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and systematic
scheme of wage abuse against the Plaintiff and their other
non-exempt employees, including failing to provide meal and rest
breaks, to pay minimum and overtime wages, and to furnish the
Plaintiff and other employees with accurate, itemized wage
statements. As a result of these violations, the Defendants are
liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act, says the complaint.

Lymayre Sanchez was and is employed by Bel-Air Hotel as a pool
server and mini bar-back from January 2018 to the present in Los
Angeles, California.

Bel-Air Hotel is a luxury hotel in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Phone: 818-507-8525
          Facsimile: 818-507-8588

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Phone: 818-425-1437


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 class action suit entitled, Alma
Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.

On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles.

Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not
receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages
upon termination of employment.

Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor
Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under
California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims Suit over List Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 in the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson suit entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class
Allegations.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of
implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.

The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.

On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.

On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.

On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.



LABORATORY CORP: Dismissal of Davis Class Action Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 of Appeal reversed a Florida state court's dismissal of
the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., but certified a
controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.


In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit
Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law
to the Florida Supreme Court.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Suit over Unpaid Commissions Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 class action suit entitled,
Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al.

On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive
compensation plan upon their termination of employment.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive
damages, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On January 22,
2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Merger-Related Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 class action suit entitled, In re
Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.

The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action
also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition,
the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the
Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders.

The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced
actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order
consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions
described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder
Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the
complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for
the consolidated action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel.

The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24,
2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains
pending.

On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently
granted. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.



LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Bloomquist v. Covance
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance
Inc., et al., has been settled in principle and the settlement is
subject to judicial review and approval.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The Complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages
owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical
Research Associates employed by Covance in California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
remanded the case to the Superior Court.

This matter has been settled in principle and the settlement is
subject to judicial review and approval.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.



LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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, John
Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc.

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access
Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleged that Covance Market Access Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by
failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The lawsuit sought monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action, which was granted in May 2018.

In December 2018, Plaintiff filed, and the Court granted, a second
motion to conditionally certify an expanded class to a nationwide
class action.

Laboratory Corporation said, "This matter has been settled in
principle and the settlement is subject to judicial review and
approval."

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.



LEVINBOOK LAW: Ejnes Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Levinbook Law
Firm, P.C. The case is styled as Richard Ejnes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Levinbook
Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06369 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
11, 2019).

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

The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., focused on real estate transactions
and collections, is experienced in strategies for recovering
commercial and consumer debt.[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



LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. .

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

"We are vigorously defending this matter,"  Lincoln National said.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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
putative class action styled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life
Insurance Company, is still ongoing.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.

Lincoln said, "Breach of contract is the only cause of action
asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation over COI Rates Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate
Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
("LNL") and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) breached the terms
of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action filed on
June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  Plaintiff seeks
to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder
class and sub-class.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LUXURY BRAND: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxury Brand
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Luxury
Brand Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10393 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Luxury Brand Holdings Inc operates as a jewelry store. The Company
specializes in gemstones, pearls, bracelets, earrings, necklaces,
and engagement rings.[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


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

MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 -
June 3, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had
conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim
overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later
than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a
0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim
analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the
interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 -
August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent
Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's
exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

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

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

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



MANDARICH LAW: Park 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 Nancy Park, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06326 (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:

          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


MANDARICH LAW: Passee 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 Cheryl A. Passee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law
Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06354 (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:

          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


MDL 2036: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT
LITIGATION (MDL 2036), Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK, the Court
entered an order on Nov. 13, 2019:

   1. provisionally certifying a Settlement Class of:

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

   2. appointing Michael Dasher as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the following persons and entities as Class
      Counsel:

      Russell W. Budd, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX, 75219

           - and -

      Richard Golomb, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102

           - and -

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
      2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150
      Miami, FL 33134

           - and -

      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      LEIFF, CABRASER HEIMNANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      Embarcadero Center West
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

           - and -

      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      250 hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013

           - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2700
      Miami, FL 33131

           - and -

      Bruce s. Rogov, Esq.
      BRUCE S. ROGOV, PA
      100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 1000
      Fort Lauderlade, FL 33301

           - and -

      Ted E. Trief, Esq.
      TRIEF & OLK
      150 East 58th Street,34th Floor
      New York, NY 10155

           - and -

      Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
      Franklin G. Lemond, Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE, LEMOND, L.L.C.
      1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
      Atlanta, GE 30339

           - and -

      Sean Matt, Esq.
      HANGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1301 5th Ave., Suite 2900
      Seattle, WA 98101

           - and -

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
      KOPELWITZ OSTROW
      FERGUSON WEISBERG GILBERT
      One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

           - and -

      Darren Kaplan, Esq.
      DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PC
      1359 Broadway
      New York, NY 10018

   4. appointing the following Attorneys Aaron Podhurst, Bruce S.
      Rogov, and Robert C. Gilbert as Settlement Class Counsel;

   5. preliminarily approving Settlement; and

   6. directing Epiq Class Action & Claim Solutions to act as
      Settlement Administrator, Notice Administrator, Escrow
      Agent, and Tax Administrator.[CC]

MDL 2918: Elmazi vs. TDK over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as FERZULA ELMAZI, the 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, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-12244 (Filed July 30, 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-07044-MMC. The suit demands $5 M worth of damages alleging
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 Elmazi 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 harddisk 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:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  saa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@robinskaplan.com
                  NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: ASheanin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Mark Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

