CAR_Public/191122.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 234

                            Headlines

A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS: Underpays Lifeguards, Jones Suit Alleges
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADTRAN INC: KSF Reminds of Dec. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ALLEN, TX: Watson Files Petition for Review by Tex. Sup. Ct.
ALLIANCE HEALTH: McKinney Sues Over Unlawful Billing Practice

ALTRIA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
ALTRIA GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
AQUA ESCAPES: Underpays Carpenters, Boddie Suit Alleges
ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Arroyo Suit Alleges
AT&T INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Suit Says

AUSTRALIA: Faces Landmark Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Claims in Potje Class Action Dismissed
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
BONNIER CORP: $623K Attorneys Fees in Friske Suit Approved
BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Class Suit Over Foreign Buyers Tax Rejected

BUNGA BUNGA: Ponce Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CALIFORNIA: G. Jackson May Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Rules
CAPITAL ONE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action
CARROLS RESTAURANT: Dusich Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Mngrs.
CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Still Pending

CELGENE CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 6
CHEMOURS COMPANY: KSF Reminds of Dec. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 9 Plaintiff Deadline
COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Faces Ladriye Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

CORP CAT SA/AUS: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COULTER VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Braun Says
COVETRUS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
COVETRUS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
DEITSCH & WRIGHT: McRay Overshadowing Claim Given Summary Judgment

DROPBOX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline
ELECTROCORE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020
ETHAN ALLEN: Faces Camacho Suit Over Breach of Disabilities Act
FACEBOOK INC: Financial Services Denied to Women & Old, Says Suit

FARFETCH LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action
FARMERS GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Geter Case
FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Faces Landucci Suit Over Illegal Charges
GATES CORP: Court Denies Collective Class Notice in Lundine Suit
GC SERVICES: Illegally Calls Elhendi's Phone, TCPA Suit Claims

GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Establishes Case Mgmt. Common Benefit Protocol
GENESIS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bussey Claims
GNC HOLDINGS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit over Aluminum Trades
GROUPON INC: 7th Circuit Remands Instagram User's Appeal
HUGHES GROUP: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
IROBOT CORP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
J.G. WENTWORTH: Avery et al. Allege Illegal Kickback Scheme

JMC HOLDINGS: Court OKs $44.75K FLSA Suit Settlement Deal
JOE RIZZA: Abad Sues over Biometric Data Collections
JOINT UNDERWRITING: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Ronda RICO Suit
KROGER: Customer Files Class Action Over 2018 Shooting
LACI TRANS: Stingley et al. Seek Stage-One Conditional Cert.

LEGACY HEALTH: Denied Protective Order, Must Respond to Discovery
LOWE'S HOME: Blair et al. Seek Proper Separation Benefits
MASTERCORP INC: Underpays Housekeepers, Aguirre-Valdivia Says
MATCH GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
MDL 2918: Integrity v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated

MDL 2918: Uglem v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Voyager v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MILL-TELL INC: Underpays Repair Technicians, Bell et al. Say
MISSION CYCLESPORTS: Botello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MOM365 INC: Cheng May Attend Hoover Settlement Hearing by Telephone

NORTH CAROLINA: Correction Officers Sue DPS, DAC Over Wages
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Brewster Civil Suit Over Right to Vote
NORTIS INC: Committee Hires Dillon E. Jackson as Counsel
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action
OREGON CHAI: Cosgrove Sues Over Misleading "Vanilla" Packaging

OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Underpays Factory Workers, Alvarado Claims
OVERSTOCK.COM: KSF Reminds of Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PGA INC: Amendment of Schilling Suit Settlement Agreement Ordered
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in "Hogan"
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Ongoing

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers Class Suits
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Limited Stay of Discovery Extended Until June
PLANTRONICS INC: Bassuk Sues over 37% Drop in Share Price
PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Removes Bandril Suit to N.D. California
PSM HOME HEALTH: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

PUMPCO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Lackey Says
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
RUHNN HOLDING: KSF Reminds of Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RUHNN HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
SEALED AIR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit

SEMGROUP CORP: Ferrell Asserts Breach of FLSA in Oklahoma
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing
SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Still Ongoing
SHAKE SHACK: Gift Cards Not Usable by Blind People, Camacho Says
SHARON CALLAHAN: Underpays Cosmetologists, Bolden Suit Says

SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Suit Arbitration Deal Discovery OK'd
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Tanis Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Quinn Suit
STATE COLLECTION: Certification Bid in Thorson Suit Stayed

STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval
STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Faces Another Suit for Hiding Return of Cannabis
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Action
TWITTER INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Nix Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Spectracide Suit
UNITI GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewart Alleges
UPSIDE GADING: Cal. App. Dismisses Appeal in Brown Class Suit

VALLI PRODUCE: Hill Sues over Biometric Data Collections
VIVINT SOLAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 11 Deadline
VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
VMW INVESTMENTS: Hires Integra Realty as Real Estate Appraiser
WAITR HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline

WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 26 Plaintiff Deadline
WANDA SPORTS: Faces Fu Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Prices
WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Little Suit Set for Dec. 4
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Shanklin Suit Set for Dec. 4

YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending
ZENDESK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit
[*] CPA Class Action Against Mortgage Servicer Moves Forward

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$23-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,701 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $99-Mil. Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $135MM PCC Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.1-Mil. Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,283 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Accrues $5BB from 1993 to Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 890 Lawsuits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Subject to PI Claims in Sept
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 192 PI Suits at September 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Sept. 30


                            *********

A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS: Underpays Lifeguards, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-04510 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2019) is an action for
non-payment of wages for all hours worked, reimbursement for all
unlawful deductions, overtime wages, liquidated damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as lifeguard.

A-Beautiful Pools, Inc. is a swimming pool management company. It
specializes in the operation and supervision of subdivision
swimming facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd.
          Houston, Texas 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ABEO) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
19-cv-10181, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Abeona securities between May 31,
2018 and September 23, 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 Abeona between May 31, 2018
and September 23, 2019 the class period, you have until January 2,
2020, 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 number of shares purchased.

Abeona is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that purports
to develop cell and gene therapies for life-threatening rare
genetic diseases.

Abeona's lead programs include, among other product candidates,
EB-101 for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis
bullosa ("RDEB").  EB-101 is an autologous, gene-corrected cell
therapy in which the normal COL7A1 gene is inserted into a
patient's own skin cells (keratinocytes) and transplanted back to
the patient to restore normal Type VII collagen expression and skin
function.  From preliminary clinical data and expert input, the
Company expected EB-101 to be a potential treatment choice for most
wounds, and believes it is currently the only product candidate
being evaluated as a treatment for larger wounds.

Results from a completed Phase I/II study (Phase I/II gene transfer
for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (NCT01263379)) that
enrolled seven patients with chronic RDEB wounds at Stanford
University purportedly showed that EB-101 was well-tolerated and
resulted in significant and durable wound healing.  The Phase I/II
study purportedly showed significant and durable healing of large
chronic wounds, with up to five years of follow-up, with no
reported serious adverse events observed.  Continuous Type VII
collagen expression was purportedly observed for more than two
years post treatment, with no detection of replication competent
retrovirus ("RCR") up to four years.

Abeona expected to initiate a pivotal clinical trial evaluating the
potential of EB-101 for the treatment of RDEB in the middle of
2019.  The so-called VITAL Study would be a multicenter,
randomized, Phase III clinical trial assessing ten to fifteen
patients treated with EB-101.  The primary endpoint of the study
would be the proportion of EB-101 treated wounds with >50%
healing at three months, compared with untreated wound site on the
same patient.  Secondary endpoints would include patient reported
outcomes such as pain and itch and investigator global assessment
of wounds.

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) Abeona's Chemical,
Manufacturing and Controls ("CMC") and internal controls and
procedures and/or compliance policies were inadequate; (ii) as a
result, the Company failed to provide sufficient data points on the
transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites, or else such
transport stability was insufficient; (iii) consequently, it was
foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
would reject approval for the start of the VITAL Study until such
issues were addressed; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 23, 2019, Abeona issued a press release announcing
receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA, "clarifying that
the FDA will not provide approval for the Company to begin its
planned Phase 3 clinical trial for EB-101 [a/k/a, the VITAL Study]
until it submits to the FDA additional data points on transport
stability of EB-101 to clinical sites" (the "September 2019 Press
Release").  The September 2019 Press Release also disclosed that
Abeona had been working with the FDA for at least a year to address
issues with the Company's CMC.

On this news, Abeona's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 11.96%,
to close at $2.87 per share on September 23, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and
Los Angeles, 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]



ADTRAN INC: KSF Reminds of Dec. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial
Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/   

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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/    

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




ALLEN, TX: Watson Files Petition for Review by Tex. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
James H. Watson filed petition for review by the Supreme Court of
Texas in the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES H. WATSON AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner v. CITY OF ALLEN, CITY OF
AMARILLO, CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY OF AUSTIN, CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS,
CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS, CITY OF BASTROP, CITY OF BAYTOWN, CITY OF
BEDFORD, CITY OF BURLESON, CITY OF CEDAR HILL, CITY OF CONROE, CITY
OF COPPELL, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, CITY OF DALLAS, CITY OF DENTON,
CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, CITY OF EL PASO, CITY OF ELGIN, CITY OF
FARMERS BRANCH, CITY OF FORT WORTH, CITY OF FRISCO, CITY OF
GARLAND, CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF HALTOM CITY, CITY OF
HUMBLE, CITY OF HURST, CITY OF KILLEEN, CITY OF WATAUGA, CITY
LITTLE ELM, CITY OG JERSEY VILLAGE, AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS,
LLC, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CITY OF MAGNOLIA, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, CITY OF ROANOKE, CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, American Traffic
Solutions, Inc., CITY OF AMARILLO, CITY OF ROUND ROCK, CITY OF
SUGAR LAND, CITY OF RICHARDSON, CITY OF MESQUITE, STATE OF TEXAS,
CITY OF TOMBALL, CITY OF IRVING, CITY OF PLANO, CITY OF HUTTO, CITY
OF MARSHALL, CITY OF LONGVIEW, Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc.,
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, Respondents, Case No. 19-0995 on Nov. 5,
2019.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Mr. Russell J. Bowman, Esq.

The Respondents are represented by:

          Mr. George A. Staples Jr., Esq.
          Mr. Richard M. Abernathy, Esq.
          Mr. Christopher A. Klement, Esq.
          Mr. Edwin P. Voss Jr., Esq.
          Mr. Matthew L. Butler, Esq.
          Mr. Scott Bounds, Esq.
          Mr. Eric C. Farrar, Esq.
          Mr. Kurt Compton Banowsky, Esq.
          Mr. Thomas J. Williams, Esq.
          Ms. Lynn E. Carter, Esq.
          Ms. Victoria W. Thomas, Esq.
          Brandon Carr, Esq.
          Mr. Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
          Ms. Laetitia Coleman Brown, Esq.
          Mr. Robert J. Davis, Esq.


ALLIANCE HEALTH: McKinney Sues Over Unlawful Billing Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKinney individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLIANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. CJ-2019-231 (D. Okla.,
Nov. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendant's billing practice that
violates Oklahoma's Consumer Protection Act.

On September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff was involved in a car accident
that was caused by the negligence of another driver. The Plaintiff
sought emergency treatment at Alliance Health Ponca City. Alliance
Health advertises itself as a preferred provider facility that
accepts most major health insurance plans. At the time the
Plaintiff was injured and received his treatment, Alliance Health
was a preferred provider of the Plaintiff's health insurance
company.

Despite being a preferred provider and holding itself out to the
public as a preferred provider facility interested in reducing the
financial hardship of its patients, Alliance Health did not submit
the Plaintiff's medical bills to his health insurance company,
according to the complaint. Alliance Health has adopted an
undisclosed billing policy when it treats patients involved in
accidents cause by the negligence of a third party. Instead of
submitting bills to the Plaintiff's health insurer, Alliance Health
filed a lien for 100% of its bill against the Plaintiff's potential
accident recovery.

The Plaintiff contends that Alliance Health's billing policy causes
great harm to its patients. Patients pay their health insurance
premium to avoid the financial harm that comes with being
uninsured. Alliance Health deprived patients the benefit of having
health insurance by refusing to submit the patient's bill for
payment. The patient is left uninsured due to Alliance Health
conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kay County, Oklahoma.

Alliance is a conglomerate of hospitals across Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paige Lee, Esq.
          520 S. Knoblock
          Stillwater, OK 74074
          Phone: 405-742-7452
          Fax: 405-338-1619
          Email: paige@paigeleelaw.com

               - and -

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          PO Box 369
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Phone: 918-341-8402
          Fax: 918-515-4691
          Email: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints 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.

Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET)
Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019
Deadline: November 29, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to
inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the
costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business
and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3)
understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4)
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into
JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake,
in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or
account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and
marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products;
(3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny,
negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products
and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL
would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation
and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF)
Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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


ALTRIA GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)
Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in
connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with
Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/

SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC)
Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



AQUA ESCAPES: Underpays Carpenters, Boddie Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BODDIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUA ESCAPES, INC.; and MICHAEL MCKENZIE,
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81550 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiff Boddie was employed by the Defendats as carpenter.

Aqua Escapes, Inc. provides custom pool and waterfall construction
services to commercial and residential customers in the State of
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Arroyo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.; and
KRZYSZTOF KACZMARCYK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05317-JHS (E.D
Pa., Nov. 12, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Arroyo was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

Apen Construction Services, Inc. is a construction company that
provides masonry work on various projects, both commercial and
residential. The Company provides brick, block, stucco, siding and
roofing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Frank P. Spada, Esq.
           Stephen C. Goldblum, Esq.
           Joseph W. Fluehr, Esq.
           SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBER & TORCHIA, LLC
           2617 Huntingdon Pike
           Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
           Telephone: (215) 887-0200
           E-mail: fspada@sogtlaw.com
                   sgoldblum@sogtlaw.com
                   jfluehr@sogtlaw.com


AT&T INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06178
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to
sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille
so they may be fully accessible and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff alleges.

Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516 695 0052
          Facsimile: 212 656 1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

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


AUSTRALIA: Faces Landmark Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that up to 40,000 people who live and work on land
contaminated by the chemical compound PFAS are suing the Australian
government, arguing their property values have plummeted, RN's Law
Report can reveal.

The action will be filed by Christmas.

Shine Lawyers, the firm representing the clients, has enlisted the
support of American activist Erin Brockovich.

"The science is in on these chemicals. It can cause cancer," Ms.
Brockovich tells Law Report.

She names "testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease,
thyroid cancer" as some of those that have been associated with
PFAS -- a link confirmed by countries including Germany, Britain
and the US, but denied by Australia.

Ms. Brockovich is "dumbfounded" by what she considers Australia's
inaction on the issue.

"Every one of us has a common bond here, about loving the
environment and our family -- what we leave, the legacy we leave
for our children. We're destroying that and it's heartbreaking,"
she said.

"It's fearful and it should be concerning for all of us."

On its website the Department of Defence states that there is
"limited to no evidence of human disease or other clinically
significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure at this time".

However, given the ability of PFAS to persist in humans and the
environment, it also recommends that exposure to PFAS be
minimised.

Ms. Brockovich argues the government's position is inadequate.

"They give warnings: don't eat the fish, eat limited fish, don't
drink the water - but on the other hand, you're telling people it's
safe," she said.

"It's an extraordinarily confusing message."

What is PFAS -- and why are thousands of people worried about it?
PFAS is a collection of synthetic compounds and it looks a little
like bubble bath.

It is fire retardant and is "very effective at extinguishing jet
fuel fires" said Joshua Aylward, lead counsel with Shine Lawyers,
who is running the class action.

He said between the 1970s and 2000s, the Department of Defence used
a significant amount of PFAS, present in firefighting foam, on
Defence bases across the country.

Eight bases in particular are the subject of the class action.

"[PFAS] has leached into the environment and left the boundaries of
these bases and entered into the communities, and it's in the
rivers and the creeks and the fish and the people," Mr Aylward
said.

"It's in everything that they test around these bases."

He said the communities living around these bases are "really
hurting".

"The amount of time I've spent with people who are crying because
they've found out that their water is contaminated, and they've
been drinking it for years; they've found out that their kids have
exceptionally high levels in their bloods and they are really
concerned for their family," he said.

"And then they realise they are trapped.

"These people are not wealthy people. They don't own more than one
house, most of them. They cannot just pack up and leave.

"They can't sell their properties because people won't buy them,
and even if they could find someone to buy them, it's for such a
little amount of money that many of them couldn't pay out their
mortgages on their amount of money they're being offered."

Two government inquiries into PFAS have recommended either buying
out properties of those who wish to relocate, or providing
compensation for residents and businesses in contaminated zones.

Mr Aylward said what constitutes "safe" levels of PFAS is a
question that garners a different answer, depending on "which
government or which scientist you ask".

But he argues that Australia is out of line with most of the
Western world.

"In American and in Europe . . . they have much lower safe levels
than what the Australian government is saying at the moment," he
said.

'Consumption of eggs is not recommended'
The Department of Defence has completed reports in six states and
territories that provide significant analysis of human health risks
in contaminated areas near Defence bases.

In them are findings that vary according to area, including:

"Consumption of home-slaughtered livestock is not recommended."

"Consumption of eggs is not recommended."

"The ingestion of water during outdoor activities with impacted
bore water" presents risks that are "elevated for children only".

Reannan Haswell, a client in the action, lives in a contaminated
area in Bullsbrook, Western Australia.

The Department of Defence has alerted her to the fact that the home
she shares with her partner and their three children aged between
five and 16, has a contaminated water supply, something she says
has "changed our whole way of life".

She said she would like to move but can't get the necessary
financial approval to borrow from a bank, which she said is a
direct result of the contamination.

"We're stuck. We can't sell [the house]; banks aren't lending to
people to buy in the area," Ms Haswell said.

Besides, she said "morally, you don't want to sell it to another
family because then they'll be going through exactly what you're
going through".

She and her partner are "at a bit of a loss".

"It's a burden," Ms. Haswell said.

"You wouldn't think to stop your kids playing in the sprinkler. You
wouldn't think to [not] put up a little inflatable pool when it's
40-odd degrees outside and let them have fun. But these are the
things we've stopped doing.

"We don't have our kids' birthday parties at our home anymore
because we know that we're putting other people's children at risk.
Sleepovers, those basic general kids' rite of passage, are things
we've had to really seriously think about."

She describes living with contaminated water as "like camping in
your own house".

"You've got your boxes, you brush your teeth with your cup of
water, you rinse with your cup of water -- it's not what life
should be."

'We have to do better'
Back in the 1990s, Ms. Brockovich took on a big corporation over
the use of toxic chemicals; a fight later immortalised in a
Hollywood film.

Since then, she said, we haven't come far enough in dealing with
toxic contamination.

She argues that "antiquated mentalities . . . that these chemicals
can't hurt us won't carry us into the future".

"We have to do better . . . governments need to rise up," Ms.
Brockovich said.

"It's so frustrating. All these years after the film and these
issues are more in our face and more relevant today than they were
back then."

Ms. Brockovich holds out hope for a more productive conversation in
which, rather than "finger-pointing", we can "find solutions to
begin to fix the issue".

"It can be done. It feels daunting and it is daunting, and we'll
never get anywhere if we keep hiding and we have no transparency
and no trust that true information is being given to the people,"
she said.

"Otherwise we're sitting ducks."

