CAR_Public/191125.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 235

                            Headlines

701 DELI: Court Denies Approval of Nicolas Labor Suit Settlement
ABIOMED INC: Faces Several Shareholders Class Suits
AL OTRO: Court Certifies Class of Non-Mexican Asylum-Seekers
ALLERGAN INC: M.P. Sues Over Harms From BIOCELL Breast Implants
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Suit in EDNY over JUUL Vape

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Producers' CCAA Petition Stays Class Suits
AMTRAK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chen Suit
ANDREU PALMA: Crowder Files Suit Under FDCPA in Florida
ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esparza Alleges

ARIZONA: Pratt, Ryan Appeal Ruling in Parsons Suit to Ninth Circuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending
BALDWIN COUNTY EMC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Dismissal of Recherche Suit
BEST BUY: Order Sustaining Objections in Elansari Suit Modified
BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Bailey's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted

BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Landon Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Still Stayed
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
CALIFORNIA COAST: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports

CAPITAL ONE: Accord in Interchange Fees Suit Wins Initial Okay
CAPITAL ONE: Anthony Robinson Can Amend FCRA Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Suit over Cybersecurity Incident
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Class Action in EDNY
CBOE GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss VIX-Related Class Suit Pending

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Denied
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Moves to Certify Class & 2 Sub-Classes
CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Recall of Dog Food Generates 37 Class Suits

CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Morales Seeks Overtime Wage for Laborers
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Still Defends Infineon Merger-Related Suits
DEAR FIELDBINDER: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Matke Suit

DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit Underway in South Carolina
DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Federal Court 10b-5 Suit
DOS TOROS HOLDINGS: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA
ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Priewe Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price
ELECTROLUX HOME: Reconsideration Bids Ruled on in Gorczynski Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Moves for Certification of Class
ETHICON INC: Boyd Product Liability Suit Moved to W.D. Virginia
EXP REALTY: Hernandez Seeks to Stop Realtors' Unsolicited Texts
FACEBOOK INC: Opiotennione Sues Over Age Bias on Financial Ads
FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soto FDCPA Suit

FASTAFF LLC: Settlement in Dalchau FLSA Suit Gets Final Approval
FEDEX CORP: Robbins Named Counsel in Consolidated Securities Suit
FEDEX FREIGHT: Emetoh Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
GENDLIN LIVERMAN: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Khelalfa Seeks to Stop Downsizing in France

GLOBAL RADAR: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Sanders Suit
GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Seeks Certification of 3 Classes & 1 Sub-Class
GRANDVISION USA: Golan Seeks to Certify Class of Store Managers
GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Files Class Certification Bid
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed

HEALTH INSURANCE: Rector Seeks to Certify Class
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Underway
HERSHEY CO: Class Certification Bid in Clark et al. Suit Denied
HURLEY INT'L: Settlement Approval in Tincher Action Sought
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Askew Seeks to Certify Class

KAIGHT INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
LABORATORY CORP: 22 Class Suits Filed over AMCA Data Breach
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Ignacio Class Suit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Enters Final Judgment in Morales Labor Suit

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Final Approval of $1.2MM Deal in Moodie Suit
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL INC: Runke Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
MOVING RIGHT: Angerosa Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS: Court Grants Writ of Prohibition Request

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Pending
NETGEAR INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for December 5
NEW AVON LLC: Rivas Appeals Opinion and Order in Ruiz Class Suit
NOCHES PAISAS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
NORTH CAROLINA: Allison Moves to Certify Class of Detainees

NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
OAPSE: Littler Seeks to Certify Public Employees Class
ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Punturieri Securities Suit in D. Utah
PART AUTHORITY: Did Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Henao Says

PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Shelved
PLURALSIGHT INC: Birmingham Pension Suit Transferred to D. Utah
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp et al. Seek to Certify Class of Consumers

QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
RESOURCES ENTERPRISE: Hancock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
SAHADI FINE: Calcano Files Suit under Disabilities Act
SCI DIRECT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Class

SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Pending in Calif.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Valdez Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas
SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed

SIRIUS XM: Settlement Reached in Buchanan TCPA Class Suit
SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed
SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger-Related Class Suits to be Dismissed
STATE FARM: Bally Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
SWAROVSKI NORTH AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA

TATE & KIRLIN: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mendel Appeals Ruling in O'Connor Class Suit
UNIFIED CAPITAL: Mizel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Clairton Fire-Related Class Suit

US STEEL: Motion to Certify Class of Claimants Pending
VERATIP CORP: Court Denies Bid to Amend Sarikaputar FLSA Suit
VIMEO INC: Acaley Civils Right Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WAL MART: Court Takes Bid for Class Cert. under Submission
WELLNX LIFE: Choo Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff in Coordes FDCPA Suit May Amend Complaint
WEST MARINE: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Adams Suit
WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal from Dismissal Order Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Rehearing by the 5th Cir. En Banc Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Petition for Rehearing in Regents Suit Denied

WINCO FOODS: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
XPO LOGISTICS: $16.5MM Deal in Carter FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
ZENDESK INC: Faces Reidinger Class Action in N.D. Calif.

                            *********

701 DELI: Court Denies Approval of Nicolas Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANUEL ALBERTO NICOLAS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 701 DELI INC. (d/b/a 701
DELI), FOUAD HIZAM MUSAID, ABDULLAH MUSAID, and MAKI DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 7699 (ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo
Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the parties' application for approval of the Settlement
Agreement.

On Sept. 30, 2015, Manuel Nicolas commenced the putative action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to pay overtime premiums, failure to pay a wage higher than
the statutory minimum, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements and notices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  Nicolas subsequently
submitted an application for the Court to approve the parties'
Settlement Agreement.

The Agreement provides for a total settlement of $50,000.  Judge
Ramos is satisfied that the parties have adequately justified the
dollar amounts constituting the settlement.  The Counsel's
estimated range of recovery was about $143,000. Although the
settlement is only about one-third of the maximum recovery,
Nicolas' counsel indicates that conflicting evidence, the quality
of the evidence and counsel, and the allocation of the burden of
proof on Nicolas together suggest that the settlement is fair and
reasonable.  Judge Ramos agrees, especially in light of the fact
that the parties were prepared to go to trial within a week of when
they reported a settlement in principle to the Court.

The Plaintiff's counsel's lodestar calculation is $8,745 and $1,366
in costs for a total of $10,111.  This work includes drafting court
documents, calculating damages, attending mediation, trial
preparation, and settlement negotiations.  The total amount of
hours billed by all individuals is 29.95 hours.  Judge Ramos is
satisfied with the billing rates that the counsel assigned to each
biller and the number of hours spent for each task.  Based on these
sums, the Judge finds that the requested attorneys' fees and costs
of $16,667, one-third of the settlement, are objectively
reasonable.

The Agreement, however, contains a provision preventing Nicolas
from opting-in to any current or future lawsuit against the
Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA and requiring him to
also affirmatively opt-out of any current or future lawsuit against
the Defendants alleging violations of the New York Labor law.
Although class action releases in the Second Circuit may include
claims not presented and even those which could not have been
presented, they may only do so when the released conduct arises out
of the identical factual predicate as the settled conduct.

The Judge will not approve an overbroad release that purports to
"erase all liability whatsoever"; a proper release in a FLSA case
can only "waive claims relating to the existing suit."

Accordingly, Judge Ramos rules that he will not approve the
Agreement as currently written.  The parties may proceed in one of
the following ways:

     1. File a revised settlement agreement that relates any class
        action or other release to the factual predicate of this
        lawsuit, and that removes or tailors the release
        provisions as described in the Order;

     2. File a joint letter that indicates the parties' intention
        to abandon settlement and continue to trial, at which
        point the Court will reopen the case and set down a date
        for a pre-trial conference; or

     3. Stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice,
        which the Court need not approve under current Second
        Circuit case law.

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

Manuel Alberto Nicolas, individually & Manuel Alberto Nicolas, on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jesse S. Barton -- jbarton@faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C., Paul Hershan, Michael Faillace And Associates &
Michael Antonio Faillace -- Michael@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael
Faillace & Associates, P.C.