MDL 2918: IT Worx v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as IT WORX, INC, the 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, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02531 (Filed
Sept. 16, 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-07052-MMC to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in
damages alleging 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 IT Worx 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 harddisk 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:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  alia.abdi@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Steven Greenfogel, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, New Jersey 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
                  mreuben@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
          Scott C. Gayle
          TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
          100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 271-5232
          Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
          E-mail: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
                  SGayle@tuggleduggins.com
`

MDL 2918: Kluessendorf v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SANDRA KLUESSENDORF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
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, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:19-cv-02419 (Filed Sept. 3, 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-07054-MMC  to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million
in damages alleging 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 Kluessendorf 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 harddisk 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:

          Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF &
          BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
                  g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

MDL 2918: Now Micro v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as NOW MICRO, INC., the 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, the Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-02196 (Filed Aug. 9, 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-07049-MMC. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging
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 New Micro 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 harddisk 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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohenv
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

MDL 2918: Oda v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as HARLEY ODA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the 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, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02372 (Filed
Aug. 28, 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-07053-MMC to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in
damages alleging 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 Oda 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 harddisk 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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.coms

MICHAEL KORS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Kors Retail,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Michael Kors Retail, Inc., Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10405 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

Michael Kors Retail, Inc. retails apparel and accessories. The
Company offers dresses, tops, jeans, skirts, outerwear, bags,
wallets, shoes, watches, jewelry, scarves, lingerie products,
belts, and shorts for men and women.[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


MILACRON HOLDINGS: Akerman Opposes Proposed Sale to Hillenbrand
---------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS AKERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS, TIMOTHY M. CROW,
WATERS S. DAVIS, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, GREGORY J. GULCHOWSKI, JR.,
THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES M. KRATOCHVIL, DAVID W. REEDER, REBECCA LEE
STEINFORT, HILLENBRAND, INC., and BENGAL DELAWARE HOLDING
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-05841 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019),
stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Milacron will
be acquired by Hillenbrand, Inc. and Bengal Delaware Holding
Corporation.

Pursuant to the announcement on July 12, 2019, Milacron's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Hillenbrand, Inc. ("Parent") and Bengal Delaware
Holding Corporation ("Merger Sub," and together with Parent,
"Hillenbrand").  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Milacron's stockholders will receive $11.80 in cash and 0.1612
shares of Parent common stock for each share of Milacron common
stock they own.

On September 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement containing the Proxy Statement of both Milacron and
Hillenbrand with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading, Mr. Akerman contends.  Accordingly,
he alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Registration Statement.

Mr. Akerman, who is the owner of Milacron common stock, alleges
that the Registration Statement omits, among other things, material
information regarding the Company's and Hillenbrand's financial
projections.  With respect to the Company's financial projections,
he asserts that the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i)
all line items used to calculate EBIT and EBITDA; (ii) the Other
EBITDA Adjustments; (iii) projections for year 2024; and (iv) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.  He points out that
the Registration Statement is an essential link in causing him and
the Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.

Milacron is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of Milacron.

Milacron is a leader in the manufacture, distribution and service
of highly engineered and customized systems within the plastic
technology and processing industry.  Milacron is a global company
with a full-line product portfolio that includes hot runner
systems, injection molding and extrusion equipment.

Defendant Parent is an Indiana corporation and a party to the
Merger Agreement.  Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com
                  abrody@ssbny.com


NEWELL BRANDS: Deceptively Sells Orthodontic Pacifiers, Benson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY BENSON and LISA CAPARELLIL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. and NUK USA
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06836 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 16, 2019), is a
consumer protection class action arising out of the Defendants'
false and misleading advertising of its "orthodontic" pacifiers.

The Defendants' deceptive marketing practices include: (1) the
deceptive misrepresentation that its pacifiers are "orthodontic,"
which is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers; and (2)
the omission of material facts concerning the risks associated with
pacifier use by children over the age of 24 months, according to
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs, who purchased the pacifiers for their children,
contend that the prolonged pacifier use by children over the age of
24 months can cause significant harm by interfering with the proper
development of their teeth and orofacial structures.

Newell Brands Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Hoboken, New Jersey.  NUK USA LLC is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Newell Brands Inc., the principal place
of business of which is located in Reedsburg, Wisconsin.  The
Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell a line of
"orthodontic" pacifiers throughout Illinois and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 750-1591
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 253-4996
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0346
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE
          One Central Avenue, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Two Ex-Employees Entitled to Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that two former
employees of a Northrop Grumman Corp. subsidiary are entitled to
class action status for part of their lawsuit claiming they were
denied cash severance after being laid off, a federal judge in
Chicago held.

The newly certified class includes up to 751 people laid off by
Northrop Grumman since 2012 who didn't receive cash severance
because they didn't receive written notification from the company
about their eligibility for the benefits.

The workers' claim for denied benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act is appropriate for class treatment,
Judge Andrea R. Wood ruled. [GN]




OMEGA RMS: Scavone Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omega RMS, LLC. The
case is styled as Louis J. Scavone, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Omega RMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06378 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Omega-RMS is a provider of strategic contact campaigns,
loan-servicing, third-party receivables purchasing and collections
solutions.[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


OMNICELL INC: Continues to Defend Heard Class Suit over Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Corey Heard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other
relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of
violation of BIPA by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July
31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the
case with the Mazya Action. The Court subsequently, on October 10,
2019, denied the motion, without prejudice, as being moot in view
of the Company's dismissal from the Mazya Action. The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31, 2019. The Court
has scheduled a case status conference for November 7, 2019 at
which time the Company intends to present its motion to dismiss to
the Court.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

The Chemours Company (CC)
Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc      

ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN)
Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn


Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  
  

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


PERDUE FARMS: Conspires to Depress Workers' Wages, Avila Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUSEBIO AVILA and ASHLEY SCOTT, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. PERDUE FARMS, INC.; PERDUE
FOODS LLC; TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON PREPARED FOODS, INC.; THE
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; TYSON PROCESSING
SERVICES, INC.; TYSON REFRIGERATED PROCESSED MEATS, INC.; KEYSTONE
FOODS, LLC; EQUITY GROUP EUFAULA DIVISION LLC; EQUITY GROUP-GEORGIA
DIVISION LLC; EQUITY GROUP KENTUCKY DIVISION LLC; PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.;
SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION);
SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOODS DIVISION); KOCH FOODS, INC.; KOCH
FOODS OF GADSDEN LLC; KOCH FOODS OF CUMMING LLC; KOCH FOODS OF
GAINESVILLE LLC; KOCH FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI LLC; KOCH FOODS OF
ALABAMA LLC; KOCH FOODS OF ASHLAND LLC; KOCH FOODS LLC; JCG FOODS
OF ALABAMA LLC; JCG FOODS OF GEORGIA LLC; JCG INDUSTRIES, INC.;
WAYNE FARMS, LLC; WFSP FOODS, LLC; MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE
FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.; PECO FOODS INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.;
SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS, INC.; FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION; GEORGE'S
INC.; OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC.; GEORGE'S CHICKEN, LLC; GEORGE'S
FOODS, LLC; GEORGE'S PROCESSING, INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS,
INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS OF LOUISIANA, LLC; O.K. FOODS, INC.;
HARRISON POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY LLC;
MAR-JAC POULTRY MS, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY AL, LLC; MAR-JAC HOLDINGS,
INC.; AMICK FARMS, LLC; CASE FOODS, INC.; CASE FARMS PROCESSING,
INC.; ALLEN HARIM FOODS, LLC; AGRI STATS, INC.; and WEBBER, MENG,
SAHL AND COMPANY, INC. d/b/a WMS AND COMPANY INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-03018-GLR (D. Md., Oct. 16, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Sherman Act.

The class action alleges that beginning January 1, 2009, until the
present (the "Class Period"), the Defendants conspired to
unreasonably restrain competition for all persons employed by the
Defendant Processors as non-supervisory production and maintenance
workers at chicken processing plants in the continental United
States, in violation of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants' scheme had the effect of depressing wages and
benefits paid to Class Members while maximizing the profits earned
by the Defendants, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants accomplished their anticompetitive
scheme by engaging in reoccurring, secret meetings where they
agreed on specific wages and benefits paid to Class Members.
Additionally, the Defendants utilized the services of two
consulting firms to facilitate the scheme, and to monitor and
enforce the effects of the conspiracy.

The Defendants are 18 chicken processing companies and many of
their subsidiaries and affiliates ("Defendant Processors"),
representing more than 90 percent of the total broiler producing
companies in the United States, as well as two consulting firms,
Agri Stats, Inc. ("Agri Stats") and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company,
Inc. d/b/a WMS and Company Inc. ("WMS") (together "Defendant
Consulting Firms").  During the Class Period, Defendant Consulting
Firms helped to facilitate the exchange of competitively sensitive
compensation data among the Defendant Processors, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Defendant Processors own and operate approximately 180 chicken
processing plants in the continental United States.  These chicken
processing plants have employed hundreds of thousands of Class
Members in various positions involved in processing live chicken,
including slaughtering birds and preparing the poultry for sale to
retailers and consumers.  Other employees repair machines and
conduct other maintenance at the processing plants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER, P.A.
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 395-0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539-7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com


PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of shareholders of PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG) against
certain of the Company's officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, for the Northern District of
California, and indexed under 19-cv-06996, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired PG&E securities between December
11, 2018, and October 11, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased PG&E securities within the
class period, you have until December 24, 2019, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PG&E's purportedly enhanced
wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures were
inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly
designed; (ii) as a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling
power cuts the Company implemented to minimize wildfire risk; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published an article
reporting on PG&E's efforts to deal with the rolling power cuts it
had implemented in California aimed at minimizing wildfire risk.
The article reported, among other issues, that "PG&E's
communications and computer systems faltered, and its website went
down as customers tried to find out whether they would be cut off
or spared."  According to the article, "[a]s the company struggled
to tell people what areas would be affected and when chaos and
confusion unspooled outside.  Roads and businesses went dark
without warning, nursing homes and other critical services
scrambled to find backup power and even government agencies calling
the company were put on hold for hours."

On this news, PG&E's stock price fell $0.35 per share, or 4.36%, to
close at $7.67 per share on October 14, 2019, the following trading
day.

On October 23, 2019, it was reported that as a last resort to
prevent additional wildfires PG&E began shutting off power to
179,000 homes and businesses in 17 northern and central California
counties.

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

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

Contact:

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



PRINTOGRAPH INC: Hakopian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRINTOGRAPH, INC. The
case is styled as VREESH HAKOPIAN INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff
v. PRINTOGRAPH, INC. D/B/A GOTPRINT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV40338 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 8, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case".

Printograph Inc is a privately held company in Burbank, CA and is a
Single Location business, categorized under Printers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by KESHISHYAN ROMINA, ESQ.