In a statement, a Defence spokesperson acknowledged separate class
actions currently underway in the Federal Court over PFAS
contamination: in Williamtown, NSW; Oakey, Queensland; and
Katherine in the Northern Territory.

The spokesperson said the department "is aware that some law firms
have been investigating potential class actions in relation to
other Defence sites".

"At this time, no formal documentation has been served on the
Commonwealth in relation to any other Defence site," the
spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added: "Defence is working closely with the PFAS
Taskforce in the Department of the Environment and Energy, which is
coordinating the whole-of-government response to PFAS, including
the responses to inquiries conducted by the Parliament.

"PFAS is a national issue facing a number of sites outside of
Defence across Australia." [GN]


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Claims in Potje Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court
has entered an order granting summary judgement in favor of
Bluegreen and dismissing all claims in the class action suit
initiated by Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus
Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela Lee,
Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada, Michael
Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and Mike
Ericson.

On September 22, 2017, Potje et al., individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company which asserted claims for alleged
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the Florida False Advertising Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with the company's sales of vacation
ownership interests (VOIs). The purported class action lawsuit was
dismissed without prejudice after mediation.  

However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their
individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Subsequently on October 15, 2019, the Court entered an order
granting summary judgement in favor of Bluegreen and dismissed all
claims.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations 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 parties
in the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella
Michael have mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an
immaterial amount.

On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a
purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).   

The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018,
include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination
and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to
non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses;
and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014. In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to
settle the matter for an immaterial amount.

Bluegreen said, "It is expected that the court will approve the
settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the settlement
documents are executed."

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

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BONNIER CORP: $623K Attorneys Fees in Friske Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, has granted attorneys' fees request in
the class complaint captioned REBECCA FRISKE, Plaintiff, v. BONNIER
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-12799, (E.D. Mich.).

In the Friske class suit, the District Court granted final approval
of a class-wide settlement in September 2019.  One component of
that settlement was the authorization for class counsel to file a
motion requesting the Court to authorize payment of up to $623,500,
or 29 percent of the settlement fund, for attorney's fees and costs
associated with the action.  

Upon consideration, the District Court grants the plaintiffs'
motion for attorney's fees.  Class counsel shall receive $623,500,
which includes compensation for attorney's fees and litigation
expenses.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order at
https://tinyurl.com/yyjqqnd9 from Leagle.com

Rebecca Friske, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel O. Myers , The Law
Offices of Daniel O. Myers,  818 Red Dr Ste 210 Traverse City, MI,
49684-4730, Gary Lynch – glynch@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch
Sweet & Kilpela, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel – jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
-Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela and Carpenter LLP.

Bonnier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Stabile  -
DStabile@shutts.com - Shutts & Bowen LLP, Francis A. Zacherl  -
FZacherl@shutts.com - Shutts Bowen LLP & John J. Gillooly, Garan
Lucow,1155 Brewery Park Boulevard Suite 200Detroit, MI 48207


BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Class Suit Over Foreign Buyers Tax Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a B.C. Supreme
Court judge has rejected a Chinese woman's bid to certify a class
action lawsuit against a foreign buyers tax designed to tackle the
province's housing affordability crisis.

Justice Gregory Bowden dismissed Jing Li's claim after finding that
the 20 per cent tax levied against foreign purchasers of
residential property in B.C.'s hottest housing markets does not
discriminate against either Asian or Chinese buyers.

In a 43-page decision released October 25, Bowden found that the
tax draws distinctions based on citizenship - not ethnic or
national origin.

And that people who don't have Canadian citizenship, including
Chinese nationals, don't have to pay the tax if they are permanent
residents or provincial nominees.

"The structure of the tax is not responsible for any unequal burden
on Asian persons," Bowden wrote. "It is not a numbers game. Buyers
from Asian countries, such as China, receive equal treatment that
is proportionate to the demand from those countries."

Landmark trial

The judge's decision comes after a landmark summary trial held to
determine the fate of legislation the previous Liberal government
introduced in 2016 in order to cool an overheated Lower Mainland
housing market.

The tax initially required foreign entities (including foreign
nationals) to pay an additional 15 per cent on the purchase of
residential property in Greater Vancouver.

The current NDP government increased the tax to 20 per cent in
February 2018 and expanded the reach of the tax to include the
Fraser Valley, Capital Regional District, Nanaimo Regional District
and the Central Okanagan.

Li moved to Canada from China in 2013 to complete a master's degree
in public administration.

She entered into a contract to buy a half-million dollar condo in
Burnaby in July 2016, the month before the tax came into effect.

Her closing date was in November, which meant she would have to pay
an additional $83,850 as she was neither a permanent resident nor a
Canadian citizen.

Undisputed housing affordability problem

The case was decided through a summary trial in which both Li and
the government argued the case through written affidavit evidence
and expert reports from an array of academics who have been among
the most widely quoted voices on the housing crisis in the past
decade.

"It is not disputed that there has been a housing affordability
problem in the [Greater Vancouver Regional District] for a number
of years," Bowden wrote.

"Home ownership in Vancouver became less affordable than all other
cities in Canada. Vancouver had become one of the most unaffordable
real estate markets in the world."

The judge explained that the provincial government decided to
follow in the footsteps of jurisdictions including Hong Kong,
Singapore, Israel and Australia in implementing a foreign buyers
tax.

"Local factors did not appear responsible for the inflation of
housing prices and public commentary pointed to foreign demand,"
Bowden wrote.

Overwhelming support among Asians

Li argued against the tax on a number of different grounds. She
claimed that the province was trying to usurp federal powers over
immigration and citizenship.

And she also accused the province of violating Section 15 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against
discriminating on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin or
colour.

The judge found that the tax was intended to "dampen demand" and
discourage foreign nationals from purchasing real estate. He said
it was designed to make the local housing market more affordable
without denying non-Canadian citizens the opportunity to own, rent
or lease housing.

He also rejected Li's claim that the tax perpetuates prejudice,
stereotyping or disadvantages of Chinese people in B.C.

"It is also notable that there was overwhelming support for the tax
among Asians living in Greater Vancouver," Bowden wrote, citing the
research of urban studies professor Andrew Yan.

"Professor Yan states that Canadian citizens or permanent residents
of Chinese descent are equally impacted by housing affordability
and equally will benefit from any measures that improve
affordability." [GN]



BUNGA BUNGA: Ponce Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BUNGA BUNGA LLC, a domestic limited-liability company,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02002 (D. Nev., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the recovery of unpaid
wages, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees.

The Defendant willfully and intentionally violated the FLSA by
requiring tipped employees to participate in an invalid tip pool in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendant is also in
violation of the FLSA, which forbids "kickbacks" of wages. The
actions of the Defendant violated the FLSA by receiving a portion
of the tips earned by tipped employees because tips are the
property of the employee, who received the tip, the Plaintiff
alleges.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at its
restaurant.

BUNGA BUNGA LLC operates restaurants in the Las Vegas, Nevada
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq.
          LAGOMARSINO LAW
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Phone: (702) 383-2864
          Fax: (702) 383-0065
          Email: AML@lagomarsinolaw.com


CALIFORNIA: G. Jackson May Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Jackson's
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in the case captioned ZURI
S. YOUNG and GEORGE LOVIN JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-983-JAM-EFB P., (E.D. Cal.).

State prisoners Young and Jackson commenced the 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 action without the assistance of counsel against Ralph Diaz of
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
They sought to proceed in forma pauperis, but only Plaintiff
Jackson filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a
copy of his trust fund account statement. Plaintiffs may only
jointly proceed in forma pauperis if both submit a
properly-supported application. Subsequently, however, Plaintiff
Young submitted a motion for class certification wherein he stated
that, owing to previous Prison Litigation Reform Act "strikes" he
has sustained, only Jackson is qualified to proceed in forma
pauperis. Young may not avoid the three strikes provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act in that manner, the Court notes.

Upon review, Judge Brennan rules that:

   1. Jackson's application to proceed in forma pauperis is
      granted.

   2. Jackson will pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All
      payments shall be collected in accordance with the
      notice to the California Department of Corrections
      and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

   3. Jackson's individual claims, as explained supra, are
      dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff may but is not
      obligated to amend his complaint.

   4. However, failure to file an amended complaint that
      complies with the order will result in a recommendation
      that the action be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.

Furthermore, it is recommended that:

   1. The motions for class certification be DENIED;

   2. All class action claims be DISMISSED without prejudice; and

   3. Young's individual claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is
available at at https://tinyurl.com/y5ee3tnt from Leagle.com

Zuri S. Young, Plaintiff, pro se.

George Lovin Jackson, Plaintiff, pro se.


CAPITAL ONE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints 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.

Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET)
Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019
Deadline: November 29, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to
inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the
costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business
and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3)
understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4)
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into
JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake,
in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or
account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and
marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products;
(3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny,
negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products
and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL
would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation
and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF)
Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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



CARROLS RESTAURANT: Dusich Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Mngrs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Dusich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARROLS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and CARROLS LLC, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01974-JEJ (M.D. Pa, Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 on behalf of all current
and former assistant managers.

The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek
while employed by the Defendants in order to complete job duties.
However, in accordance with the Defendants' policy, pattern, and/or
practice, the Plaintiff and others were misclassified as exempt
from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate
of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an AM at a Burger
King restaurant in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

Carrols owns and operates, directly and through its wholly owned
subsidiary Carrols LLC, more than 800 franchised "Burger King"
restaurants throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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


CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene 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 motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit in New Jersey remains
pending.

On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative class action against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected
sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.


On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H.
Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected
sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.


On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel
for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff
to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019;
and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019.

On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed its amended
complaint. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full; the plaintiff filed
its opposition on April 9, 2019, and defendants filed their reply
on May 9, 2019.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 6
--------------------------------------------------------
Celgene 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 a hearing to
consider the fairness of the settlement in the class action suit
related to the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R) is scheduled
for January 6, 2020.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated various
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a)
allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is
seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint, and
upon the filing of a similar putative class action making similar
allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the parties
agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB’s complaint
would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint. In
October 2015, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss on
all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International
Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. Plaintiffs added
allegations that our settlements of patent infringement lawsuits
against certain generic manufacturers have had anticompetitive
effects.

Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and
Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA and
Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another
complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case,
and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional
asserted class representative, New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund (NEC). The NEC action has been consolidated with the
original action involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39 and
Mitchell into a master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February
26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all
state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a
class.

The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed
its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in
support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018. Fact
discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert
discovery closed on December 11, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the
Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and
Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion
for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019, and the
plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class
certification was filed on February 15, 2019.

In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
The settlement amount was not materially different than the amount
we had previously accrued for this matter.

On August 1, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 22, 2019, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to distribute notice to the
settlement class, to appoint a notice and claims administrator, and
for approval of the plan allocation.

A fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for January 6,
2020.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: KSF Reminds of Dec. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial
Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/   

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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/    

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 9 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of The Chemours Company (NYSE:CC)
from February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for The
Chemours Company investors under the federal securities laws.

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
9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

To express an interest in the class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/the-chemours-company/or call Vik
Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had not appropriately accounted and accrued
reserves for its environmental liabilities; (2) the possibility of
costs exceeding accrued amounts was not "remote"; and (3) as a
result, Chemours' 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.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.  
Attorney advertising.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Tel: (917) 261-2277  
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com    
[GN]

COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Faces Ladriye Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL LADRIYE; and JOE BANKS, for themselves and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE
PROFESSIONALS INC., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a TRIMAC
OUTDOOR; TODD MURPHY, Individually; and JOSH FLETCHER,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01247-HLA-MCR (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime
pay, including unpaid back wages, additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for TRIMAC in Clay County, Florida. The
Plaintiffs contend that those similarly situated to them also
worked similar hours, and performed similar duties for the
Defendants, but also were not paid any overtime premiums for hours
over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants' actions were willful and/or showed reckless
disregard for the provisions of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs assert.
They add that due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of
the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated,
suffered and continue to suffer damages and lost compensation for
time.

Trimac provides landscaping services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile:  (954)-327-3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL LADRIYE; and JOE BANKS, for themselves and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE
PROFESSIONALS INC., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a TRIMAC
OUTDOOR; TODD MURPHY, Individually; and JOSH FLETCHER,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00807-SPC-NPM (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime
pay, including unpaid back wages, additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for TRIMAC in Clay County, Florida. Those
similarly situated to Plaintiffs also worked similar hours, and
performed similar duties for the Defendants, but also were not paid
any overtime premiums for hours over 40 in a workweek, the
Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actions were willful
and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA.
Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, suffered
and continue to suffer damages and lost compensation for time.

Trimac provides landscaping services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile:  (954)-327-3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


CORP CAT SA/AUS: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CORP. CAT. SA/AUS, LLC, and JUAN FLORES, Case No.
5:19-cv-01350 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of their
failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours a week;
however, the Defendants would not compensate the Plaintiff for all
of her time worked over 40 hours a week and they required that some
overtime work be done off the clock, says the complaint. As a
direct result of the Defendants' policies, even though the
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid managers worked more than 40 hours
in many weeks that they worked for the Defendants during time
period relevant to this Complaint, they were not compensated for
all of their overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a manager from
February 2018 until September 2019.

Corp. Cat. SA/AUS, LLC is a domestic limited liability company,
providing catering services in the San Antonio area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COULTER VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Braun Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lee Braun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC, DBA ROGUE FITNESS, Case No.
2:19-cv-05050-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 18, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of failing to compensate employees for all hours worked
and for the correct amount of overtime pay, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Defendant does not calculate, as part of the Plaintiff's and
Putative Plaintiffs' workweek, the time they spend on the tasks
integral and indispensable to their principal activity, pre-shift
and post-shift, in violation of federal and state wage laws,
according the complaint. Further, when the addition of the unpaid
time is added to the Plaintiff's hours for the workweek, the
Defendant willfully fails to pay him for the additional time at
one-and-one-half times his regular rate in violation of federal and
state wage laws.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in its assembly
department on September 27, 2019, was moved to the warehouse
department as a picker on October 15, 2019, and is currently
employed in that department as of the filing of this complaint.

Coulter Ventures, LLC, dba Rouge Fitness, is an Ohio limited
liability company that manufactures and supplies fitness equipment
locally and around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (800) 274-5297
          Fax: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                 jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          John S. Marshall, Esq.
          Helen M. Robinson, Esq.
          Edward R. Forman, Esq.
          Samuel M. Schlein, Esq.
          MARSHALL AND FORMAN, LLC
          250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 480
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 463-9790
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: jmarshall@marshallforman.com
                 hrobinson@marshallforman.com
                 eforman@marshallforman.com
                 sschlein@marshallforman.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Jacobs, Esq.
          177 19th St., Apt. 9C
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (614) 203-1255
          Facsimile: (510) 250-9007
          Email: LAJOhio@aol.com


COVETRUS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints 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.

Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET)
Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019
Deadline: November 29, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to
inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the
costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business
and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3)
understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4)
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into
JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake,
in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or
account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and
marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products;
(3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny,
negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products
and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL
would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation
and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF)
Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019
Deadline: December 2, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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


COVETRUS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. 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 take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR)
CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product,
gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments
for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a
result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over
existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was
not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the
Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize
gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was
not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be
profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts
were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial
payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would
materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the
Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that
gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix)
that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of
gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by
the FDA; and (x) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

To get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder
Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019

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

To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user
base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were
negatively impacting the Company 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.

To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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


DEITSCH & WRIGHT: McRay Overshadowing Claim Given Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned DESSERI McCRAY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEITSCH & WRIGHT, P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-731-EAK-SPF. (M.D. Fla.).

Deitsch & Wright, P.A. is a Florida-based law firm. In October
2017, Deitsch sent Lead Plaintiff Desseri McCray a collection
letter in an attempt to collect on a $1,734.75 debt McCray incurred
after receiving personal medical services from Excel Medical
Imaging, P.L.

McCray sued Deitsch on behalf of herself and the class on March 27,
2018, alleging Deitsch's collection letters violated sections
1692g(b) and 1692e(10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Of the claims that remain, Count I of the complaint
alleges that the letters' threats of "additional action" and
demands for immediate resolution and prompt payment "overshadowed"
the class plaintiffs' rights to dispute and request verification of
the debts in violation of section 1692g(b) ("Overshadowing claim").
Count II alleges that Deitsch's threats of "additional action" were
false, and that Deitsch's representation that Excel had authorized
Deitsch to use any legal means necessary to collect the debts if
payment was not promptly remitted conveyed a "false sense of
urgency" in violation of section 1692e(10) ("False Sense of Urgency
claim").

On April 18, 2019, the Court certified the following class: All
individuals in the State of Florida to whom Defendant Deitsch &
Wright, P.A. sent, between March 27, 2017, and March 27, 2018, and
in an attempt to collect a debt, a collection letter based on the
same template used to create the collection letter sent to
Plaintiff Desseri McCray.

On October 26, 2018, the Court denied Deitsch's motion for judgment
on the pleadings as to McCray's False Sense of Urgency claim and
determined the claim should be put to a jury. On February 11, 2019,
the Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of McCray as
to her Overshadowing claim. The Court declined to direct the entry
of final judgment in McCray's favor on that claim, however, finding
that just reason for delay existed. Id. Additionally, because at
that point the Court had yet to certify the putative class, the
Court's order applied only to McCray individually.

McCray now moves for final summary judgment on both her
Overshadowing and False Sense of Urgency claims. Specifically, with
respect to her Overshadowing claim, McCray seeks summary judgment
in favor of the rest of the class now that the class has been duly
certified. With respect to her False Sense of Urgency claim,
notwithstanding the Court's prior determination that the claim
should be put to a jury, McCray seeks summary judgment in favor of
the entire class because "[d]iscovery has revealed that [Deitsch]
made indisputably false representations in its letters to [McCray]
and the class."

On review, the Court finds that the undisputed facts establish that
Deitsch is liable to each of the other 93 class members for
violations of section 1692g(b), and that the rest of the class is
therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on McCray's
Overshadowing claim. Accordingly, McCray's motion is GRANTED as to
Count I of the complaint, the Court rules.

However, the Court declines to deviate from its prior determination
that McCray's False Sense of Urgency claim should be put to a jury.
McCray's motion is DENIED as to Count II of the complaint, the
Court orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019  Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y65o8f4n from Leagle.com

Desseri McCray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex D. Weisberg --
aweisberg@afclaw.com -- of Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA &
Amorette Rinkleib -- arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- Thompson
Consumer Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Deitsch and Wright, P.A., Defendant, represented by Meredith A.
Chaiken -- meredith@granerlaw.com -- Graner Platzek & Allison,
P.A., Steven Daniel Eisenband -- sde@granerlaw.com -- of Graner
Platzek & Allison, P.A. & Steven Platzek , Graner Platzek &
Allison, P.A.



DROPBOX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. 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 take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR)
CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product,
gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments
for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a
result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over
existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was
not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the
Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize
gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was
not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be
profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts
were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial
payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would
materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the
Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that
gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix)
that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of
gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by
the FDA; and (x) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

To get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder
Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019

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

To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user
base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were
negatively impacting the Company 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.

To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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



ELECTROCORE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. 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 take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR)
CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product,
gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments
for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a
result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over
existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was
not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the
Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize
gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was
not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be
profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts
were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial
payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would
materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the
Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that
gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix)
that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of
gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by
the FDA; and (x) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

To get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder
Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019

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

To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user
base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were
negatively impacting the Company 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.