701 Deli Inc., doing business as 701 Deli, Defendant, represented
by Harold H. Weisberg, Harold H. Weisberg, Esq.


ABIOMED INC: Faces Several Shareholders Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in several class action suits initiated
by its shareholders.

On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.

On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.  

Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed
motions to consolidate the two cases. However, and since October 7,
2019, two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to
be lead plaintiff.

The court is expected to select one of the two remaining
shareholders as lead plaintiff in November or December.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection
with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding
its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints.
The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
plans to defend itself vigorously.

Abiomed said, "The Company is unable to estimate the potential
liability with respect to the legal The Company is unable to
estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal matters
noted above. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to
estimate reasonably possible loss or range of loss at this stage of
the legal proceedings, including the significant number of legal
and factual issues still to be resolved in the securities class
action litigation."

Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in
the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts.


AL OTRO: Court Certifies Class of Non-Mexican Asylum-Seekers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Kevin K. McAleenan, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Filed July 12, 2017),
the Court Hon. Cynthia Bashant entered an order on Nov. 19, 2019:

   1. provisionally certifying a class consisting of:

      "all non-Mexican asylum-seekers who were unable to make a
      direct asylum claim at a U.S. POE before July 16, 2019
      because of the U.S. Government's metering policy, and who
      continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process."

   2. grating Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Injunction;

   3. directing Defendants to enjoin from applying the Asylum Ban
      to members of the provisionally certified class and
      directing to return to the pre-Asylum Ban practices for
      processing the asylum applications of members of the
      certified class.

The Court said, "The Asylum Ban requires non-Mexican nationals who
enter, attempt to enter, or arrive at a port of entry ("POE") at
the southern border on or after July 16, 2019 to first seek asylum
in Mexico, subject to narrow exceptions. The Plaintiffs ask the
Court to prevent the Government Defendants from applying the Asylum
Ban to a class of non-Mexican nationals who were prevented from
making direct claims for asylum at POEs before July 16, 2019 and
instructed to instead wait in Mexico pursuant to the Government's
own policies and practices.

The putative class members in this case did exactly what the
Government told them to do: they did not make direct claims for
asylum at a POE and instead returned to Mexico to wait for an
opportunity to access the asylum process in the United States. Now,
the Government is arguing that these class members never attempted
to enter, entered, or arrived at a POE before July 16, 2019, and,
therefore, the newly promulgated Asylum Ban is applicable to them.

The Court disagrees. Because the Court finds that members of the
putative class attempted to enter a POE or arrived at a POE before
July 16, 2019, and that as such, the Asylum Ban by its terms does
not apply to them, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions."[CC]

ALLERGAN INC: M.P. Sues Over Harms From BIOCELL Breast Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
M.P. and S.S., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION; ALLERGAN USA,
Inc., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-02858 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19,
2019), seeks relief to remedy the harms caused by the Defendants'
sale of certain recalled BIOCELL breast implants.

Allergan manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Allergan
BIOCELL saline-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. These
defective textured breast implants and tissue expanders are linked
to a deadly cancer of the immune system, Breast Implant Associated
Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"). The United States Food
and Drug Administration recently requested that Allergan remove
these defective implants, after determining that "use of these
devices may cause serious injuries or death. In response to the
FDA's request, on July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide
recall of these defective implants and tissue expanders.

The Plaintiffs assert that Allergan failed to warn them of the
risks related to the defective products. They also contend that
despite its knowledge and admission of the defect, Allergan is
refusing to pay for the majority of its affected patients' surgical
costs relating to the defective implant products. Allergan is also
refusing to pay, in most cases, for the medical monitoring related
to the significantly increased risk of BIA-ALCL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were implanted with the BIOCELL recalled product,
Style 410 Natrelle Silicone-filled breast implants.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone
filled breast implants and tissue expanders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 358-2800
          Fax: (305) 358-2382
          Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
                 jgravante@podhurst.com
                 mweinshall@podhurst.com
                 adelriego@podhurst.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Suit in EDNY over JUUL Vape
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
facing a class action suit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, related to its alleged false and
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
investment in JUUL.

In October 2019, Altria, Howard A. Willard III, Altria's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria's
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants
in a putative class action lawsuit filed by a purported Altria
shareholder in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The claims involve allegedly false
and misleading statements and omissions relating to Altria's
investment in JUUL.

Plaintiff seeks various remedies, including damages and attorneys'
fees.

A response to the lawsuit has not yet been filed.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand;
cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist
smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal,
and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 as of October 28,
2019, a total of two such cases are pending in various U.S. state
courts, none of which is active.

Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class
actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair
trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment
or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable
relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive
damages.

These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation,
lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

As of October 28, 2019, a total of two such cases are pending in
various U.S. state courts, none of which is active.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand;
cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist
smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal,
and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco Producers' CCAA Petition Stays Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 class actions in
Canada have been stayed as a result of three Canadian tobacco
manufacturers (none of which is related to Altria or its
subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada's Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida
(2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland
(1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New
York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1),
Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of October 28, 2019, PM USA and Altria are named as defendants,
along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions
filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario,
plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who
suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer,
after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in
Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of
classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes.

In March 2019, all of these class actions were stayed as a result
of three Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related
to Altria or its subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada's
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (which is similar to Chapter
11 bankruptcy in the U.S.).

The companies entered into these proceedings following a Canadian
appellate court upholding two smoking and health class action
verdicts against those companies totaling approximately CAD $13
billion.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand;
cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist
smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal,
and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


AMTRAK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Chen Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNY CHEN, et al., v. AMTRAK, et al, Civil Action No.
18-3617 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

Plaintiffs Chen and Brian Jordan filed the putative class action
against Defendants Amtrak and RWC, Inc. alleging claims for
nuisance, trespass, and negligence based on the Defendants'
spraying of herbicides along Amtrak rail lines.

Amtrak contracts with RWC to receive vegetation management
services.  These services include applying herbicides to Amtrak's
rail lines within Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The contract
between Amtrak and RWC includes two different "post-emergent" spray
brush programs: on-track and off-track.  The spray programs include
the spraying of AquaNeat -- a herbicide -- along the rail lines.
Pursuant to the contract, RWC provided spray treatment services
along the Amtrak rail lines in Philadelphia County on at least five
occasions over three years from 2015 through 2017.

The Plaintiffs live on Mantua Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Theirhome and backyard border Amtrak rail lines.  The Plaintiffs
have an extensive garden in their backyard including herbs, fruits,
and vegetables.  On Aug. 16, 2017, RWC, pursuant to its contract
with Amtrak, applied AquaNeat in certain adjacent areas of the
right of way of Amtrak's rail lines.  After RWC's spraying, the
garden in the Plaintiffs' backyard began to wilt and present brown
leaves. After a few days, most of the garden appeared dead.

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture investigated the
incident.  The investigation found glyphosate -- an active
ingredient in AquaNeat -- in the Plaintiffs' soil.  The Department
subsequently issued a notice of warning to RWC.  The notice
informed RWC the Department found the spraying constituted a
trespass and violated 7 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 128.103(g) because
it resulted in unwanted residues on the property of another.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action, bringing claims for
nuisance, trespass, and negligence under Pennsylvania law.  They
now seek class certification and propose the class of all owners
and lessees of residential properties located within 100 meters of
an Amtrak rail line in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The
class members would include the owners of approximately 3,454
residential properties along the Amtrak rail lines in Philadelphia
County.  The Court held oral argument on the Motion on April 30,
2019.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish numerosity, they
have failed to meet their burden under the Rule 23(a) factors, the
Court finds.  The Plaintiffs have also failed to establish the
class action can be maintained pursuant to either Rule 23(b)(2) or
23(b)(3), the Court adds.  Accordingly, Judge Sanchez denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/WC4Mak from Leagle.com.

JENNY CHEN, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER --
naxler@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH LLC, GERALD J. WILLIAMS --
gwilliams@williamscedar.com -- WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC, JOSHUA H. GRABAR
-- jgrabar@grabarlaw.com -- Grabar Law Office & MARC A. GOLDICH --
mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH, LLC.

BRIAN JORDAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER, AXLER GOLDICH
LLC & MARC A. GOLDICH, AXLER GOLDICH, LLC.