PRODIGY PLUMBING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PRODIGY PLUMBING, INC., a corporation doing business in
California, MARK ELLEFSON, an individual and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV41175 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 15, 2019), is brought to collect civil penalties for the
Defendants' Labor Code violations.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other  similarly situated
aggrieved employees regularly worked more than eight hours per day
or 40 hours per week without lawful compensation. The Defendant
violated numerous wage and hour laws with respect to the Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees by failing to provide: accurate and
itemized wages statements, payment for all hours worked (including
regular wages and overtime), minimum wage lawful meal periods,
lawful rest periods, timely payment during employment, and payment
upon separation of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumbing
technician.

The Defendant is a corporation doing business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS, PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Phone: (866) 496- 7552
          Fax: (424) 355-8535
          Email: Justin@WorkLawyers.com


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-1679 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion
for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off"
attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt
to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Cindy Zurakov, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

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

PURDUE PHARMA: Alberta Government to Join Opioid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Hudes, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that the Alberta
government will join a class-action lawsuit against pharmaceutical
companies to recoup costs it has incurred from the ongoing opioid
crisis, it announced on Oct. 15.

Speaking in Calgary, Health Minister Tyler Shandro said that while
doctors have overprescribed painkiller drugs such as fentanyl, it's
the manufacturers and distributors that are to blame, he said.

"One of the main reasons doctors overprescribed is that the
companies told them that the opioids were safe. The manufacturers
aggressively promoted the claim that opioids posed a low risk of
addiction. That was misleading," Shandro said.

"We're suing the companies because they oversupplied the drugs
recklessly. They ignored evidence that the drugs were being
overprescribed and diverted; that is, being taken by people other
than the patient that they were prescribed for."

The result was that opioid painkillers became too widely available,
according to the health minister.

"That oversupply was already causing a huge amount of preventable
harm before fentanyl starting pouring into our province," he said,
citing a figure showing around 200 people were fatally overdosing
from legal painkillers before 2015, when fentanyl use in Alberta
began to soar.

"The companies played an essential role in creating this crisis and
they have to be held accountable for it."

The lawsuit, filed in B.C. by that province's government, alleges
that Purdue Pharma Inc., the makers of OxyContin, and more than 40
other companies and even pharmacies knowingly marketed quantities
of the drugs that went well beyond legitimate needs.

The legal action seeks money to recover medical expenditures
related to opioid addiction.

Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have also joined B.C. in its
lawsuit, which hailed a decision by an Oklahoma court in late
August ordering Johnson and Johnson to pay US$572 million to the
state for its role in fuelling opioid addictions.

Though the state had sought US$17.5 billion, the company is
appealing the decision.

"It's encouraging to see that there is a basis here for claims like
this in Canada as well," said Justice Minister and Solicitor
General Doug Schweitzer.

"I think we have a strong legal case here. This is important for
the future of our province to make sure we send a signal that we
can't prey on the vulnerable."

Schweitzer called the class-action suit "the most efficient and
cost-effective" approach that will also add pressure on the
defendants to settle.

He said work is underway to quantify the damages the Alberta
government will seek. The legal action will include both direct and
indirect costs related to opioids from 1996 to the present,
including costs incurred by the province's health-care, criminal
justice and policing systems.

A spokesperson for Alberta Health said direct health-care costs
from opioid-related harms in Alberta were approximately $52 million
annually as of 2014, according to a calculation by the Canadian
Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

But the province estimates that figure has increased substantially
with the growth of opioid use in Alberta since then.

Calgary addictions physician Dr. Monty Ghosh praised the Alberta
government's decision as a step in the right direction.

"It's imperative that (pharmaceutical companies) take
responsibility for this. Many of them have not taken responsibility
for what they've done," he said.

But Ghosh cautioned that no matter the outcome, the opioid crisis
won't be solved by short-term funding from a potentially favourable
decision in court.

He said better long-term supports are needed to treat addiction,
which can last a lifetime.

Ghosh also said physicians aren't completely blameless for the
crisis.

"There became a culture of managing patients with these drugs. It
was a quick and easy solve for a lot of the pain concerns," he
said.

"There are some physicians who, knowing that there is some
addictive potential of these drugs, still then re-prescribed it. I
think as a profession we need to own our contribution to this as
well, with the understanding that a lot of it was misguided."

NDP mental-health and addictions critic Heather Sweet said the
Opposition supports the UCP's move, adding it would have done the
same had the party remained in government following April's
election.

"We recognize this lawsuit is going to take a long time before
we'll see anything happen. Because of that, we're urging the
government to continue to address the opioid crisis today, and not
wait until this lawsuit is finalized," said Sweet.

In 2018, there were nearly 800 fatal opioid-related overdoses and
4,200 calls to EMS.

Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Jason Luan said
the province's rate of opioid and other drug-related emergency room
visits rose 45 per cent from 2016 to 2019.

The UCP government has committed $140 million to improve mental
health and addiction care, including $40 million earmarked for
opioid response.

Luan said more details on the province's strategy to combat opioid
use will be announced in the coming weeks.

The government will also appoint a mental health and addictions
advisory committee to look into the issue.

Shandro said opioids can be a legitimate therapy when used
appropriately.

"Suing the opioid companies won't change the crisis we're in today,
but holding them accountable is the right thing to do," he said.
[GN]


REAL TIME: Kola Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Age Kola,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-10454 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a full-service loan servicing and
recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit
card, and other consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic st
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Faces Hayes Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hayes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. RENTERS WAREHOUSE, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-02909 (D.
Minn., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought for damages, injunctive relief
and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff through text
messages on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.

The Defendant routinely sends text messages to wireless telephone
with automatic telephone dialing equipment without the wireless
user's prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA, the
Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's violations caused the Plaintiff
and members of the Class actual harm, including aggravation,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the
receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of
their statutory rights, says the complaint.