To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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


ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health 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 court has
scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020, in the class action
suit captioned as Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

In July 2019, the company entered into settlement agreements with
all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an
aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining
plaintiff alleges that the company, some of its former officers,
and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and
misrepresent the company's earnings and financial position. The
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005.
However, the complaint has been amended from time to time,
including to request certification as a class action. Additionally,
one of the former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly
attempted to remove the case to federal district court. The company
filed its latest motion to remand the case back to state court on
January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded
the case back to state court.

On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted
the company's motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's
dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the company filed an
application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March
22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied the company's
application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings. The court has scheduled the trial to begin
August 10, 2020.

Encompass Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
this case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage
of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we
understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of
the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we
continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or
settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible
to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss
that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this
case."

Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.


ETHAN ALLEN: Faces Camacho Suit Over Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethan Allen Interiors
Inc. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, On Behalf of Himself
and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Ethan Allen
Interiors Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06171-ENV-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., Oct 31, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com

                    - and -

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 695-0052
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net


FACEBOOK INC: Financial Services Denied to Women & Old, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahiza Garcia, writing for CNN Business, reports that Facebook is
facing a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly denying people
financial services products based on age and gender.

A complaint filed October 31 in a federal district court in San
Francisco alleges that financial services ads on Facebook were
targeted away from women and older people over the past three
years. The complaint defines older people as those who are at least
40 years old.

It seeks to bar Facebook and advertisers from excluding older
persons and women from receiving ads for financial services such as
bank accounts, loans, insurance coverage, and investments.

In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said: "We're reviewing the
complaint. We've made significant changes to how housing,
employment and credit opportunities are run on Facebook and
continue to work on ways to prevent potential misuse. Our policies
have long prohibited discrimination and we're proud of the strides
we're making in this area."

Facebook's advertising platform has faced continued scrutiny over
whether it enables discrimination by allowing advertisers to target
their desired audience using tools that filter based on certain
characteristics.

The lawsuit was filed by a 54-year-old woman, Neuhtah Opiotennione,
who will seek class action status to include older and female
Facebook users nationwide who were allegedly denied financial
services ads because marketers were allowed to target an audience
based on age.

According to the suit, Facebook hasn't taken any steps to prevent
financial services advertisers from excluding based on age or
gender. It notes the one exception to this exclusion is advertising
for credit opportunities.

The suit alleges that Facebook violated California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act, which states that all people in the state, regardless
of sex, race, medical condition or other characteristics, are
entitled to "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever."

One of the firms involved in the suit, Outten & Golden, has brought
similar suits against Facebook in the past.

In September 2018, Outten & Golden, the Communications Workers of
America and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint
against Facebook and 10 other employers for unlawfully
discriminating against potential job seekers.

In December 2017, an investigation by ProPublica and The New York
Times found dozens of major employers ran recruitment ads that
targeted only certain age groups.

From November 2016 to September 2018, Facebook faced several
discrimination lawsuits as well as charges from civil rights and
labor groups, workers and individuals. Facebook's ad systems
allegedly excluded certain people from seeing housing, employment
and credit ads based on age, gender or race.

Facebook paid nearly $5 million to settle several suits in March,
including the one brought by Outten & Golden. Facebook also
announced a separate advertising portal for housing, employment and
credit ads that will offer significantly fewer targeting options.
[GN]



FARFETCH LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Farfetch Limited (FTCH)
Class Period: 9/21/2018 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued
either in or after the September 2018 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ftch/

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)
Class Period: 6/6/2019 - 8/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-olli/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]


FARMERS GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Geter Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FIRE
UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, GERALD HOOKS JR., LESLY K. NOLEN, AND JOSEPH C.
BLANKS, P.C. filed on Nov. 5, 2019, a Motion for Extension of Time
to File Petition with the Supreme Court of Texas in the lawsuit
captioned FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION,
FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, GERALD HOOKS JR., LESLY K. NOLEN, AND JOSEPH C.
BLANKS, P.C., Petitioners v. SANDRA GETER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent, Case No. 19-0996.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Mr. Joseph C. Blanks, Esq.
          Ms. Katherine D. Mackillop, Esq.
          Mr. Lawrence L. Germer, Esq.
          Mr. Layne E. Kruse, Esq.
          Mr. Carlos R. Rainer Jr., Esq.

The Respondent is represented by:

          Mr. Glen W. Morgan, Esq.
          Mr. Larry De-Wayne Layfield, Esq.


FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Faces Landucci Suit Over Illegal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Landucci, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS, LLC and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case
No. 3:19-cv-07573 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for the Defendants' violations of the California Labor
Code, the Business & Professions Code, and the Fair Employment and
Housing Act.

The Defendants implemented its policy and practice of charging
employees, who did not enroll in direct deposit an $8.00 fee each
time they cashed a paycheck, which is prohibited by the California
Labor Code, the Plaintiff contends. Throughout the Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants charged her an $8.00 fee to cash her
paychecks. The Plaintiff also alleges that she has also been
sexually harassed, discriminated against because of her sex, and
retaliated against for reporting that unlawful activity.

In retaliation for her reports of misconduct, the Defendants
reduced the Plaintiff's work hours, preventing her from making the
same amount of money as her male co-workers by not providing her
with as much overtime and double time as her male counterparts,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks damages to compensate her
for lost wages and benefits, together with interest at the legal
rate, and emotional distress damages resulting from the Defendants'
unlawful actions.

Teresa Landucci has worked for Freeman, formerly known as Champion
Expositions Services, for 13 years.

Freeman is an American marketing company that specializes in
face-to-face marketing events, such as expositions, conventions,
exhibits, and corporate events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
          Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
          HOYER & HICKS
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 766-3539
          Fax: (415) 276-1738
          Email: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
                 rhicks@hoyerlaw.com


GATES CORP: Court Denies Collective Class Notice in Lundine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Collective Class Notice in the case captioned PEGGY
LUNDINE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GATES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-1235-EFM,
(D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Peggy Lundine commenced the collective class action
lawsuit under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
on behalf of all similarly-situated non-exempt manufacturing
employees working at some of Defendant Gates Corporation's
facilities.

Lundine identifies three issues with the proposed class notice and
asks the District Court to resolve them in her favor. First,
Lundine argues that the notice should more clearly communicate that
class members may not be required to pay Gates's attorneys' fees,
even though they may be required to pay other legal expenses
related to the case. Second, Lundine argues that the notice should
not state that class members will be required to travel to Kansas.
Third, Lundine argues that the notice should not list Gates's
counsel's contact information.  

On review, Judge Melgren concludes that Lundine's three arguments
concerning the class notice are without merit.

First, the notice sufficiently informs putative class members that
they may be required to pay court costs and other expenses if the
claims end up being without merit, the Court holds. The notice is
unlikely to deter putative class members from joining in this
action by leading them to mistakenly believe that they will have to
pay Gates's attorney's fees in addition to other court costs.

Second, the Court concludes that the notice sufficiently informs
putative class members that they may be required to travel to
Kansas without deterring them from joining the action. The notice
does not state that all class members must travel to Kansas. It
merely states that the putative class member may have to travel to
Kansas.  

Finally, the Court concludes that the notice should include Gates's
counsel's information. The proposed notice in Exhibit B lists
Gates's counsel after the plaintiff's counsel in a less prominent
and unambiguous manner. Putative class members are unlikely to be
confused about which counsel would represent them.  

Accordingly. Plaintiff Peggy Lundine's Motion for Approval of
Collective Class Notice is DENIED, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4g94kn9
from Leagle.com

Peggy Lynn Lundine, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, John Stronghoner, Jim Aikens, Jeanne L. Carson, Andrew
DeSpain, Shawn W. Tubbs, Hannah Arnold, Elizabeth Lydy, Mary Von
Kannon-Marchand, Anthony Rogers, Ethan Hammock, Tyler Chamberlain,
Jeremey Chamblee, Courtney Belue, Zachary Tehee, Ellis Wooten,
Harlon D. Farr, Jr., Christopher Thorton, Leslie Thomason & Martha
J. Michael, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan J. Donelon ,
Donelon, PC & Daniel W. Craig , Donelon, PC, 4600 Madison, Suite
810, Kansas City, MO 64112

Gates Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Eby -
christopher.eby@akerman.com-Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher
S. Shank – chris@shankmoore.com -Shank & Moore, LLC, Colin L.
Barnacle - colin.barnacle@akerman.com - Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice
& David Lee Heinemann – davidh@shankmoore.com - Shank & Moore,
LLC.


GC SERVICES: Illegally Calls Elhendi's Phone, TCPA Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Elhendi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:19-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in
negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone pursuant to the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends. He adds
that he orally revoked any and all consent to be contacted using an
automated telephone dialing system, to the extent any ever
existed.

Mohamed Elhendi is a natural person residing in Orange County,
California.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Establishes Case Mgmt. Common Benefit Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division issued an Order establishing Protocol
for Common Benefit Work and Expenses in the case captioned RICHARD
FRANCIS, WESLEY WON, DENNIS SPEERLY, JOSEPH SIERCIO, MICHAEL
PLAFKER, HOWARD YOUNG, and DARRIN DEGRAND, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. KEITH SHELTON, KAREN SHELTON, DANIEL DRAIN,
WAVERS SMITH, RICHARD FREEMAN, SAMUEL FORD, KEITH FENSKE, COLTON
KELLY, and CHRISOPHER GILES, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant. LOUIS RAY, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant.
DENNIS DUFFY, RICHARD SULLIVAN, DANIEL BAPTIST, DENNIS SPEERLY,
MICHAEL PLAFKER, JOHN IASIELLO, and BENJI TOMPKINS, Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. MARISELLA GUTIERREZ, JIMMY HARMAN,
MARK KIDD, and JAMES NORVELL, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant, Case Nos. 19-11044, 19-11802, 19-11808, 19-11875,
19-12371 (E.D. Mich.).

The Court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
and the plaintiffs' Steering Committee.   Among the duties imposed
in that order on Lead Counsel was the obligation to enforce
guidelines approved by the Court as to the keeping of time records
and expenses. In this Order, the Court establishes specific
guidelines and rules for work done and expenses incurred for the
common benefit of all plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.   

Adoption of Case Management Protocols for Common Benefit Work.

The Court hereby adopts the following guidelines for the management
of case staffing, timekeeping, cost reimbursement, and related
common benefit issues.   

Compensable Common Benefit Work

Common Benefit Work includes all work done and expenses incurred
that inure to the common benefit of the plaintiffs in these
consolidated cases.

Examples of compensable and noncompensable work include, inter
alia:

1. Consolidated Pleadings and Briefs: (a) factual and legal
research and preparation of consolidated class action complaints
and related briefing (b) responding to inquiries from class
members; (c) communications with clients in response to Lead
Counsel's requests regarding proposed class representatives; (d)
comments and suggestions regarding the consolidated class action
complaints; and (e) class-related issues and briefing related
thereto are compensable.

2. Depositions: Although it is impracticable to impose inflexible
rules to cover every conceivable situation, Lead Counsel shall
exercise discretion, judgment, and prudence to designate only the
number of attorneys to participate in any given deposition that is
commensurate with the nature of that deposition so as to avoid
over-staffing. Thus, for example, the deposition of a causation
expert proffered by the defendant would typically justify the
assignment of more attorneys than would the defense of the
deposition of one of the plaintiffs' fact witnesses. Time and
expenses for Participating Counsel not designated as one of the
authorized questioners or otherwise authorized to attend the
deposition by Lead Counsel may not be considered Common Benefit
Work but, rather, work on behalf of such counsel's individual
clients. Unnecessary attendance by counsel may not be compensated
in any fee application to the Court.

Common Benefit Timekeeping Protocols

All time must be accurately and contemporaneously maintained.
Participating Counsel must keep contemporaneous billing records of
the time spent in connection with Common Benefit Work on these
consolidated cases, indicating with specificity the hours (in
tenth-of-an-hour increments) and billing rate, along with a
description of the particular activity (conducted deposition of
John Doe).

Each time entry must be categorized using one of the categories in
Exhibit A. In general, when possible, a more specific category
should be used in place of a more general category. Under no
circumstances should a submitting firm make up new categories for
use in its submission. Block billing is not permitted.

Counsel should direct to Lead Counsel any additional questions
about particular timekeeping categories. Under no circumstances
should a submitting firm make up new categories for use in its
submission.

Hourly Rates

Counsel may use their customary billing rates in monthly time
reports. However, use of those rates does not guarantee payment.
The Court will exercise its discretion to determine reasonable and
appropriate rates as the circumstances may warrant.

Common Benefit Expenses Protocol

Shared Costs

Shared Costs are costs that will be paid out of the Litigation Fund
administered by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. Each Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee member shall contribute to the Fund at times and in
amounts sufficient to cover plaintiffs' expenses for the
administration of these consolidated cases. The timing and amount
of each assessment will be determined by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel,
in consultation with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and each
assessment will be paid within 30 days as instructed by Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel. Failure to pay assessments will be grounds for
removal from the appointments made in previous Court Orders or
other common benefit assignments.

Shared Costs are costs incurred for the common benefit of the
plaintiffs in these consolidated cases as a whole. No
client-related costs, except certain costs relating to future cases
selected as bellwether cases that will be for the common benefit
(e.g., related to liability and causation), shall be considered
Shared Costs, unless exceptional circumstances exist and are
approved by order of this Court. All Shared Costs must be approved
by Lead Counsel before payment.

Lead Counsel must prepare and be responsible for distributing
reimbursement procedures and the forms associated therewith.
Requests for payments from the Fund for Common Benefit expenses
must include sufficient information to permit Lead Counsel and a
certified public accountant (CPA) to account properly for costs and
to provide adequate detail to the Court if necessary.

Held Costs

Held Costs are those costs and expenses that will be carried by
each attorney in these consolidated cases and reimbursed as and
when Lead Counsel determines to do so. Held Costs are those that do
not fall into the above Shared Costs categories but are incurred
for the common benefit of all plaintiffs in these consolidated
cases. No client-specific costs can be considered Held Costs, other
than certain Common Benefit costs relating to class representatives
and future bellwether cases at the discretion of Lead Counsel and
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. Held Costs shall be recorded in
accordance with the guidelines set forth herein and on the form
provided as Addendum B hereto. Held Costs shall be subject to the
following limitations:

Travel Limitations

Only reasonable expenses will be reimbursed. Except in unusual
circumstances approved by Lead Counsel, all travel reimbursements
are subject to the following limitations:

Airfare: For routine domestic flights, ordinarily only the price of
a refundable, changeable and convenient coach fare seat or its
equivalent will be reimbursed. For international travel or
transcontinental flights with a total duration exceeding four
hours, business class, or if business class is not available, first
class, may be reimbursed at Lead Counsel's discretion. Private or
charter travel will not be reimbursed except in unusual
circumstances, as approved by Lead Counsel.

Hotel: Hotel room charges for the average available room rate of a
reasonable business hotel may be reimbursed.

Meals: Meal expenses must be reasonable. Large meal expenses may be
reviewed by Lead Counsel and disallowed.

Non-Travel Limitations

Long Distance, Conference Call, and Cellular Telephone Charges:
Common Benefit long distance, conference call, and cellular
telephone charges are to be reported at actual cost.• Shipping,
Overnight, Courier, and Delivery Charges: All claimed Common
Benefit shipping, overnight, courier, or delivery expenses must be
documented with bills showing the sender, origin of the package,
recipient, and destination of the package. Such charges are to be
reported at actual cost.

Postage Charges: Common Benefit postage charges are to be reported
at actual cost.

Telefax Charges: Common Benefit fax charges shall not exceed $0.25
per page.

Supplemental submissions of common benefit time will be permitted
only for good cause shown and with the approval of Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2axss3u  from Leagle.com.

Richard Francis, Wesley Won, Dennis Speerly, Joseph Sierchio,
Michael Plafker, Howard Young & Darrin Degrand, Plaintiffs,
represented by Beth M. Rivers , Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, 117
West 4th Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Douglas James
McNamara - dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Theodore J. Leopold - tleopold@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC & Michael L. Pitt , Pitt, McGehee,
117 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Grant A. Newman -
newman@bsplaw.com - Bush Seyferth PLLC, Jared Alexander Levine -
JaLevine@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP,  -jmurphy@crowell.com
- Crowell & Moring LLP, Kathleen T. Sooy  - ksooy@crowell.com -
Crowell & Moring LLP & Stephanie A. Douglas , Bush Seyferth PLLC,
100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400, Troy, MI 48084.


GENESIS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bussey Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL D. BUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS TECHNICAL STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00782 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Bussey was employed by the Defendant as an hourly
paid employee.

Genesis Technical Staffing, Inc. is a staffing company providing
workers to a variety of energy related industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjoseph@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


GNC HOLDINGS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06507 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille
so they be fully accessible and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls GNC retail stores
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (212) 656-1845
          Email: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284


GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 arbitration
is proceeding in a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by three female former
employees.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees
in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.


The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims. On
September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018,
plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to
certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief.

On April 12, 2019, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to certain class members who are parties to
agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to
arbitrate employment-related disputes, and plaintiffs filed a
motion challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements
executed after the filing of the class action.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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's motion to dismiss litigation related to the sale of U.S.
Treasury securities is still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated
class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally
alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection
with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and
auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants,
including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury
securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede
competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit over Aluminum Trades
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), J.
Aron & Company and Metro continues to defend a class action suits
related to the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International
(GSI), J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated
subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of
2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and
individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust
laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and
aluminum trading.

The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable
relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble
damages.

In December 2016, the district court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss as to all remaining claims. Certain plaintiffs subsequently
appealed in December 2016.

On August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's
dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further
proceedings.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GROUPON INC: 7th Circuit Remands Instagram User's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Pappas and Raina T. Shipman, writing for The National Law
Review reports that the Seventh Circuit remanded an Instagram
user's appeal after the court found that Groupon's notice of
removal did not allege the citizenship of any diverse member of the
putative class. The decision highlights the importance of actually
alleging the minimal diversity requirement for removal under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The plaintiff, Christine Dancel, obtained permission under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to appeal the lower court's denial of
class certification in her claim alleging that Groupon violated the
Illinois publicity statute by using her Instagram photos for
advertisement purposes without her permission. While the sole issue
before the Seventh Circuit was the denial of class certification,
the proceedings below drew the court's attention to "a critical
hole" in the notice of removal: it did not allege the citizenship
of a single diverse member of the putative class. "[E]ven on
interlocutory review," the court said, it must "be assured that the
district court has jurisdiction" before deciding the merits of an
appeal.

CAFA permits removal of a proposed class action to federal court as
long as there is minimal diversity; meaning just one member of the
plaintiff class needs to be a citizen of a state different from any
one defendant. In its notice of removal, Groupon – a citizen of
Delaware and Illinois – only stated that the class "undoubtedly
would include at least some undetermined number of non-Illinois and
non-Delaware citizens as class plaintiffs." Initially, Dancel did
not challenge minimal diversity in her motion for remand at the
trial court level but "changed her tune" in her reply in support of
remand. Although Groupon insisted that it could easily cure the
deficiency, the district court denied the motion to remand and did
not address minimal diversity or direct Groupon to cure its
allegations. The Seventh Circuit found that Groupon's allegation of
"negative citizenship" failed to satisfy the minimal diversity
requirement. Groupon countered that Dancel had waived her
opportunity to contest the issue. However, the Seventh Circuit held
that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and only an
unchallenged factual determination that supports jurisdiction is
subject to waiver. The court found that Groupon's allegations in
the notice of removal did not have any necessary factual content.