AMTRAK & RWC, INC., Defendants, represented by MARY SUSAN TOTH --
stoth@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP & VALERIE KELLNER --
vkellner@rawle.com -- RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP.


ANDREU PALMA: Crowder Files Suit Under FDCPA in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andreu, Palma, Lavin
& Solis, PLLC. The case is styled as Lauren Crowder, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated class members, Plaintiff v.
Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00820-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019).

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

Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis PLLC is a multi-jurisdictional law
firm based in South Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Esparza Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Esparza and Yolanda Valle, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. ANNING-JOHNSON CO, HITT
CONTRACTING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03481 (D.D.C., Nov. 19, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay their employees legally
mandated wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the District of Columbia's Minimum Wage Act, and the
District of Columbia's Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Defendants treated the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals as independent contractors, when in fact they were
employees, in violation of the District of Columbia's Workplace
Fraud Act, the Plaintiffs allege.  They add that when they worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, they were not paid at a rate of
time and a half their regular rate for such overtime work. As the
general contractor or the subcontractor that employed the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the
unpaid wages of the Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

Anning-Johnson Company is a Delaware corporation that provides
specialty construction services in multiple markets across the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON
          777 6th Street, NW
          Eleventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Phone: (703) 665-9529
          Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


ARIZONA: Pratt, Ryan Appeal Ruling in Parsons Suit to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Victor Antonio Parsons, et al.
v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Shawn Jensen, et al. v. Charles
Ryan, et al., Case No. 19-17072, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 12,
2019, District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered the parties to
select from the following three options regarding the future course
of case: (i) enforcement of stipulation, (ii) new settlement, and
(iii) trial.

In October 2014, the parties, apparently in good faith, entered
into a stipulation to settle the litigation.  That stipulation
required the Defendants to "comply with the health care performance
measures" the parties agreed upon. The stipulation did not
contemplate perfect compliance with each performance measure but it
did require that, as of two years after the stipulation's effective
date, the Defendants would comply with every performance measure at
least 85% of the time.

Now, approaching the five-year anniversary of the stipulation's
acceptance, the Defendants are in violation of that agreement
because they are not complying with every performance measure 85%
of the time.  And crucially, the failing performance measures
relate to the core aspects of health care delivery: provision of
medication, access to specialty care, and ensuring adherence to
outside providers' recommendations.

Based on the Defendants' continued non-compliance with the
stipulation and questions regarding the accuracy of the compliance
numbers themselves, the Court appointed Dr. Marc Stern to assess
the manner in which the Defendants were monitoring their compliance
and to assess Defendants' "substantial noncompliance with critical
aspects of health care delivery."  On Oct. 2, 2019, Dr. Stern
provided his report.

Dr. Stern's report confirms the Court's long-held belief that
pervasive issues have precluded accurate monitoring of certain
performance measures and that even the low compliance levels
reported in some instances may be worse.  The report sets forth
recommendations to ensure accurate monitoring of performance
measures as well as recommendations that certain performance
measures be retired and others be altered to more realistically
capture whether required health care is being provided to
prisoners.  The report also describes in detail how the Defendants'
behavior creates a significant risk of serious harm to prisoners'
health and concluded that additional funding would be necessary to
provide required healthcare.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on December 16, 2019;

   -- Appellants Richard Pratt and Charles L. Ryan's opening
      brief is due on January 24, 2020;

   -- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne
      Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn
      Jensen, Desiree Licci, Joshua Polson, Sonia Rodriguez,
      Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas, Christina
      Verduzco and Charlotte Wells' answering brief is due on
      February 24, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN JENSEN, et al., are represented by:

          Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq.
          Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq.
          John H. Gray, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
          Telephone: (602) 351-8085
          E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
                  agerlicher@perkinscoie.com
                  jhgray@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Erin Brody, Esq.
          MITCHELL STEIN CAREY CHAPMAN, PC
          One Renaissance Square
          2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 388-8958
          E-mail: kathy@mscclaw.com

               - and -

          David Cyrus Fathi, Esq.
          Amy Fettig, Esq.
          Jennifer Wedekind, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          915 15th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 393-4930
          E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org
                  afettig@npp-aclu.org

               - and -

          Alison Hardy, Esq.
          Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq.
          Rita Katherine Lomio, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Donald Specter, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: ahardy@prisonlaw.com
                  ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
                  rlomio@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com
                  dspecter@prisonlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department
of Corrections, and RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director,
Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, are
represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC
          3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com
                  rlove@swlfirm.com
                  dstruck@swlfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Gottfried, Esq.
          ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          2005 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 542-7693
          E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov


AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss in the class action suit entitled, In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned as Bevinal
v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.), is pending.

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain former
officers of the Company. On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and class counsel.

The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019 and
recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation" on
July 8, 2019. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon
common stock between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017,
inclusive.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect
to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for
Representatives in Brazil.

On July 26, 2019 the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to
assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome."

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.



BALDWIN COUNTY EMC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Dismissal of Recherche Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah Hicks Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court of Alabama
affirmed Baldwin Circuit Court's dismissal of the case captioned
Recherche, LLC, and Brooks Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Baldwin County Electric Membership
Corporation, Case No. 1171144 (Ala.).

The appeal involves the interpretation of the patronage-refund
requirements imposed on electric cooperatives by Section 37-6-20,
Ala. Code 1975 -- entitled "Disposition of Excess Revenues."
Recherche, individually and on behalf of all other current and
former members of Baldwin EMC filed a class-action complaint in the
trial court, Baldwin Circuit Court, against Baldwin EMC, seeking a
judgment declaring the rights of the members to a return of
"Patronage Capital" or "Capital Credits," which the members assert
is "excess revenues" due to be distributed to the members under
Section37-6-20.  Brooks Davis subsequently filed a motion to
intervene to represent all former members of Baldwin EMC.
Recherche and Davis asserted that Baldwin EMC's method of
allocating excess revenues to capital accounts violates Section
37-6-20.  The trial court dismissed the action.

Recherche and Davis appealed.  They argue that Section 37-6-20
requires that Baldwin EMC's distributions must be in cash or by
general rate reductions or a combination of both methods.  They
argue that the language of Section 37-6-20 does not permit Baldwin
EMC to allocate excess revenue to capital accounts and later
"retire" or pay out those funds, because, they assert, allocation
and retirement are not among the exclusive manners of distribution
recognized in the statute, which are limited to patronage refunds,
rate reductions, or a combination of both methods.

Judge Stewart explains that Section 37-6-20 provides that the
distribution of patronage refunds is to occur in the manner as
"provided in the bylaws."  Baldwin EMC's bylaws provide, among
other things that Baldwin EMC is obligated to pay by credits to a
capital account for each patron all such amounts in excess of
operating costs and expenses.  Baldwin EMC's undisputed
apportionment of equity to capital accounts qualifies as
distributing patronage refunds under Section 37-6-20.

Although the Court is not bound by Caver v. Central Alabama
Electric Cooperative, 845 F.3d 1135, 1141 (11th Cir. 2017)("Caver
II"), the Judge agrees with the reasoning of the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals, its reliance on State v. Pea River Electric
Cooperative, and State Department of Revenue v. Mon-Cre Telephone
Cooperative, Inc., and its interpretation of Section 37-6-20.

Because it is undisputed that Baldwin EMC is distributing excess
revenues to the members' capital accounts and because Baldwin EMC's
method of distribution does not contravene Section 37-6-20,
Recherche and Davis' complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  Furthermore, because the provisions in
Baldwin EMC's bylaws for the distribution of excess revenue to the
members is in compliance with Section 37-6-20, Recherche and Davis'
argument that Baldwin EMC has breached the contract by breaching
the statutory provisions incorporated in the bylaws is not a viable
claim of breach of contract.

Accordingly, Judge Stewart concludes that the trial court properly
dismissed Recherche and Davis' class-action complaint.  Judge
Stewart upholds the trial court's decision.

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


BEST BUY: Order Sustaining Objections in Elansari Suit Modified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMRO ELANSARI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. BEST BUY, LP; DELL, INC,
Case No. 627 EDA 2019 (Pa. SUper.), Judge Deborah A. Kunselman of
the U.S. Superior Court of Pennsylvania modified the order
sustaining the preliminary objections of the Seller (Best Buy) and
the Manufacturer (Dell) of a computer the Plaintiff purchased.