Heather Hayes is a resident of Hennepin County, Minnesota.

Renters Warehouse is America's leading real estate investments
services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: (651) 770-9707
          Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Peter F. Barry, Esq.
          THE BARRY LAW OFFICE, LTD
          2828 University Ave. SE, Suite 202
          Minneapolis, MN 55414-4127
          Phone: (612) 379-8800
          Email: pbarry@lawpoint.com


ROACH & MURTHA: Musarra Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roach & Murtha
Attorneys at Law, P.C. The case is styled as Jennifer Musarra,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-06373 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

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

Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. is engaged solely in
collecting debt and is experienced collecting all types of debt,
including judgment enforcement, commercial debts, accounts
receivable, promissory notes, subrogation and consumer debts
including medical and credit cards.[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


ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Citizen Energy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROAN RESOURCES, INC., RICK GIDEON, JOSEPH A. MILLS,
MATTHEW BONANNO, EVAN LEDERMAN, JOHN LOVOI, PAUL B. LOYD JR.,
MICHAEL RALEIGH, ANDREW TAYLOR, and ANTHONY TRIPODO, Case No.
1:19-cv-02142-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 15, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Roan will be acquired by Citizen
Energy Operating, LLC and Citizen Energy Pressburg Inc.

On October 1, 2019, Roan's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Citizen Energy.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Roan's stockholders
will receive $1.52 in cash for each share of Roan common stock they
own.

On November 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote
on the Proposed Transaction for December 4, 2019. The Plaintiff
contends that the Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement because
the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections, including failure to disclose, for
each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate
Operating Cash Flow and Adjusted EBITDAX; and (ii) a reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

The Proxy Statement also omits material information regarding the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. and Jefferies LLC, according to the complaint. The Proxy
Statement also fails to disclose whether any parties are currently
subject to "don't ask, don't waive" provisions in nondisclosure
agreements that are preventing the parties from requesting waivers
of standstill provisions to submit offers to acquire the Company,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns Roan common stock. The Plaintiff asserts that
the Defendants fail to disclose certain material information
necessary for Roan shareholders to adequately assess and value the
merger consideration.

Roan is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the
development, exploration, and acquisition of unconventional oil and
natural gas reserves in the Merge, SCOOP, and STACK plays of the
Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 -
June 3, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had
conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim
overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later
than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a
0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim
analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the
interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 -
August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent
Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's
exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

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

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

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



SANOFI-AVENTIS: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yesenia Melillo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06376 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zahra R. Dsouza, Esq.
          Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Fax: (215) 238-1968
          Email: zdsouza@kohnswift.com


SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JERRY HUDDLESTON, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs.
SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation, and
ERIC SLOAN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-12364-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      Collective of:

      "all current and former hourly employees who worked for
      Sloan Environmental Services, Inc. at any time in the past
      three years"’

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the proposed
      Collective;

   3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and
      authorizing dissemination of that notice to each member of
      the proposed Collective by mail and email;

   4. requiring the Defendants to identify and produce the names,
      phone numbers, last known addresses, and email addresses of
      all proposed Collective members in a computer-readable
      format within 14 days; and

   5. giving members of the proposed Collective 45 days from the
      date the notice is mailed to join this case if they so
      choose.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge
          P.O. Box. 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          Facsimile: (269) 324-3010
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
                  tcedoz@kehb.com

SRAH BAKERY: Settlement in Polanco Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KELLY POLANCO, ANA MENDEZ,
and ADELINA MELARA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SRAH BAKERY, INC. d/b/a STRAUSS
BAKERY, G.E.S. BAKERY, INC., TZVI GOLDSTEIN, and ELLIOT BERMAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02530 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Brian M. Cogan granted final approval of the parties' settlement,
conditioned upon it being fully funded by Defendants within 40 days
of the order, and directed the parties implement it, as follows:

   a. The parties are directed to implement the Settlement in
      accordance with its terms.

   b. There being approximately 85 class members as of the date of
      this Order, pursuant to the Agreement, the Court hereby
      dismisses with prejudice the Action, all claims contained
      therein, and all released claims against defendants.

   c. The Court approves the reimbursement of litigation expenses
      in the amount of $3,508.56 to Class Counsel.

   d. The Court approves an award of attorneys’ fees in the
amount
      of $181,666.66.

   e. The Court authorizes the payment of the claims
      administrators' fees of $9,500.

   f. The Court approves service award payments of $5,000.00 to
      plaintiffs Kelly Polanco, Ana Mendez, and Adelina Melara.

   g. The Court approves the service award payments of $1,500.00
      to Opt-in Claimants Minerva Mendoza, Jose Zepeda, Dina
      Velasquez, Geronimo Sohom, Carmen Rosales, and Briselda
      Sosa.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order,
the Court dismisses the action with prejudice. The Court retains
jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.[CC]

STOVER MEDICAL: Certification of Mobile Phlebotomists Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA
LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER
MEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-740 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order permitting the case to
proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, for minimum wage and overtime violations on behalf of the
following class:

      "all mobile phlebotomists who worked for Defendants at any
      time since August 22, 2016".