Groupon's omission did not mean that the case had to be immediately
remanded to state court as the Seventh Circuit held that "[a]s long
as the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is either apparent
from the record or cured through amendment of the notice of
removal, we can proceed to the class-certification issue." Thus,
the court directed the district court to permit discovery to
"whatever extent the court deems necessary for Groupon to allege
that at least one member of the putative class" was a non-Illinois
or non-Delaware resident at the time of the case's removal. The
Seventh Circuit retained its jurisdiction over the appeal pending
resolution of the issue.

Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., No. 19-1831 (7th Cir. Oct. 9, 2019). [GN]



HUGHES GROUP: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Meyers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUGHES GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00806-KGB (E.D.
Ark., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek. The Plaintiff was misclassified by the Defendant as
exempt under the FLSA, and was not paid an hourly rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for every hour worked over
40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a custodian from
September 2016 until July 2019.

The Defendant secures government contracts to provide facility
maintenance for government buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IROBOT CORP: 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 iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT) between November
21, 2016 and October 22, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for iRobot investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the iRobot class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1703.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) 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.

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-1703.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
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]



J.G. WENTWORTH: Avery et al. Allege Illegal Kickback Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEITH and KECIA AVERY; RUSSELL and MADELINE BROWNFIELD, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. J.G. WENTWORTH HOME LENDING, LLC, successor to
WESTSTAR MORTGAGE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03303-DLB
(D.M.D., Nov. 15, 2019) alleges violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are borrowers who
currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and
brokered by Defendant WestStar Mortgage, Inc., predecessor to J.G.
Wentworth Home Lending, LLC, which was or is secured by the
Plaintiffs' residential real property.

The Plaintiffs are victims of an illegal kickback scheme ("All Star
Scheme") under which WestStar's loan officers, agents, or other
employees received and accepted illegal kickbacks from All Star
Title, Inc. ("All Star"), a Maryland-based title and settlement
services company, in exchange for the assignment and referral of
residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All
Star for title and settlement services. WestStar and All Star
laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing companies to
conceal the illegal kickbacks and the All Star Scheme.

West Star and All Star defrauded borrowers into paying for the
illegal kickbacks by charging borrowers an amount that was not
associated with any legitimate title or settlement service
("Kickback Overcharge") and imposed for the sole purpose of funding
the illegal kickbacks. West Star and All Star fraudulently
misrepresented these charges on borrowers' Good Faith Estimates,
HUD-1 Statements and other loan documents as associated with
legitimate title and settlement services thereby defrauding
borrowers into bearing the cost of the illegal enterprise.

Weststar Mortgage, Inc. (WestStar) provides banking services. The
Company specializes in residential mortgage banking services,
retail lending, and conventional loans. WestStar serves clients in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
          JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                 vnannis@jgllaw.com
                 mbenevento@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com


JMC HOLDINGS: Court OKs $44.75K FLSA Suit Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an opinion granting Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for
Settlement as to All Plaintiffs in the case captioned JESY CRUZ;
LUIS RODRIGUEZ; AND MERCEDES TRINIDAD: on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMC HOLDINGS,
LTD. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA; JOHN CILMI; and JOHN DOES #1-10,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-9321 (KSH) (CLW) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs Jesy Cruz, Luis Rodriguez and Mercedes Trinidad filed
this collective action against defendants JMC Holdings d/b/a
Domino's Pizza and John Cilmi on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

Plaintiffs conclude that, because JMC allegedly paid them less than
the statutory minimum wage when making deliveries and did not
adequately reimburse them for their actual expenses, their actual
compensation, free and clear, was less than minimum wage. They
further contend that JMC's failure to properly reimburse them for
their expenses resulted in them being paid overtime at a rate that
was less than one-and-one-half the appropriate rates of pay.

The Settlement Agreement

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, JMC will pay a Maximum
Settlement Amount of $44,750.00. Named plaintiffs' counsel requests
$19,271.83 of the Maximum Settlement Amount as attorneys' fees and
costs, and named plaintiffs seek $3,000.00 each as a service award
for their prosecution of this action. The remaining $16,478.17 will
be distributed to all plaintiffs proportionally by dividing each
plaintiff's "number of hours worked by total number of hours worked
by all" plaintiffs during the time period covered by the collective
action.

Settlement Under the FLSA

In approving an FLSA settlement agreement in the Third Circuit, a
district court must find that the compromise reached is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.
A proposed settlement resolves a bona fide dispute' when it
reflects a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage
or computation of back wages, that are actually in dispute,' rather
than `a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an
employer's overreaching. A proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable when it (i) is fair and reasonable to the employee and
(ii) does not otherwise frustrate the implementation of the FLSA.

Fairness of the Settlement

There is a Bona Fide Dispute

A bona fide dispute exists when parties genuinely disagree about
the merits of an FLSA claim when there is factual rather than legal
doubt about whether the plaintiff would succeed at trial.  

Plaintiffs maintain (i) that JMC was not entitled to take advantage
of a tip credit because it failed to provide them with the legally
mandated disclosures that are a perquisite to taking such a credit
and (ii) that they did not receive a free and clear minimum wage or
overtime pay at one-and-a-half times the required rate of pay
because they were not being fully reimbursed for their expenses.  


By contrast, JMC contends that it owes plaintiffs nothing because
it (a) properly informed all employees about the tip credit and (b)
adequately reimbursed employees for their expenses, satisfying the
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the law. In light of the
parties' diametrically opposed factual positions, the Court finds
that a bona fide dispute exists.

The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

District courts in the Third Circuit examine the factors set forth
in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) to determine
whether an FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable. Those factors
are as follows:

(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation
(2) the reaction of the class to the settlement . (3) the stage of
the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed  (4) the
risks of establishing liability (5) the risks of establishing
damages  (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the
trial (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater
judgment (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in
light of the best possible recovery (9) the range of reasonableness
of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the
attendant risks of litigation

An examination of the Girsh factors establishes that the proposed
settlement here is fair and reasonable.

The first factor captures the probable costs, in both time and
money, of continued litigation. The parties still dispute a number
of complex issues consisting of whether JMC informed its employees
about the tip credit, whether it sufficiently reimbursed its
employees for their expenses, and whether it properly paid its
employees minimum wage and overtime. Demonstrating the complexity
of the issues at stake is plaintiffs' steadfast position that JMC
violated the FLSA despite its voluntary production of approximately
1,400 pages of documents, which it claims prove that plaintiffs'
claims are baseless.  Given the complexity of those issues, named
plaintiffs estimate that if this litigation were to proceed to a
final judgment that there is a likelihood that any recovery for
Plaintiffs would not occur for several years.

Accordingly, the first Girsh factor counsels in favor of approval
because the settlement agreement obviates the expenses and
complicated process that would result from prolonged litigation,
which could reduce any recovery for plaintiffs.  

The second Girsh factor is the reaction of the class to the
settlement. Named plaintiffs communicated with plaintiffs
throughout the litigation to keep them apprised of developments and
none of the other plaintiffs have objected to the proposed
settlement.

Thus the second factor also supports approval.

The third factor requires the Court to consider the stage of
proceedings and the amount of discovery completed. Under this
factor, a court must determine whether counsel had an adequate
appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating. While no
depositions have been taken, JMC voluntarily produced a voluminous
amount of documents regarding its employment policies, mileage
reports for plaintiffs, and records that it alleges show it paid
plaintiffs time-and-a-half for their overtime work and a full
minimum wage for inside work. Critically, named plaintiffs' counsel
gained an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before
negotiating the settlement with JMC by engaging in a full-day
mediation session with a JAMS mediator experienced in wage-and-hour
class action matters. The Court therefore finds that the third
factor militates in favor of approval of the settlement.  

The fourth and fifth Girsh factors survey the potential risks and
rewards of proceeding to litigation in order to weigh the
likelihood of success against the benefits of an immediate
settlement. Named plaintiffs recognize the obstacles they will face
to prevail at trial. They estimate that plaintiffs' collective
claims could total $36,000, but concede, after analyzing JMC's
document production and mediation at JAMS, that JMC has potentially
strong defenses. The difficulties that Plaintiffs recognize cause
the likelihood of success at trial to pale in comparison with the
benefit of immediate settlement.

Accordingly, because the court must, to a certain extent, give
credence to the estimation of the probability of success proffered
by class counsel, who are experienced with the underlying case, and
the possible defenses which may be raised to their cause of action,
the fourth and fifth factors support the settlement.

As for the sixth factor, there will always be a `risk' or
possibility of decertification, and consequently the court can
always claim this factor weighs in favor of settlement. The Court
therefore finds that the sixth Girsh factor favors approval of the
parties' settlement.

The seventh Girsh factor is most relevant when the defendant's
professed inability to pay is used to justify the amount of the
settlement. The parties have not offered evidence regarding JMC's
ability to withstand a greater judgment. As such, the Court finds
that the seventh factor is neutral.  

For the eighth and ninth Girsh factors, a court asks whether the
settlement represents a good value for a weak case or a poor value
for a strong case. After deducting attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards from the $44,750.00 Maximum Settlement Amount,
$16,478.17 remains to be distributed to plaintiffs proportionally
by dividing each plaintiff's "number of hours worked by total
number of hours worked by all plaintiffs during the time period
covered by the collective action.  

This total represents 45% of the $36,000.00 that named plaintiffs
estimate plaintiffs' collective claims to be worth if they were to
fully succeed on the merits. But named plaintiffs recognize that
JMC possesses potentially strong defenses and that they might not
succeed at trial, or that if they proceeded to trial, any recovery
would be significantly eclipsed by the costs of the litigation. The
settlement amount is therefore reasonable to resolve plaintiffs'
claims. To be sure, there is always a chance for greater recovery
at trial, but here, the benefits of the present settlement outweigh
the risks of continued litigation.

Accordingly, the eighth and ninth Girsh factors favor approval of
the settlement.

In short, an analysis of the Girsh factors supports approval of the
settlement, and thus the Court finds that it is fair and
reasonable.

The Settlement Does Not Frustrate the Purposes of FLSA

JMC argues that it informed plaintiffs about the tip credit and
sufficiently reimbursed them for their expenses so as to satisfy
minimum wage and overtime laws. In pursuing the class's claims,
which JMC disputes, named plaintiffs maintain that they have
analyzed extensive payroll, mileage reimbursement data as well as
policy and other documents produced by JMC. After analyzing and
evaluating their claims against JMC and engaging in mediation,
named plaintiffs concede that, if this action is not settled now,
they might not recover any of their claimed damages or might obtain
a more favorable recovery than originally sought, but there is a
likelihood that any recovery would not occur for several years.

In light of the complex issues raised by plaintiffs' claims and the
anticipated time-consuming litigation, the Court finds that a
settlement will resolve a bona fide dispute without undermining the
purposes of the FLSA.

Thus the Court finds that, as a whole, the proposed settlement does
not frustrate the purposes of the FLSA.

Thus, Named plaintiffs' consent motion to approve settlement is
granted, rules the Court. The $19,271.83 for attorneys' fees and
costs represents approximately 43% of the total $44,750.00 Maximum
Settlement Amount and thus lies within the range of reasonable
allocations with respect to awards granted in similar cases. The
Court also notes that a larger percentage is appropriate here given
the smaller size of the settlement fund. And each plaintiff
expressly agreed to the formula in the retainer agreement pursuant
to which counsel calculated the $19,271.83 sum.

The Court, therefore, finds that the $19,271.83 sought as
attorneys' fees and costs is not excessive and therefore approves
the request.

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

JESY CRUZ, LUIS RODRIGUEZ, MERCEDES TRINIDAD, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Alex Alba,
Christian Castillo, Edward Puello, Sashari Rivas, Keyera Payne,
Joan Valdez, Shohidul Islam, Shahjoly Abul, Elias Roman, Stacy
Brown, Andreina Vargas, Minhaj Chowdhury, Rysell Ruan, Charlie Pena
Bautista, Rodrigo Jimenez Carrillo, Mohammad Chowdhury, Masum
Ahmed, Abdulhye Iqbal, Xiomara Salazar, Maria Ruan, Jerome
Anderson, Kalai Alias, Maria Cochachi & Maayni Cheikh, Plaintiffs,
represented by DAVID STEIN , SAMUEL & STEIN, 38 West 32nd Street
Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001.

JOE RIZZA: Abad Sues over Biometric Data Collections
----------------------------------------------------
CHRISSANA ABAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOE RIZZA IMPORTS, INC. dba JOE RIZZA ACURA;
JOE RIZZA FORD OF ORLAND PARK, INC.; and JOE RIZZA ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendants, and KEY CONTROL HOLDING, INC. dba KEYRAK, INC.,
Respondent in Discovery, Case No. 2019CH13106 (Il Cir., Cook Cty.,
Nov. 12, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking
the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendants did not inform the
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics.

Joe Rizza Imports, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers new
and used passenger cars, utility vehicles, and trucks, as well as
provides parts and accessories, repairs and maintenance, finance,
and insurance services. JOE Rizza Imports serves customers in the
State of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com


JOINT UNDERWRITING: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Ronda RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
issued an opinion and order granting Defendants' Joint Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned NOEMI TORRES RONDA and
ANGELO RIVERA LAMBOY, Plaintiffs, v. JOINT UNDERWRITING
ASSOCIATION; CARIBBEAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS MULTIPLES
DE PUERTO RICO; INTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY; MAPFRE-PRAICO;
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; OPTIMA INSURANCE COMPANY; REAL LEGACY
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE OF PUERTO RICO, INC.;
SEGUROS TRIPLE-S PROPIEDAD INC.; UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY;
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RAMON L. CRUZ COLON, in his
official capacity as Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico; RUBEN A. HERNANDEZ GREGORAT, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Public Works;
and JESUS F. MENDEZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Defendants, Civil No. 11-1826CCC (D.P.R.).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants took advantage of Law 253 of
1995, the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, which
requires every motor vehicle owner to buy automobile insurance for
a set premium of $99. Plaintiffs allege that JUA and defendant
insurance companies are required by law to refund to purchasers a
portion of the premium intended for acquisition and administrative
costs that were never expended. Rather than issuing such a refund,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to retain the full
premium. The class is composed of all motor vehicle owners in
Puerto Rico who purchased compulsory automobile liability insurance
from 1998 until the adjudication of this action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.  The Court look to the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and any affidavits
in making the determination.  A dispute is genuine if the evidence
about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the
point in favor of the non-moving party.  A fact is material if it
has potential to determine the outcome of the litigation.

Once a properly supported motion has been presented, where a
nonmovant bears the burden of proof on an issue, the nonmovant must
point to competent evidence and specific facts to defeat summary
judgment.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

A civil RICO suit must allege violations of 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c), which states that it shall be unlawful for any person
employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering
activity or collection of unlawful debt. Only a person injured in
his business or property by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962 has standing to bring a private civil RICO action.  

The definition of racketeering activity is found at 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(1), and at least two related acts included in such
definition are required to establish a pattern. Included under the
definition of racketeering activity is any act which is indictable
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 (mail fraud). There are two elements
to mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme
to defraud or to perform specified fraudulent acts) and (2) use of
the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute,
the scheme or specified fraudulent acts.

Puerto Rico Compulsory Insurance

Law No. 253 of 1995 established a new compulsory automobile
insurance system, created JUA, and required all private insurance
companies underwriting automobile insurance to become members of
JUA. Law No. 253 set the price of compulsory auto insurance at $99,
27 L.P.R.A. Section 8056, and provides that the insurance premium
is not refundable.

Count One

Count One alleges that defendants violated RICO because they
knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully, aided and abetted, and
conspired with each other, to devise, or intend to devise the
Scheme to Defraud, by which they were to illegally obtain, acquire
and maintain control of the refundable payments paid by the
Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, to later illegally
keep those assets for their own pecuniary benefit and interest.

Plaintiffs allege that they were economically injured by
defendants' actions because they are entitled to a refund of a
portion of the premiums paid for compulsory liability insurance
specifically, 8% of the premium intended to be used to for
acquisition expenses, such as commissions paid to insurance
brokers, and 4% of the premium intended to be used for
administrative expenses, such as providing paper copies of
insurance policies.

Plaintiffs argue three theories of mail fraud: (1) the defendants
caused DTPW to mail billing statements for compulsory insurance
that failed to inform consumers that parts of the insurance premium
were refundable (2) the defendants caused DTPW to mail billing
statements for compulsory insurance that charged acquisition and
administrative costs that would not be incurred (3) JUA failed to
place excess premium funds in the Special Reserve created by Rule
LXX.

Plaintiffs' first claim, that defendants committed mail fraud by
causing DPTW to omit on billing documents that a portion of the
premium is refundable, must fail because the conduct that plaintiff
identifies as fraudulent is required by law. The DPTW must bill for
compulsory insurance premiums at a cost of $99. Nothing in the
compulsory insurance statute requires the DTPW to state that any
portion of the premium is refundable.  

Whether or not defendants influenced the drafting of the statute or
accompanying regulations in a way that benefitted them, as
plaintiffs allege, Law 253 is the law of Puerto Rico, and
compliance with its terms cannot constitute mail fraud.

The second claim alleges that defendants committed mail fraud by
causing DTPW to mail billing documents charging the full $99
compulsory insurance premium and then failing to refund the portion
of the premium not actually spent on acquisition or administrative
costs. As to the remaining private insurance companies, assuming,
arguendo, that they are legally required to refund excess premium
payments, there is no racketeering activity as required to support
a RICO claim. As previously stated, DTPW is required by law to
charge a $99 premium, 26 L.P.R.A. Section 8056, and compliance with
the law cannot constitute mail fraud.

There are no facts in dispute which, when viewed in the light most
favorably to the plaintiffs, would permit a finding of mail fraud
by JUA or the private insurance companies.

The third claim pertains solely to JUA. Plaintiff alleges that JUA
has failed to place excess funds in the Special Reserve, as
required by Rule LXX (d.e. 46-1). Plaintiff's Complaint does not
include this theory; it was raised by plaintiffs for the first time
in their Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. This claim
is not obviously related to the mailings by DPTW, which the Court
have already found cannot constitute mail fraud. In addition,
plaintiffs have not alleged that they have been injured in their
business or property by JUA's alleged failure to place funds in the
Special Reserve.
  
This claim must fail under RICO because, assuming, arguendo, that
JUA has failed to place funds in the Special Reserve, there are no
facts in dispute that, when viewed in the light most favorable to
plaintiffs, would allow a factfinder to find mail fraud or an
injury that would confer plaintiffs standing.

Even accepting plaintiffs' factual allegations as true and drawing
all reasonable inferences in their favor, a reasonable trier of
fact could not find that mail fraud constituting racketeering
activity occurred. Accordingly, plaintiffs' RICO claim fails as a
matter of law and summary judgment must be granted in favor of
defendants as to Count One.

Count Two

Count Two alleges that defendant JUA violated 18 U.S.C.
Section1962(a) by transmitting racketeering proceeds to a bank
outside of Puerto Rico. As plaintiffs' racketeering claim at Count
One has failed, no racketeering proceeds can be established.
Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of
defendants as to Count Two.

Count Three

Count Three alleges that all defendants violated 18 U.S.C. Section
1562(d) by conspiring to transfer racketeering proceeds as alleged
in Count Two. As plaintiffs' racketeering claim has failed, no
racketeering proceeds can be established. Accordingly, summary
judgment must be granted in favor of defendants as to Count Three.