According to the amended complaint, in February 2018, the Buyer was
in the market for a new, powerful, desktop computer, and found a
deal for such a computer for $380 -- in store only -- at Best Buy.
The Buyer intended to use the new computer for streaming on
Twitch.tv, a purpose he alleges was personal in nature that did not
rise to the level of commercial use.  The Buyer compared his
purpose to Skyping regularly with people -- a very consumer-like
use.

Purchasing an identical computer directly from Manufacturer would
have cost at least $500.  So the Buyer went to the Seller's
brick-and-mortar store to take advantage of the lower,
in-store-only price.  Thus, he claims that the Seller lured him
into its store with an advertisement for the Manufacturer's
computer on sale for $380.

Once the Buyer entered the store, tge Seller's employee said the
advertised, $380 computer was unavailable.  The employee offered
the Buyer another one of the Manufacturer's computers for $500
instead.  He purchased the higher-priced computer.

The Buyer began using the Manufacturer's computer but found it
unfit for regular use as it would freeze and overheat regularly.
The computer froze and overheated over 30+ times in the month of
April 2018.  The Buyer was stuck with the defective computer,
because neither the Seller nor the Manufacturer would replace the
computer or refund his purchase price, even though it came with a
one-year warranty.

The Buyer decided to file a small-claims action against the
Defendants in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.  He then discovered
the Seller was still advertising the same, $380 computer in July of
2018, five months after he filed suit in the municipal court.  The
Buyer saved the July advertisement and went to the Seller's store
with a third party.  That person entered the store and asked about
the $380 computer from the advertisement.  Again, an employee said
the $380 computer was not available and attempted to sell the third
party a more expensive computer.

Realizing that he was not the only potential victim of the
deceptive sales tactic, the Buyer sought recourse on behalf of all
similarly situated consumers.  In his amended complaint, he averred
that the Seller not only knew, but has been intentionally running
deceptive advertisements to trick consumers into coming to its
store to purchase items at a higher price, which is a
very-well-established tort known as bait and switch.  He alleged
that the Seller knowingly and willfully misrepresented to the Buyer
and the Class that its rates would be lower than standard market
conditions on various occasions, particularly in-store-only as
well, when, in fact, its rates are not what are advertised and in
fact may be higher or non-existent at all.  This deception caused
him and the Class to pay substantially higher rates than those
otherwise available in the market and also acquire products that
were inferior in quality.  

The Buyer seeks damages and an injunction against the Seller from
continuing to misrepresent its rates to Pennsylvania consumers.  He
also seeks legal fees and costs under the Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").

The Defendants renewed their preliminary objections in the nature
of a demurrer to all four counts.  Because the case had become a
class action, the parties agreed to transfer it from the trial
court's arbitration division to its commerce program.

Thereafter, a commerce-program judge issued an order sustaining the
second set of preliminary objections as to both the Defendants and
dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.  The trial court
ruled that Buyer purchased the computer for a business purpose,
exempting the transaction from UTPCPL protection.  Itt also
determined that the Buyer and the Defendants never entered a
contract, and that the Buyer did not plead sufficient facts to
demonstrate unjust enrichment.

The Buyer timely appealed, raising one issue on appeal.  He asks
whether Twitch streaming -- the act of broadcasting oneself over
the Internet -- a trend that is common and popular among many today
as a hobby, a business, and a sport -- constitutes a business, per
se, to prohibit a person purchasing a single computer for Twitch
streaming from asserting protection under the Consumer Protection
and Bait-and-Switch Laws.

In its responsive brief, the Manufacturer argues that the Court
should affirm the order dismissing it with prejudice on alternative
grounds.

Judge Kunselman concludes that the trial court erred by granting
judgment as a matter of law to the Defendants, because the amended
complaint does not allege that the Buyer used the computer for
business purposes.  On the contrary, it undoubtedly alleges he used
the good for a personal purpose.  Also, the Judge's de novo review
of the amended complaint and the UTPCPL reveals the Buyer alleged
facts hinting at a possible basis for recovery against the
Manufacturer for an unfulfilled warranty under Section 201-1(4).  A
second amended complaint may be appropriate.

Accordingly, Judge Kunselman modified the appealed from order as
follows: "And now, the 9th Day of January, 2019, upon consideration
of the preliminary objections of Defendants Best Buy, LP and Dell,
Inc. to Plaintiff Elansari's amended complaint it is hereby ordered
that preliminary objections of both Defendants are sustained as to
Counts II, III, and VI.  It is further ordered that preliminary
objections of Dell, Inc. are sustained as to Count I of the amended
complaint, and that leave is granted to Mr. Elansari to file a
second amended complaint against Dell, Inc.  It is further ordered
that the preliminary objections of Best Buy, LP are overruled as to
Count I."

Judge Kunselman affirmed the order as modified.  The case is
remanded for proceedings consistent with the Memorandum.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/Cf6JSa from Leagle.com.

Amro Elansari, for Appellant, Pro Se.

Edward Joseph Murphy, Jr. -- emurphy@pgmurphy.com -- Murphy &
Associates, for Appellee, Dell Inc.

Catherine Marie Contino -- ccontino@margolisedelstein.com --
Margolis Edelstein, for Appellee, Best Buy Inc.


BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Bailey's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) in the lawsuit titled JORDAN BAILEY, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01677-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

The Defendants operate jointly as "Black Tie Moving."  The
Defendants provide moving services, including packing, loading,
unloading, and storage, in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

Mr. Bailey worked on Black Tie's "Local" and "Intrastate" moving
team from November 2018 to March 2019.  While working for Black
Tie, he worked exclusively in Ohio, and he was required to wear the
Black Tie Moving uniform while at work. During the time he worked
for Black Tie, he says he regularly worked 50-60 hours per week,
six or seven days per week, and was paid on an hourly basis. He
contends he never received overtime compensation from Black Tie as
Black Tie misclassified him as an independent contractor.

The Plaintiff commenced this action on April 29, 2019, with the
filing of a three-count Complaint against the Defendants.  He filed
an Amended Complaint against the Defendants on June 18, 2019,
alleging violations of: 1) the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2) the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act; and 3) the Ohio Wage Laws. He
seeks conditional certification of an FLSA class defined as:

     All former and current drivers, movers, and related
     positions with different titles, employed by Defendants who
     performed off-the-clock work, were not paid travel time,
     and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016 through the
     final disposition of this matter ("Opt-ins," "FLSA
     Collective," or "Putative Collective Members").

In its Opinion & Order, the Court notes that the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint also proposes a class action for his state law
claims.  Whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that a
class action is proper for his state law claims, however, is not
currently before the Court.  Accordingly, the Opinion and Order
addresses only the FLSA collective.

In its objection to the Motion, Black Tie asserts that the language
"'related worker with different job title' is confusing, vague and
ambiguous."  The Plaintiff submits that "the proposed Notice can. .
. be amended to identify 'those who performed work for Black Tie
Moving, including but not limited to drivers and movers.'
Alternatively, the parties can confer to come to agreeable
language, should conditional certification be granted.

Accordingly, Judge Sargus orders the parties to meet and confer to
resolve this objection. Any objection the Defendants have to this
specific portion of the new proposed notice must be submitted to
the Court within 14 days of the issuance of this Opinion and
Order.[CC]



BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama, et al., was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District to Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama (Southern) on Oct. 31, 2019.

The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01765-RDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge R David Proctor.

The suit alleges violation of antitrust-related laws. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants, which are independent companies, have
agreed with each other to carve the United States into "Service
Areas" in which only one Blue can sell insurance, administer
employee benefit plans or contract with healthcare providers (the
"Market Allocation").

The Defendants have engaged in a horizontal market allocation,
which is illegal under a per se, quick look or rule of reason
analysis. The quid pro quo for this illegal Market Allocation
Conspiracy is a horizontal Price-Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy
under which every other Blue gets the benefit of the artificially
reduced prices that each Blue pays to healthcare providers. The
Blues get those benefits through the national programs that the
Blues have collectively established, including the Blue Card
Program and the National Accounts Programs, the lawsuit says.