The Plaintiffs contend that they and other current and former
mobile phlebotomists who worked for Defendant are similarly
situated because they performed the same job; were subject to the
same policies and procedures; and were misclassified as independent
contractors and not paid the full minimum wage and overtime, the
lawsuit says.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Emily Alcorn, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          David Wade, Esq.
          Andrew Gardella, Esq.
          MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
          315 Deaderick Street, Suite 1550
          Nashville, TN 37238
          Telephone: 615-627-0668
          Facsimile: 615-627-0669
          E-mail: dwade@martintate.com
                  agardella@martintate.com

SUMMIT ELEMENTARY: Faces Class Action Over Lead Levels
------------------------------------------------------
Tanner Cole, writing for Butler Eagle, reports that lawyers
involved in a class action complaint over lead levels in Summit
Elementary School came before a judge for public arguments for the
first time on Oct. 15.

Those arguments were brief and not at all heated, but their
contents foreshadow a long process ahead as the parent plaintiffs
hope to gather masses of necessary evidence and potentially rack up
a significantly larger list of similar families and school staff
members interested in joining the suit. [GN]



SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Francis, Individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. SUPREME TOUCH HOME HEALTH
SERVICES CORP, Case No. 2:19-cv-05019-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 15,
2019), accuses the Defendant of not paying proper overtime pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff contends that she routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, but she was not paid overtime of at least one
and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Ms. Francis worked as a licensed practical nurse for the Defendant
from June 2017 until February 2018.

Supreme Touch Home Health Services Corp. is a home nursing care
staffing agency of direct care workers and provider of in-home
rehabilitation and health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Dulaney, III, Esq.
          MANN DULANEY LLC
          211 Bradenton Avenue,
          Dublin, OH 43017
          Phone: (614) 763-2163
          Email: wdulaney@m-dlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Austin, Esq.
          AUSTIN LEGAL
          Huntington Bank Building
          17 South High Street, Suite 810
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 843-3041
          Email: Matt@MattAustinLaborLaw.com


TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 -
June 3, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had
conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim
overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later
than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a
0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim
analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the
interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 -
August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent
Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's
exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1

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

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

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



TOMORROW ENERGY: Lindenbaum Sues to Stop Illegal & Unwanted Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TOMORROW ENERGY CORP, a Nevada corporation,
and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02680-CAB (N.D. Ohio,
Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for their
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff files this action against the Defendants to: (1) stop
their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded
voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their
prior express written consent; and (2) obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

The Defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited
prerecorded calls were, and are, unauthorized as they fail to
obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to
consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. She points out that ultimately,
consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these
unsolicited prerecorded calls.

By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this
complaint, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Roberta Lindenbaum is a natural person and resident of
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Tomorrow Energy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice
Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown PA 18104
          Phone: (610) 621-4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
          Email: adam@savettlaw.com


TRADEMANGO: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trademango Solutions
US Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trademango
Solutions US Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10398 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2019).

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

TradeMango Solutions, Inc. operates as an online furniture
retailer. It offers sofas, chairs, tables and accessories.[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



TRANS UNION: Faces Lowenbien Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------------
Esti Lowenbien, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. TRANS UNION, LLC and SYNCHRONY LENDING, INC.
D/B/A SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06461 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15,
2019), seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal practices, which
violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit
Reporting Act, relating to credit reporting.

The FCRA and NY FCRA prohibit furnishers of credit information to
falsely and inaccurately report consumers' credit information to
credit reporting agencies.

Defendant Synchrony Bank has wrongfully reported a debt purportedly
owed to Comenity Capital Bank as 30 days late. The Plaintiff says
she has long since set up "auto-pay" on her personal online account
and Synchrony had been continuously and uninterruptedly charging
her personal bank account automatically. Synchrony Bank, therefore,
knew, and had reason to believe that there was an "auto-pay" option
set up between her and Synchrony Bank at the time that it notified
Trans Union that the said account was "late," Ms. Lowenbien
contends.

Thereafter, Trans Union notified the Plaintiff that it had
initiated an investigation into the said dispute. Trans Union's
investigation did not resolve the dispute and the Plaintiff
subsequently filed a statement of dispute with Trans Union on
August 5, 2019. The Plaintiff obtained her consumer credit report
from Trans Union on August 18, 2019, and found that Trans Union had
not included the her statement of dispute in the credit report.

The Defendants violated the FCRA, since the Plaintiff disputed the
accuracy of the information in her credit file and then notified
the Defendants of the said dispute, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer and a citizen of the state of New
York.

Trans Union, LLC is a Credit Reporting Agency that engages in the
business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit
information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


TRUE RELIGION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Religion
Apparel, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. True
Religion Apparel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10442
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019).

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

True Religion Brand Jeans is an American clothing company
established in December 2002 and focuses on premium denim, some of
which is made in the United States.[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


UNIMED INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unimed International
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Unimed International Inc. doing business as: Chamonix Skin Care
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06374 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11,
2019).

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

Unimed International is a procurer and supplier of healthcare
commodities globally and is fully regulated and authorized by the
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA UK).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIQLO USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniqlo USA LLC. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uniqlo USA LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10438 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019).

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

UNIQLO is a clothing apparel company, which was originally founded
in Yamaguchi, Japan in 1949 as a textiles manufacturer.[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


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD COLE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21258
(Filed April 3, 2019), was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on
Oct 28, 2019.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-12224-ADB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

The case is a class action on behalf of beneficiaries of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act plans administered by UHC who were
denied Proton Beam Radiation Therapy because of UHC's uniform
application of an arbitrary medical policy to deny as experimental
or investigational such treatment for prostate cancer, despite PBRT
being recognized for decades by the medical community as an
established, medically appropriate treatment for cancer, including
prostate cancer.