Count Four

The Court's jurisdiction in this matter rest upon federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Having granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants on all federal causes of action,
the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' remaining claims under Commonwealth law.  

Against this backdrop, the Court GRANTS appearing defendants' Joint
Motion for Summary Judgment and all defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5xqevur from Leagle.com.

Noemi Torres-Ronda & Angelo Rivera-Lamboy, Plaintiffs, represented
by Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan -quetglaslaw@gmail.com - Quetglas Law
Office PSC, Pedro R. Vazquez, III , Pedro R. Vazquez Law Office 405
Esmeralda Ave Pmb 153, Guaynabo, PR, 00969-4457 & Jose F. Quetglas
, Quetglas Law Office, 1021 Ave. Ashford CondadoSanturce, PR 00907

Joint Underwriting Association, Defendant, represented by Mario A.
Arroyo-Maymi , Mario Arroyo Law Offices P.S.C., PMB 379, 1353 Ave.
Luis Vigoreaux, Guaynabo, P.R. 00966, Moraima S. Rios-Robles -
mrios@arroyorioslaw.com - Arroyo & Rios Law Offices, P.S.C. &
Yamilette Vega-Motta - yvega@arroyorioslaw.com -  Arroyo & Rios Law
Offices, P.S.C.

Chartis Insurance Company of Puerto Rico & Allstate Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by Carmen M. Alfonso-Rodriguez  -
car@mcvpr.com - McConnell Valdes, LLC, Eduardo A. Zayas-Marxuach -
ezm@mcvpr.com - McConnell Valdes, LLC, Anders C. Wick , Dentons US
LLP, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, New York 10020, pro hac
vice & Mark L. Hanover , Dentons US LLP, 1221 Ave. of the Americas,
New York, New York 10020
Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico, Real Legacy
Assurance Co., Inc. & Royal & Sun Alliance of Puerto Rico Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Pedro R. Cintron-Rivera , Pedro R.
Cintron Rivera Law Office, PO Box 1094Fajardo, PR 00738- 1094.

KROGER: Customer Files Class Action Over 2018 Shooting
------------------------------------------------------
Billy Kobin, writing for Louisville Courier Journal, reports that a
customer who was inside the Jeffersontown Kroger in October 2018
when Gregory Bush allegedly shot and killed two shoppers has filed
a class-action lawsuit against the suspect and supermarket.

The lawsuit, filed October 23 in Jefferson Circuit Court on the eve
of the one-year anniversary of the deadly attack, claims Denise
Clark suffered "physical, mental and/or emotional injuries" as a
result of witnessing and fleeing from the shooting.

Bush is facing murder and hate crime charges in state and federal
court in connection with the Oct. 24, 2018, shooting that took the
lives 67-year-old Vickie Lee Jones and 69-year-old Maurice
Stallard, both black shoppers.

The families of Jones and Stallard have also filed lawsuits against
Kroger and Bush, who is white and allegedly told one bystander that
"whites don't shoot whites."

Similar to the two suits from the Jones and Stallard families, the
latest suit claims Kroger had no policy in place to prevent Bush
from carrying and using a loaded firearm in its store.

In September, Kroger asked its customers to stop openly carrying
guns in its stores following a string of mass shootings around the
country.

As Clark stood at the customer service desk inside the
Jeffersontown Kroger on the afternoon of the shooting, she heard a
gunshot and asked a Kroger employee if it was gunfire, according to
the lawsuit.

The employee responded that it was not gunfire, the suit states.

Clark then heard two more shots and saw three men running toward
the front entrance with Stallard's 12-year-old grandson, who
witnessed his grandfather's death.

Clark then saw Bush and led a group of 15 to 20 people to the other
side of the store, according to the suit.

Clark and her fiance, who works in the fresh food department at the
store, exited the store along with others through a back office
door. But once outside in the parking lot, the group heard more
gunshots and ran back into the office, according to the suit.

The group then barricaded themselves in the office until first
responders arrived and "prayed that the gunman would not find
them," the suit claims.

The class-action suit invites others, with certain exceptions, who
suffered physical, mental or emotional issues as a result of the
shooting to join it.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and compensation along with a
jury trial.

In a statement, a Kroger spokeswoman said while the
Cincinnati-based company "cannot comment on pending litigation, we
want to express our deepest sympathies to the families affected by
this senseless violence."

Attorney Will Nefzger, Esq., who is representing Clark, told The
Courier Journal that Kroger only offered Clark a $10 gift card
after the shooting.

In addition, Nefzger said more than two dozen shootings have taken
place at Kroger stores around the country since 1991, including a
2007 shooting at the same Jeffersontown Kroger.

"(Kroger) knew about these shootings happening, and yet no safety
measures were taken whatsoever to protect their customers," Nefzger
said. "They banned guns at their corporate offices, presumably for
the safety of their corporate employees, but we've found no
evidence of that at stores."

Bush's federal case is on hold as the state case moves forward. A
Jefferson Circuit Court judge is expected to make a ruling on his
competency to stand trial during an Oct. 31 hearing. [GN]



LACI TRANS: Stingley et al. Seek Stage-One Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RENEE STINGLEY, EARNEST
SMITH, JELTHER SEPT, LAMAR TRUSSELL, RICKEY HAWKINS AND FLOYD
BEATTY, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. LACI TRANSPORT INC.
AND VLADETA MARKOVITC, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs filed a motion on Nov.
13, 2019, for stage-one conditional certification and notice to
putative class members.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Judge Sara L. Ellis presides over the case.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

LEGACY HEALTH: Denied Protective Order, Must Respond to Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIANNE HUNTER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH,
LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & HEALTH
CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL CHILREN'S HOSPITAL AT
LEGACY EMANUEL, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-002219-AC (D. Or.),
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division issued an Opinion and Order denying Legacy's
Motion for a Protective Order, and granting in part, Hunter's
Motion to Compel Defendants' Responses to Written Discovery.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Legacy Health,
Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health
Center, Legacy Health Partners, LLC, and Randall Children's
Hospital at Legacy Emanuel (Legacy) under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Oregon law, alleging Legacy failed to pay overtime
compensation for automatic time deductions and off-the-clock work;
failed to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and took
unlawful deductions from employee wages.

Before the court were the parties' competing discovery motions:
Legacy's Motion for a Protective Order, and Hunter's Motion to
Compel Defendants' Responses to Written Discovery. Both Motions
seek to define the scope of precertification discovery in this
case.

Legal Standards

Protective Order

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 26(c), a court is
authorized, upon a showing of good cause, to issue an order
protecting a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense. Such orders may include
prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the
party seeking discovery or limiting the scope of disclosure or
discovery to certain matters.

Legacy moves for a protective order, seeking relief from Hunter's
Requests for Production 1-3, 6-18, 20-30, 32-35, 37, 38, 41-43,
56-58, 60, and 61; and Interrogatories 1-6, 8 and 9.  

Legacy requests this court to use its broad discretion to limit the
scope of precertification discovery by using a phased approach. In
apparent keeping with this approach, Legacy proposes limiting
discovery at this phase of the litigation to (1) system-wide
policies and practices; and (2) documents from a maximum of 75
custodians from Legacy's central offices and at Legacy Hospital &
Health Center (e.g., Legacy Emanuel Medical Center and Randall
Children's Hospital), the hospital at which Hunter and all of the
opt-in plaintiffs worked.

Legacy does clarify which 75 custodians would be responsive or how
they would be chosen. Should the court deny its Motion and find
Hunter's discovery requests reasonable, Legacy requests the court
to condition broader discovery on Plaintiff's undertaking half of
Legacy's discovery expenses.

Hunter contends she is amenable to sampling as Legacy proposes, but
indicates the parties have not met and conferred to negotiate a
reasonable sampling procedure, an acceptable list of email search
terms, which custodians will be chosen for production, and to
otherwise come to an agreement regarding a range of broader
discovery issues. Because there has been no conferral between the
parties, Hunter asserts there is no basis for the court to make a
broad ruling regarding general discovery. Hunter argues that she
seeks only the identities and contact information of collective and
class members at this time, that she is open to sampling as Legacy
proposes so long as the parties properly confer to define its
parameters, and that she will narrow her discovery requests based
on her investigation of the class and collective allegations.

Legacy cannot demonstrate good cause to justify the broad sweep of
the protective order it requests here. The only information
currently sought by Hunter is reasonably related to the issue of
certification, and Legacy's request for a protective order, as well
as its claims of good cause, take aim at Hunter's requests for more
general discovery. Hunter has assured the court her general
discovery requests will be tailored in the wake of precertification
investigation, the thus Legacy cannot demonstrate any specific harm
or prejudice that will result if this court declines to grant a
protective order and allows the parties time to confer and
negotiate more general discovery matters after such investigation
takes place.

Legacy's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.

Motion to Compel

Rule 37 provides that a party seeking discovery may move the court
for an order "compelling an answer, designation, production, or
inspection" if a party fails to answer a properly submitted
interrogatory or an order requiring a party to supplement an
"evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response."  The party
seeking to compel discovery is burdened with demonstrating the
information he or she seeks is relevant, but "[t]he party who
resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not
be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and
supporting its objections." The court has broad discretion to
determine the relevancy of the information sought, and the
requested information need not be admissible to be discoverable.

Hunter moves the court to compel Legacy's responses to her
discovery requests, "namely to disclose the identities and contact
information of potential class and collective members across all of
Defendants' hospital and clinic locations."

In response, Legacy explains it is willing to provide the names and
contact information for a sample of 400 employees who worked at
Emanuel during the relevant time period, provided Hunter uses the
Belaire-West notice procedure to protect employee privacy. Legacy
requests the court to limit the information it must provide to the
employee name, last-known address, and last-known phone number to
"reduce the burden on Legacy and protect the employees' privacy
interests.

The Court held that Legacy fails to explain how it will be burdened
by producing the additional information requested, particularly if
discovery is limited to 600 individuals working at Emanuel.
Furthermore, Legacy neglects to acknowledge that the Belaire-West
notice Hunter has agreed to provide to class members will include a
way for them to opt-out if they are concerned about their privacy.
Privacy concerns thus do not present good cause to limit the
information to be produced. Accordingly, Legacy is to provide all
information requested by Hunter, except for individuals' social
security numbers, in complying with this court's order, rules the
Court.

Legacy must provide Hunter with the name, job title, unit,
last-known phone number, last-known email address, and dates of
employment for a random sample of 600 individuals who worked at
Emanuel or Randall during the relevant time period and meet the
definition of "nursing staff" by October 24, 2019, orders the
Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2psn8uh from Leagle.com.

Julianne Hunter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn H. Cottrell -
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Leimbach -
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Kontecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Hogg -
whogg@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice & Dana L. Sullivan - dana@baaslaw.com -
BAAS Law.

Legacy Health & Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center,
Defendants, represented by Courtney Peck – CPeck@perkinscoie.com
- Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English  - SEnglish
@perkinscoie.com- Perkins Coie, LLP, William B. Stafford -
BStafford @perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie, LLP, pro hac vice &
Sarah J. Crooks  - SCrooks@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie, LLP.

LOWE'S HOME: Blair et al. Seek Proper Separation Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
CODY BLAIR; and LISA BRANCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03209 (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019) is an
action for damages resulting the Defendant's systematic breaches of
its separation contracts.

In early January 2019, the Defendant informed its Loss Prevention
Managers of the "Organization Change" which means the elimination
of thousands of employees who had served as managers in the Loss
Prevention Department. Terminated employees were offered Release
and Separation Agreements which expressly incorporated a specified
sum of money that would be paid as severance.

Despite the fact that employees accepted the Release and Separation
Agreements by signing and returning the agreements and otherwise
performing as required, the Defendant decided to breach the
contract by refusing to pay the amounts specified in the signed
contracts.

Lowe's Home Centers Inc. retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances. The Company markets lumber, garden
tools and supplies, home electrical devices, electrical components,
ceilings, wall panels, hardwood flooring, fasteners, fireplaces,
and humidifiers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and –

          Laura S. Tuel, Esq.
          THE ADVOCATE EDGE, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Ave, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 588-9827
          E-mail: laura@theadvocateedge.com


MASTERCORP INC: Underpays Housekeepers, Aguirre-Valdivia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA AGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER CORP.; and DOES 1 through
110, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00060820-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., Nov. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Aguirre-Valdivia was employed by the Defendants as
housekeeper.

MasterCorp, Inc. provides cleaning and maintenance services. The
Company offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment,
traffic area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance
reporting services. MasterCorp operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          Jake W. Schulte, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
                  jschulte@nicholaslaw.org


MATCH GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)
Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in
connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with
Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/

SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC)
Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



MDL 2918: Integrity v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Integrity Financial Services of
Tampa Bay Inc. et al., the Plaintiffs, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT
PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-12258 (Filed July 31,
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-07046-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
anti-trust related laws.

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

The Integrity 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:

          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          WEITZ LUXENBERG, P.C.
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4167
          E-mail: dgjonaj@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          Tiffany R. Ellis, Esq.
          WEITZ LUXENBERG, P.C.
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4170
          E-mail: gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
                  pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  tellis@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0834
          E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com

MDL 2918: Uglem v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as  TIMOTHY A. ST. CYR and PAMELA
UGLEM, individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02477 (Filed July 31,
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-07050-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
anti-trust related laws.

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

The Uglem 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:

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
          8050 West 78 th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
                  nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com

MDL 2918: Voyager v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as VOYAGER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,
LLC, 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-02357 (Filed Aug. 27, 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-07051-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
anti-trust related laws.

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

The Voyager 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:

          Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
          MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN, LLC
          2116 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 746-4646
          Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
          E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com

               - and -

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  keisenstein@manteselaw.com

MILL-TELL INC: Underpays Repair Technicians, Bell et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BELL; and JESSE PIPPEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILL-TELL INC.; COXCOM,
LLLC; and COX COMMUNICATIONS KANSAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02967-cm-tjj (D. Kan., Nov. 12, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as repair
technicians.

Mill-Tell Inc. provides telecommunication installation and repair
services within the State of Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

                - and -

           Josh Sanford, Esq.
           Tess Bradford, Esq.
           SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
           650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
           Little Rock, AK 72211
           Telephone: (501) 221-0088
           Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
           E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                   tess@sanfordlawfirm.com


MISSION CYCLESPORTS: Botello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Botello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MISSION CYCLESPORTS, L.P., and FREDERICK WILLIAM
BOSSHARDT, II, Case No. 5:19-cv-01348 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act arising from their commonly applied policy and practice of
failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees worked in excess of
40 hours per week in at least one week in which they also earned
commissions for the Defendants, according to the complaint. Because
the Defendants did not include commission payments in the overtime
wage calculations, the Plaintiff was not properly paid overtime
wages for all overtime hours worked. The Defendants knew, or showed
reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the Plaintiff and
other hourly-paid employees violated the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid Parts
Associate from December 2016 to July 2019.

The Defendants sell motorcycles, as well as motorcycle parts and
accessories, and motorcycle-related merchandise and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOM365 INC: Cheng May Attend Hoover Settlement Hearing by Telephone
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KELLY HOOVER, Plaintiff, v. MOM365, INC., a
Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-CV-01328-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Defendant's Request to Appear Telephonically.  Attorney
David L. Cheng is allowed to attend the hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
telephonically.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QjigfX from Leagle.com.

Kelly Hoover, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul
Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp.

MOM365, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Michelle Brauer Abidoye, Ford & Harrison LLP, Alexandria M. Witte
-- awitte@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP & David Cheng,
Ford
Harrison LLP.


NORTH CAROLINA: Correction Officers Sue DPS, DAC Over Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, DiCello Levitt
Gutzler, LLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, and Berger Montague PC
announce that their clients have filed a class and collective
action lawsuit in federal court against the North Carolina
Department of Public Safety ("DPS") and Division of Adult
Correction and Juvenile Justice ("DAC"), to recover wages owed to
North Carolina Correction Officers for mandatory, but
uncompensated, pre-shift and post-shift duties.

DPS and DAC policies and practices mandate that North Carolina
Correction Officers perform a long list of required tasks necessary
for safety and security, before they start to get paid for each
shift, and after the end of each shift, but then cap the Correction
Officers' pay. The Plaintiffs who have filed the lawsuit, including
Matthew Hodge, David Holbrook, Philip Kay, Jacob Franckowiak,
Brooks Dickerson, and Ralph Brown, are current and former
Correction Officers, or Sergeants, who seek to represent all
similarly-situated employees of DPS and DAC at any time over the
past three years to recover unpaid wages owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and common law
contract principles.

"We are proud to represent North Carolina Correction Officers,"
said Dan Bryson of Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Mike Smith of Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP said: "These workers put their own safety on
the line each day. Our clients' lawsuit alleges that Defendants
required their employees to work overtime without the appropriate
pay required by state and federal law and have committed other wage
and hour violations. This lawsuit seeks to recover wages already
earned by these hard-working men and women."

The team of law firms who filed this case are devoted to protecting
American workers from employers who have failed to pay their
workers the wages they are owed, and are national leaders in
advancing the rights of workers and consumers through class actions
and collective actions. Their efforts have won significant legal
victories for American workers across the United States.

Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP ("CGL") is a national class action
and commercial litigation law firm with offices in Washington,
D.C., Brooklyn, New York, St. Louis, Missouri and Boulder,
Colorado. For over 30 years CGL has been successfully and
aggressively advocating for our clients. We have a proven track
record of winning in Court and in Congress, we specialize in
representing governments, businesses and individuals in civil
litigation, and have recovered billions of dollars for our
clients.

With offices located in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Washington, D.C., Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP is dedicated to
representing plaintiffs in class actions, mass torts, and
individual actions throughout the United States. Whitfield Bryson &
Mason's attorneys have decades of experience helping workers and
consumers obtain justice against overwhelming odds. With a
passionate and persistent focus, Whitfield Bryson & Mason has
successfully recovered over $1.5 billion on behalf of their
clients.

DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC combines excellence in commercial
litigation, class action litigation, mass tort litigation,
catastrophic injury litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and
civil rights litigation. Practicing nationwide—and
internationally—from offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and
St. Louis, we are an aggressive, attentive, and creative
plaintiffs' firm whose work speaks for itself—billions of dollars
in recoveries in some of the highest-profile matters in U.S.
history. Revered by clients and respected by defense counsel, our
team gets results.

Berger Montague PC is a national plaintiffs' class action law firm
headquartered in Philadelphia, with offices in Minneapolis,
Washington D.C., and San Diego. The Firm has played lead roles in
major cases for 50 years, resulting in recoveries of over $30
billion for its clients and the classes they have represented.
Berger Montague's Employment Law Department focuses its practice on
class and collective action wage theft cases under federal and
state law on behalf of employees in various industries across the
country.

To learn more information about the case, including how to join if
you believe you were similarly harmed, please contact:

         Dan Bryson, Esquire
         Pat Wallace, Esquire
         Danielle Perry, Esquire
         WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
         Tel: (919) 600-5000  
         E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com
                 Pat@wbmllp.com
                 DPerry@wbmllp.com
[GN]


NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Brewster Civil Suit Over Right to Vote
------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY JOE BREWSTER, JR., LARRY E. NORMAN, and THOMAS L. HILL, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PHILLIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as Speaker Pro Tempore
of the North Carolina Senate; TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official
capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives,
DAMON CIRCOSTA, STELLA ANDERSON, JEFF CARMON III, DAVID C. BLACK,
KEN RAYMOND AND KAREN BRINSON BELL, in their official capacities as
officers or members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00037-D (E.D.N.C., Oct. 31, 2019), is
brought for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 1983 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging violation of the right to
vote and participate in an electoral structure to protect the
integrity of the election process.