The Market Allocation Conspiracy reduces the competition that each
Blue faces and allows it to reduce the prices that it pays to
healthcare providers. The Price Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy fixes
those prices for all Blues, gives them the benefit of those
reduced, fixed prices and further provides that the participating
Blues will collectively boycott all Providers outside of their
Service Areas. In many geographic areas, the Blues have
successfully created or maintained a monopsony, or have created a
dangerous probability of achieving a monopsony. This conduct
violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as Houston Home Dialysis LP, Plaintiff v.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama; Anthem, Inc.; Health Care
Service Corporation; Cambia Health Solutions Inc.; CareFirst Inc.;
Premera Blue Cross; Premera Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska;
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.; USAble Mutual Insurance
Company doing business as: Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield;
Blue Cross of California doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross;
California Physicians Service Inc., doing business as: Blue Shield
of California; Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc.
doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado;
Anthem Health Plans Inc., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Connecticut; Highmark, Inc.; Highmark BCBSD, Inc.
d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield Delaware doing business
as: Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield Delaware; Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as:
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Florida Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc.; Hawaii
Medical Service Association, doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Hawaii; Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service Inc.; Regence
BlueShield of Idaho Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois;
ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC., doing business as: Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana; Wellmark, Inc., doing business
as: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa; Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.; Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc.
d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky doing business
as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky; Louisiana Health
Service and Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Louisiana doing business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Louisiana; Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Maine doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Maine; CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a/
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield doing business as: CareFirst
BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan; BCBSM Inc., doing
business as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota; Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Mississippi; HMO Missouri, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri, doing business as: Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Kansas City Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana; Caring for
Montanans, Inc. f/k/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.,
formerly known as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana Inc.; Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska; Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Nevada; Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire Inc., doing
business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire;
Horizon Health Care Services, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of New Jersey, doing business as: Horizon Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of New Jersey; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New
Mexico; HealthNow New York Inc.; Blue Shield of Northeastern New
York; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western New York, Inc.; Empire
HealthChoice Assurance Inc.; doing business as:Empire Blue Cross
Blue Shield; Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross
BlueShield doing business as: Excellus BlueCross BlueShield; Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc.; Noridian Mutual
Insurance Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota,
doing business as: Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota;
Community Insurance Company, doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Ohio; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma;
Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon; Hospital Service
Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania d/b/a Blue Cross of
Northeastern Pennsylvania doing business as: Blue Cross of
Northeastern Pennsylvania; Capital Blue Cross; Highmark Health
Services, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield and d/b/a
Highmark Blue Shield doing business as: Highmark Blue Shield, doing
business as: Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; Independence Blue
Cross; Triple-S Salud, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode
Island; BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina Inc.; Wellmark of
South Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
South Dakota doing business as: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of South Dakota; BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc.; Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Regence BlueCross BlueShield of
Utah; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont; Anthem Health Plans of
Virginia Inc., doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Virginia, Inc., Regence BlueShield; Highmark West Virginia, Inc.
d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West Virginia doing business
as: Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West Virginia; Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Wisconsin doing business as: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Wisconsin; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming; Consortium
Health Plans, Inc.; National Account Service Company, LLC; and Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-03791 (Filed Oct. 2, 2019).

The Defendants are the Association and the Blues, their owners and
affiliated companies, as well as companies through which they
conduct their conspiracies. The Blues provide health insurance
coverage for approximately 100 million people in the United States
and, according to the BCBSA's own estimates, more than 91% of
professional providers and more than 96% of hospitals in the United
States contract directly with the Blues. The BCBSA exists solely
for the benefit of the Blues and to facilitate their concerted
activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earnest William Wotring, Esq.
          CONNELLY BAKER WOTRING LLP
          700 JPMorgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 980-1700
          Facsimile: (713) 980-6925
          E-mail: ewotring@bakerwotring.com


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Landon 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 company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Melissa S.
Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin
law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law
prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of the
company's initial contact with the purchaser; that the company
misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that the
company misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the
company includes an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only"
incentive to purchase; and that the company utilizes an illegal
referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership
interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from the company one or more VOIs
within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Bluegreen said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend the action."

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.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
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 stayed the class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA").

It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) called
plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an
automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his
express written consent to do so. Plaintiffs seek certification of
a class comprised of other persons in the United States who, within
the four years prior to the filing of the complaint, received
similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the person’s
consent.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a
separate action brought against a vacation ownership interests
(VOI) company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA.

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.


BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
--------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation 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 court in Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding
Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without
prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not-for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CALIFORNIA COAST: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Trim, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA COAST CREDIT UNION, Case No.
3:19-cv-02198-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2019), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in reporting erroneous negative
and derogatory information on the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers' credit reports, in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed Chapter Seven bankruptcy
in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Following the bankruptcy,
the balance on the Debt should have been listed as $0.00 on all
consumer reports and the reports should have stated the account was
"closed." However, following the bankruptcy and discharge, on
February 27, 2019, when checking his Experian credit report, the
Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant reported that there
remained a balance of $4,422 on the Debt.

Because his account was discharged, his account should be closed
and have no remaining balance, the Plaintiff contends. Experian
timely notified the Defendant of the Plaintiff's dispute, but the
Defendant failed to correct the information and continues to
furnish false information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the County of San
Bernardino, State of California.

The Defendant is a credit union authorized to do business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Fax: (866) 431-3292
          Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CAPITAL ONE: Accord in Interchange Fees Suit Wins Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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
settlement of the Interchange Fees litigation has been
preliminarily approved.

In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks,
including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary
damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of
interchange fees.

Other merchants have asserted similar claims in separate lawsuits,
and while these separate cases did not name any issuing banks,
Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One, have entered
settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating the
liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all
interchange-related cases.

The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was invalidated by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June
2016, and the suit was bifurcated into separate class actions
seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively.

In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement and have pursued their own claims. The claims by the
injunctive relief class have not been resolved, but the parties
reached a new settlement agreement with the monetary damages class
in August 2018, whereby the class would receive up to approximately
$6.2 billion collectively from the defendants in exchange for a
release of their claims, depending on the percentage of class
plaintiffs who opt out.

The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in January
2019.

Visa and MasterCard have also settled several of the opt-out cases,
which required non-material payments from issuing banks, including
Capital One. Visa created a litigation escrow account following its
initial public offering of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for
its member banks, and any settlements related to
MasterCard-allocated losses have either already been paid or are
reflected in the company's reserves.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

CAPITAL ONE: Anthony Robinson Can Amend FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTHONY T. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
ONE BANK, NA, Defendant, Case No. 19-2275-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.), Judge
Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Class Action Complaint; (ii) denied without prejudice as
moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint,
Dismiss Class Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike
Plaintiff's Class Allegations; and (iii) denied without prejudice
as moot the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Reply in Support of its Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
on June 4, 2019.  On Aug. 28, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Dismiss Class Claims for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations.
On Sept. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Defendant didn't
respond.

The Plaintiff sought leave to amend on Sept. 23, 2019.  He filed
his motion more than 21 days after the Defendant filed its Aug. 28,
2019 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike.  So, the Plaintiff
needs the Court's leave to amend its pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2).  He has asked for leave to amend its complaint to
supplement his allegations in order to render some of the arguments
raised by Capital One moot.

The Defendant didn't respond to the Plaintiff's motion.  Under D.
Kan. Rule 7.4, if a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed
within the D. Kan. Rule 6.1 (d) time requirements, the Court will
consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion.  Judge
Crabtree thus considers the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave as an
uncontested one.

The Plaintiff argues that its proposed amended complaint is not
designed to impose undue delay, that the amendments are not futile,
and that the amendments will not unduly burden the Plaintiff.  The
Defendant filed no opposition refuting any of these arguments.
Judge Crabtree thus granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Under D. Kan. Rule
15.1(b), the Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of the Order to
file his amended complaint.

Judge Crabtree denied without prejudice as moot the Defendant's (i)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Dismiss Class Claims for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Strike Plaintiff's Class
Allegations; and (ii) Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply
in Support of its Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/bPFfSC from Leagle.com.