UnitedHealthcare offers plans that provide reliable health care
coverage, and dental, vision and other insurance plans.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Dean Churchill Colson, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          Stephanie Anne Casey, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: 476-7469
          E-mail: dean@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com
                  scasey@colson.com

Attorneys for the United Healthcare Insurance Company are:

          Allen Paige Pegg, Esq.
          James Leo VanLandingham, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, 27th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 459-6641
          Facsimile: (305) 459-6550
          E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com
                  james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com

UNITED STATES: DHS, ICE Must Face Immigration Records Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that U.S.
immigration authorities must face a certified class action by
attorneys and nonresidents challenging "significant delays" they
face when trying to get access to immigration case files, the
Northern District of California held Oct. 15.

The Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies,
Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, are required by law to answer Freedom of Information
Act request for Alien Registration Files within 20 days. [GN]




UNITED STATES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Treatment of Jailed Son
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta Rose Jones and those similarly situated v. William Barr,
(Official Capacity Attorney General United States), David Prater
(individual capacity), Robert Ravitz (individual capacity), Cindy
Ferrell Ashwood (individual capacity), Allen Brown (individual
capacity), Lori McConnell (individual capacity) Robert Groshon and
Does 1 Thru 100, Case No. 5:19-cv-01056-G (Okla. Dist., Okla. Cty.,
Nov. 15, 2019), seeks damages resulting from the Defendants' act
and omissions, and any legal fees and costs, which the Plaintiff is
entitled in connection with her son's unlawful treatment in the
Oklahoma County Jail.

The Plaintiff has a developmentally disabled son, who was
unlawfully charged and incarcerated for many months in the Oklahoma
County Jail in 2017 and 2018 and soon to be possibly in 2019. Her
son's living conditions in the Oklahoma County Jail were
unconstitutional, the Plaintiff alleges.  She adds that he received
illegal treatment in the Oklahoma County Jail.

Several of the Defendants knowingly created and perpetuated an
overcrowded and understaffed jail, subjecting the 2,000 plus men
and women held in the Oklahoma County Jail to dangerous, inhumane,
and degrading conditions, Ms. Jones states. She contends that the
Defendants failed to provide minimally adequate medical care to her
son when he was in their custody.

Ms. Jones, a resident of Lincoln County, Oklahoma, also alleges
that the Defendants failed to adequately screen her son for his
medical conditions; failed to timely or adequately respond to his
and her request for medical care; and completely denied his chronic
and specialty care.

William Barr is the United States Attorney General.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


W.W. GRAINHGER: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W. W. Grainger, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W. W. Grainger, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019).

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

W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating
supplies, and related information to the commercial, industrial,
contractor, and institutional markets in North America.[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


WAITR HOLDINGS: Zhang Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Waitr Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ:WTRH) between May 17, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 26, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action, go
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=waitr-holdings-inc&id=2046
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=waitr-holdings-inc&id=2046

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose:   (1) the Company was not on the
verge of profitability; (2) it was not true that the Company was
providing its services at a sustainable low take rate established
at 15%; (3) it was not true that Waitr was able to extract
efficiencies from its full time fixed-rate labor force that was
purported to allow the Company to offer its services at a lower
rate than competitors; (4) its software provided little or no
competitive advantages and what first-mover advantage the Company
claimed existed, was quickly squandered by the inability to obtain
sophisticated high-level programmers and software engineers who
could enable Waitr to refine and develop the software necessary to
stay competitive in its market; (5) it was not true that Waitr
maintained an adequate system of internal controls so as to report
and eliminate material conflicts of interest; and (6) as a result,
Waitr's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  Attorney
Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
[GN]




WALMART INC: Settles Pregnancy Bias Class Action for $14 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Walmart Inc. has agreed to pay $14 million to
resolve allegations by pregnant or formerly pregnant workers who
claimed the retail giant's policies on disability accommodations
discriminated against them on the basis of their pregnancy. [GN]



WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Early Mediation to Occur Before the End of 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that a Court-sponsored early mediation is expected to occur
in the class action suit related to the consent decree entered by
the company and Knorr-Bremse AG, before the end of 2019.

On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a
consent decree with the United States Department of Justice
resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had
maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's
employees.  

The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was
acquired by the Company in November 2016. No monetary fines or
penalties were imposed on the Company.  

The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of
Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several
different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as
defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the
consent decree.  

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the
Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused
by the defendants' actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) Panel consolidated the cases in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named
plaintiffs, three of whom were Company employees.

The litigation is in its early stages and the Company does not
believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the
marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously.

The Company's motion to dismiss the entire claim was denied on June
20, 2019, but the Court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss
the plaintiffs' conspiracy allegations and strike the plaintiffs'
class definition.

In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition,
targeting employees with 'valuable' railroad industry experience or
skills', and the Company has filed a new motion to strike that
categorization.

On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant
Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs for an unknown amount. A
Court-sponsored early mediation is expected to occur before the end
of 2019.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., doing business as Wabtec
Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for the
rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in
Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.


XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CARMEN LEPE, on behalf of herself, on behalf of
the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY
CHAIN, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1930360, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 15,
2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09834 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: 1) failure to pay overtime
compensation; 2) failure to provide meal periods and/or pay missed
meal period premiums; 3) failure to maintain and provide accurate
and itemized wage statements; 4) failure to pay all wages owed in a
timely manner and upon separation of employment; 5) unfair
competition; and 6) penalties under the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-652-3100
          Facsimile: 858-652-3101
          Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com


YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Katz, writing for Digital Trends, reports that Yahoo is
about to reach a $117.5 million settlement in a class-action
lawsuit over a series of data breaches that affected users between
2012 and 2016 -- and you're likely eligible for your $100 cut or
free credit monitoring if you had an account during that time.