The Plaintiffs are voters and a candidate in the upcoming primary
elections for congress in North Carolina. North Carolina voters
have been subjected to a decade of lawsuits regarding their
election districts. The litigation has instituted a dizzying array
of actual and threatened last-minute changes to the election
process.

The Plaintiffs says they brought a political gerrymandering case
claim challenging the congressional districts under novel political
science theories regarding "fairness" of the congressional
districts. However, on June 30, 2019, the United States Supreme
Court held such claims to be non-justiciable and rejected the novel
political science theories advanced therein and adopted by the
District Court as a justiciable ground for federal equal protection
challenges, the lawsuit says.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is an agency of the
North Carolina state government charged with the administration of
the elections process, as well as campaign finance, and lobbying
disclosure and compliance. The North Carolina House of
Representatives is one of the two houses of the North Carolina
General Assembly. The House is a 120-member body led by a Speaker
of the House, who holds powers similar to those of the President
pro-tem in the North Carolina Senate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Neal Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
          301 N Elm Street, Suite 800
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 273-1600
          Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
          E-mail: rnhunterjr@greensborolaw.com

               - and -

          Conrad Boyd Sturges, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, STURGES & TOMLINSON, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 708
          Louisburg, NC 27549
          Telephone: (919) 496-2137
          Facsimile: (919) 496-6291
          E-mail: bsturges@dstattys.com


NORTIS INC: Committee Hires Dillon E. Jackson as Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Nortis, Inc.,
seeks authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Washington to retain the Law Office of Dillon E.
Jackson, PLLC, as counsel to the Committee.

The Committee requires Dillon E. Jackson to represent and provide
legal services to the Committee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings.

Dillon E. Jackson will be paid at the hourly rate of $545.

Dillon E. Jackson will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Dillon E. Jackson, the firm's founding partner, assured the Court
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and (a) is not creditors,
equity security holders or insiders of the Debtor; (b) has not
been, within two years before the date of the filing of the
Debtor's chapter 11 petition, directors, officers or employees of
the Debtor; and (c) does not have an interest materially adverse to
the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or equity
security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship
to, connection with, or interest in, the Debtor, or for any other
reason.

Dillon E. Jackson can be reached at:

     Dillon E. Jackson, Esq.
     Law Office of Dillon E. Jackson PLLC
     2510 Fairview Ave E Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98102
     Tel: (206) 693-3605
     E-mail: djlawpllc@gmail.com

                      About Nortis Inc.

Nortis, Inc., a company that provides scientific research and
development services, filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Case No. 19-13529) on Sept. 25,
2019 in Seattle, Wash. In the petition signed by Thomas Neumann,
president and chief executive officer, the Debtor was estimated to
have between $1 million and $10 million in both assets and
liabilities. The Hon. Christopher M. Alston is the presiding judge.
Karr Tuttle Campbell is the Debtor's legal counsel.

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Farfetch Limited (FTCH)
Class Period: 9/21/2018 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued
either in or after the September 2018 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ftch/

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)
Class Period: 6/6/2019 - 8/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-olli/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]


OREGON CHAI: Cosgrove Sues Over Misleading "Vanilla" Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oregon Chai, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10686-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on the
packaging of its vanilla chai tea products.

Chai is often flavored vanilla because the flavor from this
tropical orchid helps to smooth out the spiciness and enhance the
sweetness. The Products are misleading because although labeled as
"Vanilla," they have less real vanilla flavor than the label
suggests, the Plaintiff contends. The front labels tell consumers
the Product's (1) characterizing flavor is vanilla and (2) contain
a sufficient amount of the characterizing food ingredient, vanilla
flavoring or vanilla extract, to independently characterize the
Product.

The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous front label
representation of "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading
because the Products contain flavoring other than vanilla, as
revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list, the Plaintiff
asserts. The Products are misleading because they do not contain
the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the
flavoring in the Products, which is required by the labeling and
consistent with consumer expectations.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the
Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
Products are sold at premium prices compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.

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

Oregon Chai, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells powdered chai tea mix packets purporting to be flavored by
vanilla, under their Oregon Chai brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Underpays Factory Workers, Alvarado Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUR TERMS FABRICATORS, INC.; GREG
DARRIGO, and JOHN GALLAGHER, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06473
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Alvarado was employed by the Defendants as factory
worker.

Our Terms Fabricators, Inc., a New York corporation engaged in
manufacturing cut, beveled or polished glass furniture tops, glass
mirrors, and safety glass. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884


OVERSTOCK.COM: KSF Reminds of Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial
Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/   

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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/    

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




PGA INC: Amendment of Schilling Suit Settlement Agreement Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERIC SCHILLING, BLAINE KROHN, and ERIK
SINCLAIR, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PGA INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-202-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin issued an order noting one
significant concern, which the parties will need to address before
he can grant the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement.

After granting judgment in the Defendant's favor, the Plaintiffs
appealed.  On appeal, the parties apparently reached a settlement
of the remaining collective action and class claims, prompting the
Seventh Circuit to remand the case for the limited purpose of the
District Court conducting settlement approval.  Before the District
Court is the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement.

Having reviewed the parties' agreement, Judge Conley notes one
significant concern, which the parties will need to address before
the court can grant preliminary approval.

The case involves both a FLSA collective action and a Rule 23
class.  Of the approximately 100 employees involved, only 12
employees affirmatively have opted into the collective action,
while 38 affirmatively opted out of the Rule 23 class.  Material to
the District Court's concern, the settlement agreement contains
three release provisions: (1) a very broad, general release for the
three named Plaintiffs; (2) a release by collective action members
of "all wage and hour claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint,
including claims arising pursuant to" the FLSA and Wisconsin law
and regulations; and (3) a release by Rule 23 class members of "all
wage and hour claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint,
including wage and hour claims arising out of laws or regulations
by the State of Wisconsin."

While the Rule 23 class action members release does not expressly
list any FLSA claim they may have, Judge Conley finds that the
broad language releasing "all wage and hour claims alleged in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint" would appear to encompass any FLSA claims.  
Moreover, in the proposed notice describing what collective action
and class members release, there is no distinction between the FLSA
collective action members and the Rule 23 class members.

In choosing not to opt into the FLSA collection action, however,
the individuals who are only in the Rule 23 class expressly
preserved their individual FLSA claims.  Indeed, the FLSA
Collective Action Notice approved by the Court and distributed to
the prospective members, states: "If you choose not to join this
lawsuit, you will not be affected by any judgment or settlement of
the Fair Labor Standards Acts claims in this case, whether
favorable or unfavorable to the class. You will not be entitled to
share any amounts recovered by the class.  You will be free to file
your own lawsuit, if you wish to do so."

Consistent with that notice, the individuals who did not opt into
the FLSA collective action are not participating in the settlement
of these claims, nor can the counsel waive any claims retained by
those individuals.  Accordingly, any FLSA claims they might have
should not be released by the settlement. Judge Conley cannot
approve a settlement which purports to release those claims for the
individuals who did not opt in to the FLSA collective action.

Given the difference in the language used in the release provisions
in the parties' settlement, the parties may not have intended to
release the FLSA claims of those individuals who are only in the
Rule 23 class.  If not, they should have no problem with amending
the release language in the settlement agreement and in the
proposed notice to reflect clearly that individuals who did not opt
into the FLSA collective action and are only members of the Rule 23
class do not release their FLSA claims, and providing the amended
agreement for the Court's approval.  If the parties intended for
those individuals also to release their FLSA claims, however, they
will need to submit supplemental briefing providing support for
such a broad release.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/99k6zB from Leagle.com.

Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn & Erik Sinclair, Plaintiffs,
represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- The Previant Law
Firm, S.C.

PGA Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Zawadsky --
jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC &
Robert S. Driscoll -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner
Van Deuren s.c.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in "Hogan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride 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 29, 2019, that Patrick Hogan has
not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint in his class action suit.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October
6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings contained statements that
were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to
disclose that (i) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers
to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted
a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during
the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that
PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting.

The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.
On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.

On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17,
2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12,
2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC
and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file
a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a
response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November
19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.

Pilgrim's Pride said, "As of the date of this quarterly report, the
plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint."

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

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride 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 29, 2019, that plaintiffs in an
Oklahoma lawsuit over alleged price-fixing of broiler chicken
grower have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with a
Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or confirmation order.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against the company (PPC) and four
other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower
services and depress the price paid to growers.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The
complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated
amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS, or the Grower
Litigation. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017.

The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during
which it considered and granted only certain other defendants'
motions challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining
pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018.
Rulings on the motion are pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division, or the Bankruptcy Court, enjoined plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC
because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the
confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008
and 2009.

Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any
claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28,
2009. On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended
the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's
injunction order or the confirmation order.

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

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride 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 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits initiated by the Plant
Workers.

Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland against the company (PPC) and a number of
other poultry producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company) and Agri Stats, in the District of Maryland.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant
level non-supervisory production and maintenance workers ("Plant
Workers").  

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress
the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman
Act.

Plaintiffs seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present.  

The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521;
Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al, Case No. 19-cv-02680; Robinson
v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al, Case No. 19-cv-02960; and Avila v.
Perdue Farms, Inc., et al, Case No. 19-cv-03018 (together, the
"Wages Litigation").

The Earnest complaint was consolidated with the Jien complaint by a
Court order on October 8, 2019. The deadline to respond to the Jien
complaint is set for November 15, 2019.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Limited Stay of Discovery Extended Until June
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride 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 29, 2019, that the court in the
class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, has ordered that the limited stay of discovery be
extended through June 27, 2020.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company (PPC) and 13 other producers by and on behalf
of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition
laws.

The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017
and June 21, 2019, 31 individual direct action complaints
(Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et
al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03471;
Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co.,
et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold
Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central
Grocers, Inc. et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers
& Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry
Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club,
Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United
Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018,
following Defendants' successful motion to transfer); Shamrock
Foods Company et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a Quirch
Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-08511;
Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America, LLC v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390; Darden Restaurants,
Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00530;
Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a
Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638; Checkers
Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19- cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc. et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries,
Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02758;
Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim’s Pride
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June
11, 2019, following Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to transfer);
Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc. et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a
Hooters of Anaheim et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.
19-cv-05229; Amigos Meat Distributors, LP et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-6141; and The Golub Corporation
et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-06955) were
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a
defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the
class action complaints.

On June 20, 2019, an additional direct action complaint
(Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-01605) was filed with U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the allegations
of which also largely mirror those in the class action complaints.
Substantial completion of document discovery for most defendants,
including PPC, occurred on July 18, 2018.

The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the
direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated.

On June 21, 2019, the United States Department of Justice filed a
motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months.

Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Court
granted the government's motion to intervene, and ordered a limited
three month stay of discovery until September 27, 2019. On July 1,
2019, the Department of Justice issued a subpoena to PPC in
connection with its investigation.

On September 20, 2019, the Department of Justice moved to extend
the partial discovery stay for an additional six months. On October
16, 2019, the Court ordered that the limited stay of discovery be
extended through June 27, 2020.

Prior to the Court issuing that order, the scheduling order had
required class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding
from April 13, 2020 to December 14, 2020, and summary judgment to
proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for class
certification. Some or all of these dates may change given the
Court's order extending the discovery stay.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PLANTRONICS INC: Bassuk Sues over 37% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
FELICE BASSUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLANTRONICS, INC.; JOSEPH BURTON; CHARLES
BOYNTON; and PAMELA STRAYER, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07481
(N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2019) is a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or acquired Plantonics
securities between July 2, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Plantronics designs, manufactures,
and markets integrated communications and collaboration solutions
such as headsets, Open SIP desktop phones, audio and
videoconferencing, and cloud management and analytics software
solutions.

On November 5, 2019, the Company disclosed a $65 million reduction
in channel inventory by reducing sales to channel partners and
slashed its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting revenue between $1.72
billion and $1.81 billion and adjusted EBITDA between $282 million
and $323 million.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $14.44 per share, or
37%, to close at $25 per share on November 6, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Throughout the class period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to
artificially boost sales; (2) that the Company's internal control
over inventory levels was not effective; (3) that the Company had
not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product
launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging
products; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and lacked
reasonable basis.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets lightweight
communications headsets and headset accessories and services. The
Company also manufactures and markets specialty telephone products,
such as amplified telephone headsets and specialty telephones for
hearing-impaired users, and noise-cancelling headsets for use in
high-noise environments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Removes Bandril Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ARLENE BANDRIL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIKON
INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda (Case No. RG19038227) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
12, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of
California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07439. The case is assigned to
Richard Seeborg.

Plastikon Industries Inc manufactures plastics products. The
Company offers injection molding, mold design and build, part
decoration and assembly, contract manufacturing, thermoforming, and
rotational molding services. Plastikon Industries serves medical,
automotive, and electronics industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mollie M. Burks, Esq.
         Anna T. Pham, Esq.
         GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 986-5900
         Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
         E-mail: mburks@grsm.com
                 apham@grsm.com


PSM HOME HEALTH: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PSM HOME HEALTH, INC., and PETERS MCINDOE, Case No.
4:19-cv-00805-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful
minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours a week for the Defendants
on a regular basis. Despite their overtime work, the Plaintiff and
others were not properly compensated for all hours or all overtime
hours worked each week as a direct result of the policies and
procedures implemented by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid
less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2017 to
October 2018, and again from August 2019 to September 2019, as an
hourly-paid Caregiver employee.

PSM Home Health, Inc., is a home healthcare services provider
serving clients in and around central Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PUMPCO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Lackey Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Lackey and Jose Zamora, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PUMPCO ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., and SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00269 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a
result of their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and co-workers lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Co-Workers
overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all of their hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week even though the Defendants were aware of how many
hours the Plaintiffs and the Co-Workers worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Equipment Operators.

The Defendants are oilfield services companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, case no. 1:19-cv-02818-PJS-DTS, on behalf of
public common shareholders of Raytheon Company (RTN) who held
Raytheon securities as of the record date on September 10, 2019
(the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Raytheon's and its
board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to
United Technologies Corporation. ("UTC").

Under the terms of the transaction, Company's shareholders will
receive 2.3348 fully paid and nonassessable shares of UTC common
stock in exchange for each share of Raytheon common stock they own
(the "Merger Consideration").  The complaint alleges that the
Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the Proxy Statement
contained materially misleading information concerning the
financial projections for Raytheon, UTC, and the Combined Company.
The Proxy was an essential link in accomplishing the Merger, which
undervalued Raytheon and caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer
financial loss in that they did not retain a fair equity stake in
the post-Merger Combined Company, and the Merger, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The special meeting
of Raytheon stockholders to vote on the Merger was held on October
11, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 31, 2019. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/raytheon-company. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com   
[GN]



RUHNN HOLDING: KSF Reminds of Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial
Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/   

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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/    

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




RUHNN HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ: RUHN) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
19-cv-06162, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Ruhnn American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ruhnn securities ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial
public offering, you have until December 6, 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 number of
shares purchased.

Ruhnn describes itself as China's largest key opinion leader
("KOL") facilitator and the largest KOL facilitator in China's
e-commerce market.  So-called KOLs are essentially social media
influencers, i.e., individuals who create content on social media
platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Tik Tok, and Instagram with
the hope of garnering a large public following.  As a purported KOL
facilitator, Ruhnn contracts with social media influencers who are
paid to promote, market, and advertise products and services to
their fans and followers.  Ruhnn claims to recruit, train, and
manage KOLs and provide them with analytical support.  The Company
describes such activities as "incubating" KOLs.  Ruhnn's KOLs
primarily market women's apparel, cosmetics, shoes, handbags, and
other fashion products on social media platforms popular in China,
such as Miaopai, Tik Tok, and Kuaishou.

Ruhnn's KOLs provide marketing services both to Ruhnn-owned and
-operated brands and stores and to Ruhnn's third-party customers.
The Company describes sales of products through Ruhnn's own stores
as the Company's product sales business, which Ruhnn also refers to
as its "full-service model."  The majority of these online stores
are located or hosted on third-party ecommerce platforms and are
operated and marketed in the name of Ruhnn's KOLs.  As of December
31, 2018, Ruhnn purportedly owned and operated ninety-one online
stores.  Ruhnn earns revenue from these product sales by taking a
percentage of the sales price at the time the product is sold.  The
Company's full-service model is its largest and most important
operating segment, accounting for over 88% of Ruhnn's total net
revenues for the nine months ended December 31, 2018.

Ruhnn also derives revenue from its service business, which Ruhnn
refers to as its "platform model."  Ruhnn launched its platform
model in 2017 to market its KOLs and KOL services to third parties,
such as brands, retailers, designers, and manufacturers.  As of
December 31, 2018, Ruhnn claimed to have over 500 customers using
its platform services.  Ruhnn earns fees for these services under a
variety of arrangements.

On March 6, 2019, Ruhnn filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which,
after several amendments, was declared effective on April 2, 2019
(the Form F-1, together with all amendments, is referred to herein
as the "Registration Statement").  One day later, on April 3, 2019,
the Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the
"Prospectus"), which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement.  The Registration Statement was used to
sell to the investing public approximately 10 million Ruhnn ADSs,
representing 50 million Ruhnn Class A ordinary shares, at $12.50
per share.  Defendants generated $125 million in gross offering
proceeds from their sale of Ruhnn ADSs in the IPO.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's online stores had
declined by nearly 40%; (ii) at the time of the IPO, the number of
Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly
44%; (iii) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its
full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and
(iv) 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. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

On June 14, 2019, Ruhnn reported its fiscal year and fourth quarter
2019 financial results.  These results were for the quarter prior
to the quarter in which defendants had conducted the IPO.  In the
fiscal 2019 press release, Ruhnn reported that, as of March 31,
2019, the Company only had fifty-six stores in operation, which
indicated that the Company had closed nearly 40% of the ninety-one
stores defendants reported operating in the Registration Statement.
The press release also disclosed that Ruhnn's product sales had
fallen 46% sequentially and grown by a meager 1.4% year over year.
At the same time, Ruhnn's reported results in its service platform
business were entirely eclipsed by the meager growth in the
full-service product sales business.  Revenue from platform
services was $7.5 million and $22 million for the quarter and
fiscal year, respectively, versus $28 million and $140 million in
product sales for the quarter and year.  Gross margin across the
Company's revenue streams had also declined eighty basis points
year over year, reflecting the Company's failure to approach
profitability, as its most important operating segment, its
full-service segment, had suffered a significant contraction prior
to the IPO.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from Ruhnn's Registration Statement, Ruhnn
ADSs have fallen substantially below their IPO price, damaging
Plaintiff and Class members.

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

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



SEALED AIR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sealed-air-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of Sealed
Air Corporation (NYSE:SEE) common stock during the period between
November 5, 2014 and August 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is
captioned UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund v. Sealed
Air Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10161.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Sealed Air common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Sealed Air
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Sealed Air class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Sealed Air class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Sealed Air class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Sealed Air class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today.
If you wish to discuss the Sealed Air class action lawsuit or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sealed-air-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Sealed Air class action lawsuit charges Sealed Air and certain
of its current and former officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sealed Air specializes in
providing packing solutions to the food, e-Commerce, electronics,
and industrial markets. Two of Sealed Air's most iconic brands
include Bubble Wrap packaging and Cryovac shrink wrap, which was
acquired in 1998 from W.R. Grace & Co. ("Grace").