Anthony T. Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Robertson
-- mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com -- Stecklein & Rapp Chartered, Michael
H. Rapp, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered & Alan J. Stecklein, Stecklein
& Rapp Chartered.

Capital One Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Anna-Katrina S.
Christakis -- kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim
Christakis LLP, Jeffrey D. Pilgrim --
jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer
Fane LLP & Marielise Fraioli -- mfraioli@pilgrimchristakis.com --
Pilgrim Christakis LLP, pro hac vice.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Suit over Cybersecurity Incident
---------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a consolidated putative
consumer class action suit related to 2019 cybersecurity incident.

On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on July 19, 2019, the
company determined there was unauthorized access by an outside
individual who obtained certain types of personal information
relating to people who had applied for its credit card products and
to its credit card customers (the "Cybersecurity Incident"). The
Cybersecurity Incident occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019. The
company believes that a highly sophisticated individual was able to
exploit a specific configuration vulnerability in the company's
infrastructure. The configuration vulnerability was reported to the
company by an external security researcher on July 17, 2019.

To date, the company have been named as a defendant in
approximately 70 putative consumer class action cases (60 in U.S.
federal courts and 10 in Canadian courts) alleging harm from the
Cybersecurity Incident and seeking various remedies, including
monetary and injunctive relief.

The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.


On October 2, 2019, the U.S. consumer class actions were
consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a multi-district
litigation panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Class Action in EDNY
--------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants
in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, which was filed on October 2, 2019,
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in
connection with statements and alleged omissions in securities
filings relating to the Company's information security standards
and practices.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from
February 2, 2018 to June 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary
damages, costs and other relief.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CBOE GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss VIX-Related Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, 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 the class action lawsuit related to the Cboe
Volatility Index methodology (VIX), is pending.

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a
putative class action alleging various claims against the Company
and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.

Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the
complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LORRAINE ADELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba
VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV623 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Amend for Certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

On March 5, 2019, the District Court granted the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA").  The Court found against Plaintiff
Lorraine Adell's contentions that her consent to arbitration under
the FAA was not voluntary and that the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA") and the FAA are in conflict.  Furthermore, the Court
refused to find that the arbitration agreement with Verizon
Wireless is unenforceable.

In the present Motion, Plaintiff is asking the Court to certify for
interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) the propriety of that
part of its Order staying rather than dismissing the action.  She
contends that if the Sixth Circuit agrees that the case should have
been dismissed, then her arbitrability challenges under the
Constitution and CAFA can be appealed directly.  The Plaintiff
argues that it will prevent the parties and the Court from
expending substantial resources and will eliminate the delay in
resolving the arbitrability challenges she intends to take up on
appeal anyway.

The Defendant objects and insists that the Court properly exercised
its discretion by staying rather than dismissing the lawsuit
consistent with the FAA's statutory scheme and pro-arbitration
policy.

On review, Judge Boyko finds that all the requirements for
certification are not satisfied.  Whether a district court should
dismiss an action or stay it after all claims have been referred to
arbitration is a matter of the exercise of discretion.  There is no
question of "correctness" or "incorrectness" as intended by the
Section 1292(b) analysis.  

Furthermore, the issuance of a stay comports with the longstanding
pro-arbitration policy codified in the FAA and supported in federal
jurisprudence, Judge Boyko notes.  The Judge opines that a stay
rather than an immediate appeal materially advances the ultimate
termination of litigation.  

Accordingly, Judge Boyko concludes that the Plaintiff has not
adequately shown that certification for an interlocutory appeal is
warranted.  Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/uq19fZ from Leagle.com.

Lorraine Adell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, William R. Weinstein -- wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com -- &
Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Law Office of Daniel R.
Karon.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Branden P. Moore -- bmoore@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, R.
Eric Bilik -- ebilik@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, pro hac
vice & R. Patrick Dover -- pdover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods.


CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Moves to Certify Class & 2 Sub-Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BEATRICE PARKER, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees
v. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-01912-HSG (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court
for an order certifying a class and two sub-classes:

   -- Class:

      all of Defendant's current and former hourly employees who
      worked for Defendant in California at any time between
      February 13, 2014 and the date of the order granting class
      certification, inclusive, on projects at the Chevron
      Refinery in Richmond, California, the Tesoro Refinery in
      Martinez, California, and the Phillips 66 Refinery in
      Carson, California;

   -- Waiting Time Sub-class:

      all of Defendant's former hourly employees who worked for
      Defendant in California at any time between February 13,
      2015 and the date of the order granting class
      certification, inclusive, on projects at the Chevron
      Refinery in Richmond, California, the Tesoro Refinery in
      Martinez, California, and the Phillips 66 Refinery in
      Carson, California, and whose employment ended during that
      period; and

   -- Wage Statement Sub-class:

      all of Defendant's former hourly employees who worked for
      Defendant in California at any time between December 18,
      2016 and June 6, 2019, inclusive, who received paper wage
      statements that did not include the full name and address
      of Defendant.

Ms. Parker also asks the Court to designate her and Jeffrey Gurule,
Sr., as Class Representatives and Keller Grover LLP and the Law
Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation, as Class
Counsel.

The complaint was filed on February 13, 2018.  The Second Amended
Complaint was filed on February 11, 2019.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant violated California's Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission by failing to pay Class members the statutory
minimum wage for compensable pre-shift time, and by failing to
provide Class members accurate itemized wage statements, among
other violations.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 13, 2020, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspencer@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


CODEFIED INC: Settlement in Armstrong TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLIFFORD ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CODEFIED INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00550-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.

The Parties have agreed to settle the Action pursuant to the terms
and conditions set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement dated
as of Sept. 13, 2019.  Under the Settlement, subject to the terms
and conditions therein and subject to Court approval, the Plaintiff
and the other Releasing Parties will fully, finally, and forever
resolve, discharge, and release the Released Claims against the
Released Parties.

The Settlement has been filed with the Court, and the Plaintiff and
the Class Counsel have filed the instant Motion.  Upon considering
the Motion, the Settlement and all exhibits, the record in these
proceedings, the representations and recommendations of counsel,
and the requirements of law, Judge Mendez granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

Judge Mendez provisionally certified the following Settlement
Class:  All individuals or entities in the United States who, from
March 28, 2015 to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order,
received one or more telephone calls or texts concerning Codefied's
(i.e., Housecall Pro's) goods or services from or on behalf of
Defendant.

Judge Mendez appointed (i) Armstrong as the Class Representative;
(ii) Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and
Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC as the Class
Counsel; and (iii) KCC LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

The Judge approved the form and content of the Mailed Notice, Long
Form Notice, and Claim Form.

The Administrator will implement the Notice Plan, as set forth in
the Settlement, and the Claims Process using the Notices and Claim
Form.  The Notice will be provided to the members of the Settlement
Class pursuant to the Notice Plan, as specified in the Settlement
and approved by the Preliminary Approval Order.

A final approval hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 28, 2020 at
1:30 p.m.

Any person within the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded
from the Settlement may exercise their right to opt-out of the
Settlement by following the opt-out procedures set forth in the
Settlement and in the Notice at any time prior to the Opt-Out
Deadline.  To be valid and timely, opt-out requests must be
received by those listed in the Long-Form Notice on or before the
Opt-Out Deadline, which is 45 days after the Notice Date, and
mailed to the addresses indicated in the Notice.

Any Settlement Class member may object to the Settlement, Class
Counsel's Fee Application, or the request for a service award for
the Plaintiff as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Notice.
Any objection to the Settlement Agreement, including any of its
terms or provisions, must be in writing, filed with the Court, with
a copy served on the Class Counsel, the Counsel for the Defendant,
and the Settlement Administrator at the addresses set forth in the
Notice, and postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline.

The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement, Fee Application and request for a
service award for the Plaintiff, no later than Dec. 30, 2019, which
is no more than 15 days prior to the Opt Out Deadline.  They will
file their responses to timely filed objections to the Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement, the Fee Application and/or
request a Service Award for the Plaintiff no later than Jan. 17,
2020 which is 10 days before the Final Approval Hearing.

All proceedings in the action are stayed until further order of the
Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the
Settlement.