Millions of people could qualify for the $100 Yahoo settlement and
the company has been emailing potentially affected users about the
class action settlement over the past few weeks. Just because you
got the email doesn't mean you'll get your settlement money or free
credit monitoring.

You've got until July 20 to figure out what to claim. Here's what
you need to know about the data breaches and how to make a
settlement claim.

What happened: Yahoo's years of data breaches
The class-action settlement comes after several major data breaches
or "data security intrusions" -- essentially when a hacker got into
the system but didn't take any information -- that plagued Yahoo
over the course of several years. Yahoo sent out an email about the
settlement on Oct. 16, detailing all the of the breaches that
happened over the years.

In 2012, two different hackers accessed Yahoo's internal systems,
but didn't take anything. In 2013, "malicious actors" got into the
company's database and took records from all of Yahoo's accounts --
roughly 3 billion in all. The hackers behind that breach could have
gotten into users' email accounts, calendars, and contacts.

Yet another database, this time in 2014, involved Yahoo's user
database. Malicious actors took a ton of data from about 500
million Yahoo accounts, including names, email addresses, telephone
numbers, birthdays, passwords, and security questions and answers.

One last data breach took place from 2015 to September 2016, where
hackers were able to use cookies to get into about 32 million Yahoo
email accounts.

While this is not nearly as big as the $700 million settlement that
credit agency Equifax agreed to for its 2017 data breach involving
the personal information of about 147 million people, it's still a
substantial sum. Here's what you need to know about the Yahoo data
breach settlement.

What are your claim options for the Yahoo settlement?
Like other data breach settlements, you're not just entitled to a
cash payment. Yahoo is offering two years of free credit-monitoring
services to anyone who had a compromised Yahoo account. If money
sounds better to you, you can ask for a cash payment of $100 as
long as you verify that you've already signed up for a
credit-monitoring service. There are plenty of free
credit-monitoring services online -- including Credit Karma -- that
you can quickly sign up for if you choose this option.

There is, of course, a catch to all of this. The settlement is a
set amount of $117.5 million, meaning there's only so much cash to
go around. If too many people sign up for the cash option, you'll
have to split the pool. That means you might sign up for a $100
settlement and end up actually receiving substantially less. The
same thing happened with the Equifax settlement -- leading the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to recommend people not choose the
cash option because it would likely be tiny.

Yahoo even warns users of that possibility on the claim website:
"Payment for such a claim may be less than $100 or more (up to
$358.80) depending on how many Settlement Class Members participate
in the settlement," the company wrote.

There are a few more options if the data breaches hit you more than
most: If you had to spend time or money dealing with identity theft
or other problems you believe stemmed from the hacks, you can file
a claim for up to $25,000 in out-of-pocket losses. There's also
additional settlement cash for small businesses and anyone who paid
for premium Yahoo mail, so if you fall into either category, you
could be eligible for additional compensation based on what you
paid for services needed to deal with the breach.

How to claim your Yahoo data breach settlement
Anyone who had a Yahoo account between January 1, 2012, and
December 31, 2016, and is a resident of the United States or Israel
is eligible for the settlement. To file your claim, simply visit
the claim website, YahooDataBreachSettlement.com and fill out the
claim form that's relevant to you. For most people, that's the
basic account holder claim form.

If you only want the $100 claim or credit-monitoring services,
you'll just need your Yahoo username. If you want to make a bigger
claim for lost time or out-of-pocket expenses due to the breach,
you'll need to upload supporting documentation, like receipts,
account statements with unauthorized charges, or letters from the
IRS.

If you plan to object or comment on the settlement, you'll need to
do so by March 6, 2020. The deadline to make a claim is  July 20,
2020. [GN]



ZENDESK INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Zendesk, Inc. (NYSE: ZEN) between February 6, 2019
and October 1, 2019 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Zendesk investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Zendesk class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1698.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Zendesk's clients had been subject to data breaches
dating back to 2016; (2) Zendesk was experiencing slowing demand
for its SaaS offerings, particularly in Germany, the U.K. and
Australia, due in large part to political uncertainty and China
trade issues there; (3) or the forgoing reasons, Zendesk's business
metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented
during the Class Period; and (4) as a result, Zendesk's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1698.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Zynerba Pharmaceuticals (ZYNE) between March 11, 2019, and
September 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving
unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 Trial; (ii) the
foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would
fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for
commercializing Zygel for the treatment of DEE in children and
adolescents; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On
September 18, 2019, during pre-market hours, Zynerba issued a press
release announcing results from the BELIEVE 1 Trial evaluating
topical gel Zygel in children and adolescents with DEE (the
September 2019 Press Release).

While Zynerba asserted that Zygel was well-tolerated in the
September 2019 Press Release, it also disclosed that, among
patients enrolled in the BELIEVE 1 Trial, the rate of treatment
emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 96%, the rate of treatment
related adverse events (TRAEs) was 60%, and there were ten patients
who reported serious adverse events (SAEs), of which, two SAEs
(lower respiratory tract infection and status epilepticus) were
determined to be possibly related to treatment.

On this news, Zynerbas stock price fell $2.46 per share, or 21.77%,
to close at $8.84 per share on September 18, 2019.

If you purchased Zynerba securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/zynerbapharmaceuticalsinc-zyne-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-209/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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

Contact:

         BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
         Matthew E. Guarnero
         40th Street, New York, New York 10016
         Tel: (212) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
[GN]




                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***