The Sealed Air class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information regarding Sealed Air's
business, operations, and financial condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49
billion in connection with a settlement of asbestos liabilities was
indefensible and done for the improper purpose of artificially
inflating Sealed Air's financial results; that Sealed Air had
switched auditors pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and
in order to help facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in
accounting fraud; and that Sealed Air had artificially inflated its
earnings, cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period.
As a result of this information being withheld from the market,
Sealed Air common stock traded at artificially inflated prices of
more than $52 per share during the Class Period.

Then, on August 6, 2018, Sealed Air revealed that it had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
requesting documents and information concerning Sealed Air's
accounting for income taxes and financial reporting and
disclosures. Analysts widely viewed the SEC investigation as
relating to Sealed Air's improper tax deductions. On this news, the
price of Sealed Air stock fell over 5% to close at $41 per share on
August 7, 2018.

In June 2019, Sealed Air terminated its Chief Financial Officer
("CFO") "for cause" following the receipt of a second subpoena.
Subsequently, the government investigation into Sealed Air was
expanded into a criminal inquiry and included an investigation into
the termination of Sealed Air's CFO and Sealed Air's auditor hiring
process.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

Contacts

         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Websites: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
                   https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
                   https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
         E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]



SEMGROUP CORP: Ferrell Asserts Breach of FLSA in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SemGroup Corporation.
The case is styled as Robert Ferrell, individually and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SemGroup Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00610-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Nov. 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SemGroup transports oil, natural gas and other products across
North America through a network of pipelines, processing plants,
refinery-connected storage facilities and deep-water marine
terminals. The company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol 'SEMG' in 2010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A Josephson, Esq.
   Josephson Dunlap
   11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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
company subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against the
company (SCI) and its subsidiary in connection with SCI's
acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that
SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart
Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit.

Service Corporation said, "The case has continued against our
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.
However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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, Caroline
Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea
Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation
International, Case No. 2:17-cv 04960-GAM; in the United States
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest
Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and
our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SHAKE SHACK: Gift Cards Not Usable by Blind People, Camacho Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SHAKE SHACK INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06166 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille so they may be fully accessible and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff contends.

Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates
the ADA, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's store gift cards
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Shake Shack is an American fast casual restaurant chain based in
New York City. It started out as a hot dog cart inside Madison
Square Park in 2001, and its popularity steadily grew.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516 695 0052
          Facsimile: 212 656 1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

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


SHARON CALLAHAN: Underpays Cosmetologists, Bolden Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARON CALLAHAN, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-802-KGB (E.D. Arkansas, Nov. 15, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Defendant is the owner of Hair Tech Studios in Arkansas. The
Plaintiff Bolden was employed by the Defendant as
cosmetologist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Suit Arbitration Deal Discovery OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Owensboro Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery on Issues Relating to
Enforcement of Purported Arbitration Agreement in the case
captioned ANASTASIA CARMAN, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00087-JHM-HBB.
(W.D. Ky.).

Carman's complaint presents six claims brought on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated as a collective action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under
Kentucky State Law. The claims stem from Carman's employment as a
registered nurse with Signature Healthcare. Her employment has
since ended.

Carman's motion seeks permission to begin discovery related to
Signature's intention to seek enforcement of the Mediation and
Arbitration Agreement signed by the parties.

Carman raises several claims which she argues contain mixed
questions of law and fact that extend beyond the scope of the
documents already filed with the Court. Carman's motion primarily
focuses on two issues:  (1) whether the agreement violated KRS
Section 336.700, which at the time the agreement was executed
expressly prohibited condition of employment upon arbitration
agreements, and (2) whether the method by which Signature required
Carman (and similarly situated employees) to approve and agree to
onboarding documents was procedurally unconscionable.

Carman argues the terms of her employment contract are
insufficiently clear, and therefore void. She alleges Signature
engaged in a bait and switch wherein the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Plan provided to new employees permits class
arbitrations and is later contradicted by the Mediation and
Arbitration Agreement.

The Court opines that Carman has shown a genuine issue of material
fact as to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. A reasonable
finder of fact could conclude that the onboarding process by which
Carman was required to sign employment documents was procedurally
unconscionable. Carman has also presented genuine questions as to
whether the agreement to arbitrate was invalid under Kentucky law
at the time of its execution and whether the parties could
reasonably have been expected to be bound by its terms, the Court
adds.

Accordingly, the Court grants Carman's Motion for Discovery on
Issues Relating to Enforcement of Purported Arbitration Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3op3jpz from Leagle.com

Anastasia Carman, on Behalf of herself and All Others
Similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark N. Foster, P.O.
Box 192, Rockwood, TN 37854

Signature Healthcare, LLC, Stakeholder Payroll Services, LLC & LP
Calhoun, LLC, Defendants, represented by J. Andrew Inman  -
jinman@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)
Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in
connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with
Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/

SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC)
Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Tanis Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned SUZANNE TANIS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.
et al, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2333-BAS-BGS. (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Suzanne Tanis filed a complaint in San Diego Superior
Court against Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. Southwest removed
the case to the California District Court and answered the
complaint. Southwest moved to compel arbitration, which the
District Court granted and ordered the parties to proceed to
arbitration. A few months later, Plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal, stating she was dismissing her case without
prejudice. The District Court denied Plaintiff's request and
informed her that she could file a proper noticed motion requesting
dismissal of her case.

Plaintiff has done so and moves to dismiss her entire case without
prejudice.

The District Court finds that there is no evidence of forum
shopping. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to pursue her Private Attorneys'
Generals Act (PAGA) claims rather than her individual and class
claims. The Court cannot force Plaintiff to initiate arbitration,
as Southwest requests, if she instead chooses to drop her claims
and pursue non-arbitrable claims.

Therefore, the District Court finds no legal prejudice to
Southwest. If Plaintiff ever does decide to pursue her individual
or class claims, she acknowledges she must do so in arbitration,
thus, Southwest is not losing any legal rights. And if Plaintiff
decides to pursue her claims in arbitration, Southwest will not be
forced to repeat any work or expend any unnecessary resources.
Without any legal prejudice to Southwest, the Court finds no basis
to deny Plaintiff's motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to
Dismiss and dismisses the case without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yywj36g8 from Leagle.com

Suzanne Tanis, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff,
represented by Hali M. Anderson , Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP 3555
Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92103 & Vilmarie Cordero ,
Graham Hollis APC, 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA
92103

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Brian Davis Berry
- brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com - Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC, Nikolas Trpe Djordjevski –
nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Lisa Mireille Bowman -
lisa.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C..


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Quinn Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion for Class
Decertification in the case captioned THOMAS QUINN and THERESA
QUINN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 16 CV 2021, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs brought the class action, alleging that defendant, a
home loan servicer, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). In March 2019, the District Court certified (i) Class A
which consists of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin consumers who
were represented by an attorney but nonetheless received home
visits from defendant's field agents, and (ii) Class B, which
consists of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin consumers who received
allegedly misleading door hangers from defendant's agents.

The Seventh Circuit denied defendant permission to appeal the March
2019 order. Defendant now seeks to sunder the certified classes and
moves to dismiss, or in the alternative strike or reconsider
certification of, the class claims of non-Illinois residents. It
argues, under the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017), constitutional
due process precludes me from exercising specific jurisdiction over
it with respect to the claims of class members who are not resident
in Illinois because those claims arise from defendant's conduct
outside of Illinois, and defendant is not subject to general
jurisdiction in the matter. Plaintiffs respond that defendant has
waived its objections to personal jurisdiction and that
Bristol-Myers requires no such conclusion.

Among other things, Judge Bucklo states that any efficiency gained
in the case by severing Indiana and Wisconsin consumers from Class
A and Class B would likely be a net loss to the federal judiciary
as it could generate nearly-identical actions in those forums.

Judge Bucklo also points out, "defendant provides no convincing
reason to reconsider my class certification under Rule 54(b)."

Accordingly, Judge Bucklo denies the Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3f6bbbs from Leagle.com

Thomas Quinn & Theresa Quinn, Plaintiffs, represented by Deadra
Woods Stokes , Consumer Legal Group, P.C,. 4747 West Lincoln Mall
Drive Suite 410 Matteson, IL, 60443-3821 & Al Hofeld, Jr. , Law
Offices of Al Hofeld Jr., LLC, 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3120,
Chicago, IL 60602

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabriel
A. Crowson , King & Jurgens, LLC, 301 S College St Fl 30 MAC
D1053-300, Charlotte, NC, 28202, Jeffrey R. Seewald -
jseewald@mcglinchey.com - Mcglinchey Stafford, Pllc, pro hac vice,
Gregg M. Barbakoff , Maurice Wutscher LLP, 105 W. Madison Street,
Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60602, James V. Noonan -
jnoonan@noonanandlieberman.com - Noonan & Lieberman, LTD, Robert
Edward Haney  -rhaney@noonanandlieberman.com -  Noonan & Lieberman,
Ltd., Rocio Herrera , Noonan & Lieberman, 105 W Adams St Ste 1800,
Chicago, IL, 60603-6235 & Ruth B. Sosniak -
rsosniak@noonanandlieberman.com -  Noonan and Lieberman LTD.


STATE COLLECTION: Certification Bid in Thorson Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL THORSON, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. STATE
COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1463, (E.D.
Wis.), Magistrate Judge William Duffin granted Plaintiff's Motion
to Stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

The class complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Act.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2vu2vj2 from Leagle.com

Michael Thorson, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Eldridge  -
meldridge@ademilaw.com -  Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Cynthia Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky -
bslatky@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter -
jfruchter@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin -
jblythin@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge ,
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.


STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
granted final approval of the Illinois Securities Class Action
Settlement.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for
themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28,
2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the
Company's public offering of depositary shares, each representing a
1/10th interest in a share of the Company's mandatory convertible
preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015.  

The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the
underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its
customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to
disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other
statements issued during the proposed class period beginning
February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016.  

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2016 and a
Corrected Amended Complaint on October 21, 2016.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel.  On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint,
alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the
purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25,
2018.  The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a
ruling by the Court.

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the
"Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement").

As the Company disclosed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the
Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provided that the
Company would establish a common fund of $45.0 million, from which
would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class,
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named
class representatives and all costs of notice and administration.


In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company
admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. The Company entered
into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written
settlement agreement, which incorporated the terms of the agreement
in principle announced in December 2018.  The Settlement
incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action
Settlement, described above.  

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or
wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided
that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness
hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the
Company alleged in the Securities Class Action.

On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action
filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice
of Settlement. The Preliminary Approval Motion asked the Court to
preliminarily approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and
content of the notice to be given to potential class members, and
to set a schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential
class members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek
exclusion from the Settlement class.  

The Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion on March 12,
2019, and the Company funded the settlement on March 25, 2019. The
large majority of the $45.0 million common fund has been funded by
the Company's insurers.  

The Court held a fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it
granted final approval of the Settlement. At the hearing, the Court
took under advisement the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded
to plaintiffs’ counsel from the $45.0 million settlement.

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

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that certain class
members have opted out of the Final Settlement in the Contract
Class Action Lawsuits and have filed lawsuits against the Company.

Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several
class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in
several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other
things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive
price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its
contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.  

The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class
action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief.  These related actions were ultimately
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL
Action").

On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a
class of "all persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003
through the date of trial resided in the United States (except
Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small
Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than
their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste
disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated
price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were
asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be
excluded from the class."

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was
subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement on
October 17, 2017.  

The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims
against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the
Company would establish a common fund of $295.0 million from which
would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class,
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named
class representatives and all costs of notice and administration.


It also provided that the Company's existing contracts with
customers would remain in force, while it would also establish as
part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and
provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases.
Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or
wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided
that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness
hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the
Company alleged in the MDL Action.

The court held a fairness hearing on March 8, 2018 and granted
approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Proposed
MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018, and the
Company funded the Final Settlement on July 6, 2018.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement
have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will
defend and resolve those actions.  

Stericycle said, "The Company has accrued its estimate of the
probable loss for these collective matters, which is not
material."

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

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


SUNDIAL GROWERS: Faces Another Suit for Hiding Return of Cannabis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max A. Cherney, writing for Market Watch, reports that shareholders
filed another class action against Nasdaq-listed cannabis producer
Sundial Growers Inc. for allegedly failing to disclose that Zenabis
Global Inc. returned 554 kilograms of weed because it was
un-sellable. The allegations were first reported by MarketWatch in
August. The returned marijuana contained mold, bits of rubber
gloves, among other non-cannabis materials and was returned by
Zenabis, according to people familiar with the matter. The batch
was worth approximately C$2.5 million ($1.9 million) at the time.
The class action suit, filed in the Southern District of New York,
alleges that Sundial's prospectus did not "disclose that: (i)
Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual
obligations to Zenabis; and (ii) because of material quality
issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of
cannabis from Sundial, valued at approximately US$1.9 million
(C$2.5 million)."

In a separate court filing, the plaintiff said that the lawsuit was
related to another lawsuit filed against Sundial earlier this
month. The Alberta-based company called the prior class action
suit's allegations "baseless." Sundial shares were down 2.2% in
early afternoon trading Friday, as the ETFMG Altnerative Harvest
gained 1.1%. [GN]



SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the District Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary
judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Mutual Funds ERISA
class action suit.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by offering
certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan.


The plaintiffs purported to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan
accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover
alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a
result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court").
Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar
lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
District Court.

After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.

The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint
on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery,
plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on
December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new
defendants.

On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second
amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16,
2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification.

Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the
District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to
March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three
individual defendants from the action. On June 27, 2018, the
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On March 29, 2019, the District Court dismissed RidgeWorth Capital
Management, Inc. from the lawsuit and on July 16, 2019, the
District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for successor liability.
On October 3, 2019, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
remaining claims. The surviving claims have been placed on a civil
trial calendar for early 2020.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


TWITTER INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company
Twitter, Inc. (TWTR). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and
further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Twitter, Inc. (TWTR)
Class Period: August 6, 2019 - October 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 30, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/twitter-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The filed complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated Twitter's common share price and operated as a fraud or
deceit on purchasers of Twitter common stock by misrepresenting the
Company's operating condition and future business prospects. The
scheme was perpetrated by making positive statements about
Twitter's business while defendants knew, or disregarded with
deliberate recklessness, certain adverse facts. When defendants'
prior misrepresentations were disclosed and became apparent to the
market, the price of Twitter's common stock fell precipitously.

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

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

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



TYSON FOODS: Bid to Nix Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the case styled, In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, is still pending, according to Tyson
Foods, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the Company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also
allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on
[g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect
of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive
levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.  The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

The Company said, "We and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on September 8, 2017.  That motion is pending."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Spectracide Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Classaura announced that a proposed settlement has been reached in
a class action lawsuit involving United Industries Corporation
("UIC"), manufacturer of Spectracide Concentrate herbicide
products. The proposed class action settlement establishes a
$2,500,000 settlement fund. Class members may be eligible for cash
payments of up to $25 per household.

On September 18th, 2019, United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between UIC and
purchasers of Spectracide Concentrate products.

The lawsuit alleges that UIC labeled its Spectracide® Concentrate
herbicide products in a manner that was misleading regarding the
application rates of the products. UIC denies the allegations and
any wrongdoing. To avoid the expense and distraction of litigation,
the parties have reached a settlement that will provide monetary
recovery as detailed below.

Class members who purchased any herbicide product sold under the
"Spectracide(R)" tradename in a "concentrate" product form (in
other words, designed to be manually mixed by consumers with water
prior to use on targeted vegetation) on or after September 21, 2013
until November 1, 2019, purchased in any state, for personal or
household use and not for resale or distribution, may be eligible
for a cash payment of up to $6.25 in cash from the settlement fund
for each valid claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four
(4) claims per household.

Claims can be submitted online at the class website
www.MakesUpToSettlement.com. Claims must be submitted by January
20, 2020. Class members may request to be excluded from the class
("opt out" of the settlement), comment on the settlement, or object
to the settlement, but also must do so by January 20, 2020. Class
members who do nothing will not receive any payment and will bound
by the Court's decision.

Your rights and option--and the deadlines to exercise them--are
only summarized in this press release. A Long Form Notice
describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information. For more
information and to obtain a Long Form Notice, claim form or other
documents, visit www.MakesUpToSettlement.com. You may also contact
the Settlement Administrator by emailing
Contact@MakesUpToSettlement.com, or by writing to: Spectracide®
Class Action Settlement, 1718 Peachtree St NW #1080, Atlanta, GA
30309, or by calling 1-888-978-8269.
[GN]




UNITI GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Uniti Group Inc. ("Uniti" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: UNIT) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Uniti from April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Uniti investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleged Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
financial results were not sustainable because its customer
Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; (2) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.  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 30, 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]



UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewart Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON L. STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP;
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES LP; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SECURITY
SYSTEMS GP, INC.; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION DEFENSE SERVICE LP; STAFF
PRO, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV40866 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Stewart was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee.

Universal Protection Service Inc. provides security solutions. The
Company offers access control, closed circuit television, fire
alarm, intrusion detection, physical security, parking equipment,
and visitor management systems. Universal Protection Service serves
corporate, airports, educational, and residential sectors
throughout United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Daniel@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com


UPSIDE GADING: Cal. App. Dismisses Appeal in Brown Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHEILLA BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
UPSIDE GADING, LP, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No.
A157685, (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division Three, dismissed an appeal of the Defendants of
a trial court order on broad claim releases.

Plaintiff Sheilla Brown brought the class action on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated persons against defendants
Upside Gading, LP and Upside Management Company, Inc. (Upside) for
alleged violations of the City of Hayward's Residential Rent
Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance.  According to
plaintiff, a tenant in low-income, rent-controlled housing owned
and managed by Upside, Upside claimed an exemption to the ordinance
based upon misleading information and thereafter imposed upon the
often non-English-speaking tenant putative class members illegal
rent increases, charged them excessive late fees, and failed to pay
required security deposit interest in violation of local and state
laws.

After Upside representatives approached the tenant putative class
members in the evening in their respective units with pre-written
releases from the class action that contained misleading, coercive
and inadequate information, along with pre-written checks as
"compensation" for past rent increases and other payments,
plaintiffs sought and obtained the trial court order dated June 19,
2019, that is at the heart of the current appeal.

The trial court entered an order invalidating the broad releases of
claims signed by approximately 26 tenant putative class members and
requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding a corrective
notice for the putative class after the court found said releases
contained misleading and one-sided information regarding the
underlying lawsuit.

After Upside appealed the trial court order, the Appellate Court
stayed briefing and ordered Upside to submit a letter brief either
requesting to dismiss this appeal or explaining why the appellate
court should not dismiss the appeal for the reason that it is taken
from a non-appealable order.

Upside responded with a letter brief arguing that the trial court
order is appealable as an injunctive order within the meaning of
Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(6) because
it mandates certain actions on their part with respect to the
putative class members. Plaintiffs, in turn, requested dismissal of
the appeal on the ground that section 904.1 provides no basis for
appealing a standard interlocutory order such as the current one.

The Appellate Court agree with plaintiffs and accordingly, dismiss
the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 17, 2019 Order at
https://tinyurl.com/y3ejc39p from Leagle.com.


VALLI PRODUCE: Hill Sues over Biometric Data Collections
--------------------------------------------------------
BELVA JOYCE HILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLI PRODUCE OF EVANSTON, INC;
and VALLI PRODUCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH13196 (Ill.
Cir., Nov. 13, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking
the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendants did not inform the
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics.

Valli Produce Inc. distributes and supplies food products. The
Company offers fruits, vegetables, canned food, dairy and meat
products, sauce, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, chips, and
other related food products. Valli Produce operates in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIVINT SOLAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE:
VSLR) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Vivint securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26,
2019, (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join
this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vslr.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including
forging customer contracts; (2) as a result, the Company's reported
sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (3) these practices
were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny: (4) as a
result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely
impacted; and (5) as a result, Vivint's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vslr 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 in Vivint you have until December 11, 2019 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

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




VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vivint Solar, Inc. ("Vivint" or the "Company") (NYSE:
VSLR) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, for the Eastern District of New York,
and indexed under 19-cv-06165, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Vivint securities between March 5, 2019 and
September 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint
securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, you have
until December 11, 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.

Vivint offers solar energy systems to residential customers through
a direct-to-home sales model.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging
customer contracts; (ii) as a result, the Company's reported sales
and megawatts installed were overstated; (iii) these practices were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (iv) as a result,
the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted;
and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege
Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or
deception."

On this news, Vivint's share price fell $0.14 per share, or over
2%, to close at $6.55 per share on September 27, 2019, on unusually
high trading volume.

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

Contact:

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



VMW INVESTMENTS: Hires Integra Realty as Real Estate Appraiser
--------------------------------------------------------------
VMW Investments, LLC, and its debtor-affiliates, seek authority
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas
to employ Integra Realty Resources, as real estate appraiser to the
Debtors.

VMW Investments requires Integra Realty to appraise the Debtor's
real property located at 4200-4304 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth,
Texas 76117; 3600 William D. Tate Avenue, Grapevine, Texas 76051;
and 221 Bedford Road, Bedford, TX 76022.

Integra Realty will be paid a flat fee of $15,000.

Integra Realty will also be paid $350 per hour for any necessary
testimony or court appearances that may be required.

Integra Realty will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Alan Pursley, partner of Integra Realty Resources, assured the
Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtors and its estates.

Integra Realty can be reached at:

     Alan Pursley
     INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES
     7080 Camp Bowie Boulevard
     Fort Worth, TX 76116
     Tel: (817) 736-8000
     Fax: (817) 763-8000

                      About VMW Investments

VMW Investments, LLC, and VMW Bedford, LLC, own and operate three
pieces of commercial real property located in Fort Worth,
Grapevine, and Bedford, Texas. VMW Investments owns the tracts of
real property located at 4200-4304 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth,
Texas 76117 and 3600 William D. Tate Avenue, Grapevine, Texas
76051.  VMW Bedford owns the tract of real property located at 221
Bedford Road, Bedford, TX 76022.  The companies generate revenue
through leases of the properties.

On June 30, 2019, VMW Investments and VMW Bedford sought protection
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case
No. 19-42644).  At the time of the filing, each Debtor was
estimated to have assets of between $1 million and $10 million and
liabilities of the same range.  The cases are assigned to Judge
Mark X. Mullin.  Bonds Ellis Eppich Schafer Jones LLP is the
Debtors' legal counsel.

WAITR HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded Waitr Holdings, Inc.  Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Waitr Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WTRH)
Class Period: May 17, 2018 - August 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

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 Defendants had artificially bolstered profits
and revenues by unilaterally raising prices in breach of customer
contracts and failed to properly reimburse drivers for expenses;
(2) that providing services at the low take rate of 15% was not
sustainable; (3) that its labor model was inefficient and resulted
in rising, unsustainable costs; (4) that its financial statements
were not true, accurate or reliable; and (5) that the Company's
software provided little or no competitive advantages.

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 these class actions, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 26 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH)
Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in
connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with
Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/

SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC)
Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/

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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



WANDA SPORTS: Faces Fu Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry Fu, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WANDA SPORTS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED, HENGMING YANG,
HONGHUI LIAO, LEN ZHANG, PHILIPPE BLATTER, ANDREW MESSICK, DONGWEI
YANG, EDWIN FUNG, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., HAITONG
INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAP
ITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CLSA LIMITED, AND
TIGER BROKERS 0VZ) LIMITED, Case No. 3:19-cv-01852-BR (D. Ore.,
Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wanda Sports' securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July 26, 2019 initial
public offering.

In July 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately
23.8 million American Depository Shares to the investing public at
$8.00 per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement. The
Company received gross proceeds of approximately $ 190.4 million.

On June 7, 2019, Wanda Sports filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form F-1, which would be used for the IPO. On July 29,
2019, Wanda sports filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the
IPO of common stock on Form 42484, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. The Registration statement was negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation, according
to the complaint.

The price of Wanda Sports' securities has plummeted since the IPO.
The highest Wanda Sports ADSs closed since its IPO is $5.36. Wanda
Securities have traded significantly lower than the IPO price of
$8.00 per ADS. By the commencement of this action, Wanda Sports'
securities have lost nearly 60% of their IPO value--damaging
investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Wanda
Sports' ADSs, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Wanda Sports securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO.

Wanda sports purports to be a global sports events, media and
marketing platform with significant intellectual property
rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
          RANSOM, GILBERTSON MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
          8401 NE Halsey Street, Suite 208
          Portland, OR
          Phone: 503-226-3664

               - and -

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


WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WELLBRIDGE CLUB MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01074-KK-LF
(D.N.M., Nov. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly pay wages and overtime pay to the Plaintiff as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Wage and Hour Act, and
the City of Albuquerque Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Plaintiff and the putative class routinely worked more than 40
hours in a workweek and the Defendant routinely failed to pay them
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, NMWHA, and AMWO, says the
complaint. The Defendants have routinely improperly reduced hours
worked by employees, which has resulted in the Defendants failing
to pay the employees earned compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed as a personal trainer for the Defendant
at Riverpoint Sports & Wellness Club located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.

The Defendant is a chain of fitness clubs with 19 locations in
several states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Gaddy, Esq.
          GADDY LAW FIRM
          4420 Prospect Ave. NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87110
          Phone: (505) 254-9090
          Fax: (505) 273-7943
          Email: Brian@GaddyFirm.com


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Little Suit Set for Dec. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court overseeing the Roberta Little's suit against Wilhelmina
International, Inc. has scheduled a hearing on all of the pending
motions for December 4, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On June 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially
the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on
August 16, 2017.

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain
in the case.

Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.  

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim
against Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims.

On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions
for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment against Little.  Wilhelmina's reply papers in further
support of its summary judgment motions were filed on October 23,
2019, and the class certification and summary judgment motions will
next be fully briefed.  The Court has scheduled a hearing on all of
the motions for December 4, 2019.  

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and
Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Shanklin Suit Set for Dec. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court overseeing the
Shanklin Litigation has scheduled a hearing on all of the pending
motions for December 4, 2019.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter, in New York State Supreme Court (New
York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in
a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske
Litigation").  The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially
included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations
arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the
handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of
model images.  Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin
Litigation include other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers.  

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.
Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.  

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  The
Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were
at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors,
of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated
the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other
things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages
and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate
payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full
explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were
computed.  The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the
action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.  

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims.  The Court entered a decision granting
in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May
26, 2017.  The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor
Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of
action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of
contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New
York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time
frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018.  On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) filed motions for class certification on their contract
claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims.

On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions
for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and a
motion for summary judgment against Raske.  Wilhelmina's reply
papers in further support of its summary judgment motions were
filed on October 23, 2019, and the class certification and summary
judgment motions will next be fully briefed.  The Court has
scheduled a hearing on all of the motions for December 4, 2019.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the
actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in
the lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc. are
awaiting the Court's order on their motion to dismiss the case.

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain
of our current and former officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements relating to its freight billing practices as alleged in
the Department of Defense complaint described above.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019,
and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019. The motion
is fully briefed and awaiting decision.

Management believes the Company has meritorious defenses and
intends to vigorously defend this action.

YRC Worldwide said, "We are unable to estimate the possible loss,
or range of possible loss, associated with these claims at this
time."

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

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


ZENDESK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Zendesk, Inc. ("Zendesk" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZEN) securities
between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Zendesk investors have until December 23, 2019 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Zendesk investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On July 30, 2019, Zendesk reported net loss of $54.5 million for
second quarter 2019 and disclosed that sales growth in Europe,
Middle East, and Africa and Asia-Pacific regions "didn't quite live
up to [the Company's] own expectations, and lagg[ed] other
regions." As a result, Zendesk expected ongoing revenue growth of
just 30%.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $9.56, or over 10%, to
close at $83.56 per share on July 31, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on October 2, 2019, the Company disclosed that a data breach
impacted customers who had signed up before November 2016.

On this news, Zendesk share price dropped $2.90, or nearly 4%,
closing at $69.81 on October 2, 2019, thereby injuring investors
further.

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 Zendesk's clients had been subject to data
breaches dating back to 2016; (2) that Zendesk was experiencing
slowing demand for its Software as a Service offerings,
particularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, due in
large part to political uncertainty and China trade issues there;
and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, Zendesk's business
metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as defendants
had led the market to believe during the Class Period.

If you purchased Zendesk securities have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



[*] CPA Class Action Against Mortgage Servicer Moves Forward
------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on Oct. 18, 2019, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington found that plaintiffs properly
alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
that a mortgage servicer unfairly denied hundreds of mortgage
modification requests due to an error in the mortgage servicer's
software.

Plaintiffs lost their home in a January 2012 foreclosure sale after
the mortgage servicer rejected their mortgage modification
application.  They brought a CPA claim on behalf of each Washington
member of the class and an unjust enrichment claim on their own
behalf and on behalf of a nationwide class.

In August 2018, the mortgage servicer allegedly disclosed that a
calculation error in its mortgage loan modification underwriting
software resulted in approximately 870 improper loan modification
denials dating back to the financial crisis.  However, the mortgage
servicer knew about the error since 2015.

In the order granting in part defendant's motion to dismiss and
denying defendant's motion to strike the class action, the district
court rejected the mortgage servicer's argument that the
plaintiff's CPA claim was an impermissible attempt to enforce the
Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).  The court explained
that, although the conduct is related to the mortgage servicer's
HAMP participation, the plaintiffs were seeking to enforce a state
cause of action rather than the terms of the HAMP agreement.

The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim.  The court agreed with the mortgage servicer's position that
the relationship between the mortgage servicer and the plaintiffs
were governed by contract, and since the alleged benefits of the
unjust enrichment claim were governed by contract, the plaintiffs
were not able to maintain their unjust enrichment claim.

Finally, while the mortgage servicer argued that the plaintiffs
could not allege a Washington class sufficiently numerous to
sustain a class action, the plaintiffs argued that the size of the
class is unknown because the investigation remains ongoing.  The
court decided that the dispute indicated it was too early to
determine whether the class was sufficiently numerous to sustain a
class action. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$23-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s earnings for the third quarter of
2019 include after-tax special charges of US$23 million due to
increased asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves, according to
the Company's press release included as attachment in the Company's
Form 8-K filed on October 30, 2019 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "During the third quarter of 2019, AFG
completed an in-depth comprehensive review of its asbestos and
environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its
P&C Group and its exposures related to former railroad and
manufacturing operations and sites.  This year's review resulted in
non-core after-tax special charges of US$23 million (US$29 million
pretax) to increase AFG's A&E reserves.

"The P&C Group's asbestos reserves were increased by US$3 million
(net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves were increased
by US$15 million (net of reinsurance).  At September 30, 2019, the
P&C Group's insurance reserves include A&E reserves of US$389
million, net of reinsurance recoverables.  At September 30, 2019,
the property and casualty insurance segment's three-year survival
ratios were 19.9 times paid losses for asbestos reserves, 12.1
times paid losses for environmental reserves and 15.6 times paid
losses for total A&E reserves.  These ratios compare favorably with
industry data compiled by A.M. Best as of December 31, 2018, which
indicate that industry survival ratios were 7.0 for asbestos, 8.3
for environmental, and 7.3 for total A&E reserves.

"In addition, the 2019 review encompassed reserves for asbestos and
environmental exposures of our former railroad and manufacturing
operations.  As a result of the review, AFG increased its reserve
for environmental exposures by US$8 million, due primarily to
relatively small movements across several sites that primarily
reflect changes in the scope and costs of investigation; AFG also
increased its reserve for asbestos and toxic substance exposures
arising out of these operations by US$3 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/ADr0L8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,701 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,701 asbestos-related
claims as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.  Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights.  As of September 30, 2019 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,775 claims.  The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million.  Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oLF9UM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. remains a defendant in some asbestos
cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company
is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills.  We acquired certain assets from
Mount Vernon in 1993.  Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition.  Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products.  We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount
Vernon assets.  Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oLF9UM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., still defends itself against 7,710 asbestos-related claims as
of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc., is also a separate defendant in many of the
asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite
never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos.  While
Brandon was defending against 7,710 claims as of September 30,
2019, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since
January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since
2001.  Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.  Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oLF9UM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $99-Mil. Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's reserve for asbestos claims that are
unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") was US$99
million at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of
the Plan.  The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016.

"At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the amount of the
reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$99
million and US$146 million, respectively.  The change in reserve
reflects post-stay claim experience and a reduction in expected
defense costs.  The reserve balance as of September 30, 2019
represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal
fees for the estimated life of the litigation."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $135MM PCC Liability at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the total amount of remaining
payments due in years 2020 through 2023 for asbestos claims under
the reorganization plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) is
US$135 million, of which US$35 million will be paid in the second
quarter of 2020 and is classified as a current liability.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").
PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000, and the Modified
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became
effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company's liability under the Plan was
US$290 million, which is required to be paid through a series of
fixed payments that began in the second quarter of 2017.  Payments
of US$50 million and US$35 million were made in June 2019 and June
2018, respectively.  The total amount of remaining payments due in
years 2020 through 2023 is US$135 million, of which US$35 million
will be paid in the second quarter of 2020 and is classified as a
current liability.  The remaining US$100 million is classified as a
non-current liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.1-Mil. Reserve at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of
US$100.1 million as of September 30, 2019, with regards to
potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.

Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant
in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to
asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company
is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.

"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation.  This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.

"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products described above; the Company's experience that the
vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease
attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or
relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears
responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company
with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition
of comparable matters.  However, inherent uncertainties of
litigation and future developments, including, without limitation,
potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants,
an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other
inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or
indemnitors, could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of
legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation
reserve of US$100.1 million and US$105.8 million as of September
30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to
potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related
litigation.  Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the
asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services
are incurred.  In the event of unexpected future developments, it
is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operation or liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary.  The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$102.8 million and US$103.0
million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018,
respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.

"In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the
insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess
policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies
that were subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case has been
proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the
remaining insurer defendants.

"On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of
that discovery and motions process ("Phase I").  Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights
under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's
former owners rather than to the Company itself.

"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling
immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as
is normally required.  The case is now proceeding through the
discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase
II").

"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors.  The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.  Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation.  The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/GcWu5P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,283 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is still a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately
3,283 plaintiffs as of September 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,061
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 896 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Accrues $5BB from 1993 to Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has accrued a total of
approximately US$5.0 billion beginning with the initial liability
of US$975 million established in 1993 through September 30, 2019,
before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability.

The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and
block insulation material containing asbestos.  The Company sold
its insulation business unit in April 1958.  The Company receives
claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a
result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos
Claims").

"Since receiving its first Asbestos Claim, as of September 30,
2019, the Company in the aggregate has disposed of approximately
401,100 Asbestos Claims at an average indemnity payment of
approximately US$10,000 per claim.  During the three months ended
September 30, 2019, the Company disposed of approximately 300
Asbestos Claims.  The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have
varied on a per-claim basis and are expected to continue to vary
considerably over time.

"Asbestos-related cash payments for 2018, 2017, and 2016 were
US$105 million, US$110 million, and US$125 million, respectively.
The Company's cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal
costs) were approximately US$86,000, US$83,000 and US$71,000 for
the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

"The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of Asbestos Claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.  Failure
of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria
in claims-handling agreements generally has reduced the number of
claims that would otherwise have been received by the Company in
the tort system.  In addition, changes in jurisdictional dynamics,
legislative acts, asbestos docket management and procedures, the
substantive law, the co-defendant pool, and other external factors
have affected lawsuit volume, claim volume, qualification rates,
claim values, and related matters.  Collectively, these variables
generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-claim
average indemnity payment over time.

"Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established
in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0
billion through September 30, 2019, before insurance recoveries,
for its asbestos-related liability.  The Company's estimates of its
liability have been significantly affected by, among other factors,
the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States,
the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for
bankruptcy, changes in mortality rates, the inherent uncertainty of
future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company,
the significant expansion of the types of defendants that are now
sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent
to which these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in
which the Company is also a defendant.

"The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables
likely to affect the resolution of Asbestos Claims against the
Company.  The material components of the Company's total accrued
liability are determined by the Company in connection with its
annual comprehensive legal review and consist of the following
estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have
been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability
for Asbestos Claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the
liability for Asbestos Claims not yet asserted against the Company;
and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated to be incurred in
connection with the Asbestos Claims already asserted and those
Asbestos Claims the Company believes will be asserted.

"The Company conducts an annual comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  As part of its annual comprehensive legal review,
the Company provides historical Asbestos Claims' data to a third
party with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence
and mortality on future filing trends to develop information to
assist the Company in estimating the total number of future
Asbestos Claims likely to be asserted against the Company.  The
Company uses this estimate, along with an estimation of disposition
costs and related legal costs, as inputs to develop its best
estimate of its total probable liability.  If the results of the
annual comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount
of the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably
estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an
appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations
to increase (decrease) the accrued liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6gK4d9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 890 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. had approximately 890 asbestos lawsuits
pending as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and
block insulation material containing asbestos.  The Company sold
its insulation business unit in April 1958.  The Company receives
claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a
result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos
Claims").  Some Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury
lawsuits that typically allege various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

"Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims are presented to the
Company under administrative claims-handling agreements, which the
Company has in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country ("Administrative Claims").  Administrative Claims require
evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants
qualify under the criteria established by the related
claims-handling agreements.  The criteria for Administrative Claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.  Plaintiffs' counsel present, and the Company negotiates,
Administrative Claims under these various agreements in differing
quantities, at different times, and under a variety of conditions.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company had approximately 890
asbestos lawsuits pending.  These pending lawsuits do not include
an estimate of potential Administrative Claims that may be
presented under a claims-handling agreement due to the
uncertainties around presentation timing, quantities, or
qualification rates.  The Company considers Administrative Claims
to be filed and disposed when they are accepted for payment."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6gK4d9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2019.

Rexnord states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition of
The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against multiple
lawsuits relating to personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches by the Company's Stearns
division, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners.  Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to these matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 5,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of September 30, 2019, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2019, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 5,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$40.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$30.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$40.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.  The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2019, is in excess
of the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of US$40.0 million, which corresponds
to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Subject to PI Claims in Sept
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary continues to be the subject
of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product it manufactured,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2019.  However, all these claims are currently on the
Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.

Rexnord states, "...[T]he Company's Prager subsidiary is the
subject of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.  However, all these claims are currently on
the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the
Company does not believe that they will become active in the
future.  To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100%
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these
matters.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 192 PI Suits at September 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. continues to face approximately 192
asbestos-related lawsuits as of September 30, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of September 30, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 192 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.  

"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place
settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both
the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar
nature.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5ONgZs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At September 30, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure related to the complaints,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims
to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5ONgZs



                            *********

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 ***