Judge Mendez has set the following schedule for the Final Approval
Hearing and the actions which must take place before and after it:

     a. Notice Date - No more than 30 days after Preliminary
        Approval

     b. Deadline for filing papers in support of Final Approval of
        the Settlement and Class Counsel's application for an
        award of attorneys' fees and expenses - No more than 15
        days prior to Opt Out Deadline

     c. Opt-out Deadline - 45 days after the Notice Date

     d. Responses to Objections - No more than 10 days prior to
        the Final Approval Hearing

     e. Final Approval Hearing - Approximately 90 days after
        entry of Preliminary Approval

     f. Claims Deadline - 60 days after the Notice Date

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bBnpnd from Leagle.com.

Clifford Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Fay Benedict
-- amanda@amandabenedict.com -- Law Office of Amanda Benedict, Avi
R. Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice,
Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman -- reckaufman@gmail.com -- Kaufman P.A. &
Stefan L. Coleman -- Lawofficesofstefancoleman@gmail.com -- Law
Offices of Stefan Coleman, PA, pro hac vice.

Codefied, Inc, Defendant, represented by Elyse D. Echtman --
eechtman@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac
vice & Michael C. Weed -- mweed@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company 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 against a class action alleging ERISA
violation.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This action has been certified as a class action.

The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company is contesting this action vigorously.

Colgate-Palmolive said, "Since the amount of any potential loss
from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range
of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case."

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Recall of Dog Food Generates 37 Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company 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 and/or
Hill's Pet Nutrition have been named as defendants in 37 putative
class action lawsuits.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill's Pet Nutrition
announced a voluntary recall, which was subsequently expanded, of
select canned dog food products due to potentially elevated levels
of Vitamin D resulting from a supplier error.

In the United States, the voluntary recall was conducted in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Following the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of
September 30, 2019, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as
defendants in 37 putative class action lawsuits and one individual
action filed in various jurisdictions in the United States and one
putative class action filed in Canada, all related to the voluntary
recall.

Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States
were voluntarily dismissed.

Colgate-Palmolive said, "Hill's is entitled to indemnification from
the supplier related to the voluntary recall. Sales of products
voluntarily recalled represent less than 2% of Hill's annual Net
sales. The sales loss and other costs associated with the voluntary
recall and subsequent expansion did not have a material impact on
the Company's Net sales or Operating profit for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2019 and are not expected to have a
material impact in future periods."

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Morales Seeks Overtime Wage for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIHU ROMERO MORALES, REYNALDO ARIZA BARRIOS, FERNANDO ARELLANO
RAMIREZ, LUIS FLORES PEREZ, FERNANDO OLEA PRADO, and ANASTACIO
RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS LLC, NY DEVELOPERS
& MANAGEMENT LLC, and NY DEVELOPERS & MANAGERS INC., and ELLIOTT
PORCO, ALEX LIZARDO and YOEL GRUBER, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10140 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked approximately 63 hours or more per week
during their employment by Defendants. The Plaintiffs have been
employed by the Defendants as rebar workers and general laborers,
or other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort
of functions for the Defendants, other than the executive and
management positions, who have been subject to the Defendants'
common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and
plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
overtime wages, according to the complaint.

The Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA.

As a result of these violations of federal and New York State labor
laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies the Court deems appropriate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Still Defends Infineon Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits related to
its merger with Infineon.

On June 3, 2019, Cypress entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Infineon and IFX Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other
things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Infineon. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the
Company's shareholders will receive $23.85 in cash for each share
of Cypress common stock owned. The consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Cypress.

Following the public announcement of the Merger Agreement,
purported stockholders of the Company filed nine lawsuits against
the Company and the members of its Board of Directors: Wang v.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal., filed
July 3, 2019; dismissed September 9, 2019); Wheby v. Cypress
Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed July 8,
2019); Baxter v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03944
(N.D. Cal., filed July 9, 2019; dismissed October 4, 2019);
Salpeter-Levy v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-06369
(S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2019; dismissed September 13, 2019);
Jeweltex Mfg. Inc. Ret. Plan v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-03978 (N.D. Cal., filed July 11, 2019; dismissed October 8,
2019); Hatt v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-15400
(D.N.J., filed July 15, 2019; dismissed October 16, 2019);
Starosciak v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-01315
(D. Del., filed on July 16, 2019); Fredericks v. Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-04139 (N.D. Cal., filed on
July 18, 2019; dismissed September 18, 2019); and Nozawa v. Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., filed on
July 23, 2019; dismissed October 3, 2019).  

Wheby is a purported class action.

Eight of the complaints contend, among other things, that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July
2, 2019, misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material
information in violation of federal securities laws (and one
complaint, Fredericks, alleged similar theories based on the
Company's definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July
16, 2019).  Each complaint seeks equitable relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, among other remedies.

As noted above, in September and October of 2019, six of the nine
complaints were voluntarily dismissed by their respective
plaintiffs with prejudice (which means they cannot be refiled),
except that Hatt was dismissed without prejudice and each plaintiff
reserved the right to file a motion for fees.

Cypress said, "Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of
these cases with certainty, the Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously."

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, incorporated on September 26,
1986, manufactures embedded system solutions for automotive,
industrial, home automation and appliances, consumer electronics
and medical products. The Company's segments include
Microcontroller and Connectivity Division (MCD), and Memory
Products Division (MPD). Its programmable systems-on-chip,
general-purpose microcontrollers, analog integrated circuits (ICs),
wireless and Universal Serial Bus (USB)-C based connectivity
solutions and memories help engineers design differentiated
products. The company is based in San Jose California.


DEAR FIELDBINDER: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Fieldbinder, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dear Fieldbinder, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06416 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).

Dear Fieldbinder, Inc. is a women's store in Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 280-2007
   Fax: (212) 656-1845
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas, remains pending.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of
action.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center
over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing
requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and
failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the
Center.

The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff’s long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Matke Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Matke moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled DEBORAH MATKE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT
SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01665-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff says.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit Underway in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 class action
suit initiated by the City of Warren is ongoing.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.  

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Federal Court 10b-5 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 parties have
reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which SCANA
Corporation (SCANA) will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5 million of
which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of Dominion
Energy common stock.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent
additional purported class actions were separately filed against
all or nearly all of these defendants.

In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named
defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same act.  

In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March
2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss.

In October 2019, the parties reached a settlement in principle
pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5
million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of
Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOS TOROS HOLDINGS: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Dos Toros Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dos Toros Holdings LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10534 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).

Dos Toros Holdings LLC, operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers Northern California style Mexican
cuisine. Dos Toros Holdings provides burritos, tacos, salads, and a
proprietary hot sauce Dos Toros Holdings serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Priewe Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN PRIEWE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROCORE, INC., FRANCIS R. AMATO, GLENN
S. VRANIAK, BRIAN POSNER, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, JOSEPH
P. ERRICO, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, THOMAS J. ERRICO, TREVOR J. MOODY,
MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, and JAMES L.L. TULLIS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-19653 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2019), pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that:
a) purchased or otherwise acquired electroCore common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's June 2018
initial public offering (IPO); and/or b purchased or otherwise
acquired electroCore securities between June 22, 2018, and
September 25, 2019, inclusive.

On June 25, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold 5,980,000 shares of common stock at a
price of $15.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of
approximately $79.5 million from the Offering, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were
purportedly to be used to commercialize gammaCore products, expand
its clinical program into additional indications in headache and
rheumatology, build its specialty distribution channel for the
anticipated launch of gammaCore Sapphire, and for working capital
and other corporate purposes.

On May 14, 2019, electroCore announced first quarter 2019 financial
results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting
$410,000 net sales and an operating loss of $14.2 million.

On this news, electroCore's share price fell $1.58 per share, or
nearly 30%, to close at $3.75 per share on May 15, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On September 25, 2019, electroCore revealed that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of
clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission, which seeks an
expanded indication for the use of gammaCore.

On this news, electroCore's share price fell $0.79 per share, or
over 23%, to close at $2.57 per share on September 25, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of this action, electroCore's shares continue
to trade significantly below the IPO price of $15.00 per share. As
a result, investors, including the Plaintiff, were damaged.

The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, the
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, the Plaintiff
alleges.

Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: that
the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages
over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster
headaches; that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to
adopt gammacCore over existing treatments; that the Company's
voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of
gammaCore; that the Company lacked sufficient resources to
successfully commercialize gammaCore; that the Company's business
plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked
sufficient revenue to be profitable;  that the Company's product
registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement
policies by commercial payors for gammacCore; that the lack of
rermbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of
gammaCore; that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data
demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine
prevention; 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 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.

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

ElectroCore is a bioelectronic medicine company with a non-invasive
vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy. Its lead product gammaCore
is used for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine
and episodic cluster headache in adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Reconsideration Bids Ruled on in Gorczynski Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS P. GORCZYNSKI, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., SUPER K CORPORATION d/b/a ABC DISCOUNT APPLIANCES,
MIDEA AMERICA CORP., MIDEA MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., AND ABC CORPS. 1-10, Defendants, Civil No.
18-10661(RMB/KMW) (D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, (i)
granted Midea USA's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April
29 Opinion, but (ii) denied Electrolux's Motion for
Reconsideration.

Plaintiff Gorczynski commenced the putative class action, alleging
that Defendants Electrolux and Midea America ("Midea USA")
knowingly manufactured, marketed, and sold microwaves with
defective handles in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("CFA").  The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Electrolux
violated the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act
("MMWA"), and breached the implied warranty of merchantability.  

The Plaintiff contends that the Microwaves in question, including
his own, were manufactured by Midea Microwave China and distributed
by Electrolux in the United States.  According to the Plaintiff,
Midea China became aware of the Handle Defect during testing in
2010, prior to distributing the Microwaves in the United States.
He further alleges that these test results were accessible to
Electrolux as early as 2010, and customers complained about the
Handle Defect as early as 2013, yet Electrolux continued to sell
the Microwaves throughout the United States, with over 70,000 sales
in New Jersey.  He contends that, despite full knowledge of the
Handle Defect, Defendants have neither rectified the issue (through
repair or replacement of the handle) nor warned consumers about the
existence of the Handle Defect.

The Plaintiff filed the initial complaint, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Camden County, in May 2018.  Electrolux removed the case to
the New Jersey District Court on June 15, 2018.  Following a
pre-motion letter filed by Electrolux, expressing an intent to file
a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on
Aug. 6, 2018.  On April 29, 2019, the District Court issued an
Opinion, denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  

Now, the matter comes before the District Court upon motions for
reconsideration, filed by Electrolux and Midea USA, asking the
Court to reconsider its decision to deny their respective motions
to dismiss.  Electrolux argues that the District Court committed
"manifest errors in fact and law" in finding that the Plaintiff's
claims were neither subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability
Act ("PLA") nor barred by Electrolux's attempt to reduce the
statute of limitations.  Meanwhile, Midea USA argues that the Court
erred by conflating the "knowing omission" claims against Midea
USA, with the "affirmative misrepresentation" claims against
Electrolux.

Judge Bumb finds that the Plaintiff's claims, based on the theory
that the Handle Defect harms the Microwave itself by diminishing
its value and usefulness, are not subsumed by the PLA.  Judge Bumb
finds that the Plaintiff need not argue that the Microwave is
"broken" to state a claim for "harm to the product itself."  The
Plaintiff's allegation, that the Handle Defect diminishes the value
and usefulness of the Microwave, could establish "harm to the
product itself."  Therefore, Judge Bumb will deny Electrolux's
Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's finding on the issue
of subsumption under the PLA.

In the matter, the Plaintiff alleges that he is an ordinary
consumer who purchased a Microwave without the terms of the
Disclaimer ever being disclosed until box is opened after a
purchase.  He elaborates that the Disclaimer was not available to
buyers prior to purchase, was not visible at the point of sale
"because it only appears on the last page of the Use & Care Guide
sealed within the Microwaves' box, and was not printed or displayed
on the exterior of the boxes.  It would be a "manifest error" to
analogize these allegations to cases that involved sophisticated
business entities or the Plaintiffs receiving warranty information
before or at the time of purchase.  At this stage of the
litigation, Judge Bumb finds no indication that the Disclaimer
language constituted an "original agreement" between the parties
and the Court is not bound to apply the reasoning from Rice, which
Judge Bumb believes was incorrectly decided.

Finally, although the Plaintiff alleges that Midea USA is a related
business entity to Midea China, the Plaintiff fails to allege any
specific reason why the actions of Midea China should be imputed to
Midea USA.  Such pleading fails to meet the level of particularity
necessary when a claim is premised on fraud or misrepresentation,
as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).  Accordingly, Judge Bumb
will grant Midea USA's Motion for Reconsideration and will dismiss
the Plaintiff's CFA claim against Midea USA.  However, Judge Bumb
will provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to clarify his
allegations, to the extent feasible, through a second amended
complaint.

For reasons stated, Judge Bumb denied Electrolux's Motion for
Reconsideration.  Additionally, the Judge granted Midea USA's
Motion for Reconsideration, and dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's CFA claim against Midea USA.  The Judge allowed the
Plaintiff 21 days to file a second amended complaint, to the extent
the Plaintiff can, in good faith, remedy the deficiencies outline
herein.  

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

THOMAS GORCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of others similarily
situated, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES JOSEPH KOCHER --
ckocher@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC, PATRICK
HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY,
P.C. & SIMON BAHNE PARIS -- sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ, MONGELUZZI,
BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, represented by LOLY G.
TOR -- loly.tor@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP & PATRICK J. PERRONE
-- patrick.perrone@klgates.com -- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON
GATES ELLIS LLP.

MIDEA AMERICA CORP., Defendant, represented by GERHARD P. DIETRICH
-- gdietrich@wardgreenberg.com -- WARD GREENBERG HELLER & REIDY,
LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case entitled KATHY MUMPOWER, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY,
LLC d/b/a ERC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00914-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.) asks the
Court to certify her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, as
a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Ms. Mumpower also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.

The class is defined as:

     All persons (a) with a Florida or North Carolina address,
     (b) to whom Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC mailed
     an initial debt collection communication not returned as
     undeliverable, (c) on behalf of TD Bank USA, N.A., (d) in
     connection with the collection of a debt incurred for
     personal, family, or household purposes, (e) between
     August 7, 2018 and August 7, 2019, (f) that included an
     amount to get the person's debt out of delinquency that was
     required to be paid within 30 days of the date of the
     communication.

The Plaintiff contends that she and all persons in the proposed
class have FDCPA claims based solely on the Defendant's conduct in
sending them each the same form of initial debt collection
letter--a letter that she says violates the FDCPA.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott S. Gallagher, Esq.
          Richard D. Rivera, Esq.
          Nicole Kalkines, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 North Laura St., Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6111
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6211
          E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com
                  rrivera@sgrlaw.com
                  nkalkines@sgrlaw.com


ETHICON INC: Boyd Product Liability Suit Moved to W.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Betty Boyd and Richard Boyd,
Plaintiffs v. Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, Case
No. 2:12-cv-04047 (Filed Aug. 3, 2012), was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the
U.S. District Court for Western District of Virginia (Abingdon) on
Oct. 31, 2019.

The Western District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00046-JPJ-PMS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. James P. Jones.

The Defendants allegedly failed to perform or rely on proper and
adequate testing and research in order to determine and evaluate
the risks and benefits of the pelvic mesh products inserted into
the Plaintiff. The Defendants also failed to design and establish a
safe, effective procedure for removal of the Medical Devices,
therefore, in the event of a failure, injury or complications, it
is impossible to easily and safely remove the Medical Devices.

Feasible and suitable alternative designs, as well as suitable
alternative procedures and instruments for implantation have
existed at all times relevant as compared to the Products implanted
in the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

According to its Web site, Johnson & Johnson is world's largest and
most diverse medical devices and diagnostics company, with its
worldwide headquarters located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in
New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ethicon, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson located in Somerville, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher R. LoPalo, Esq.
          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christy D. Jones, Esq.
          Kari L. Sutherland, Esq.
          William M. Gage, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW
          1020 Highland Col Pkwy., Suite 1400
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 948-5711
          Facsimile: (601) 985-4500
          E-mail: christy.jones@butlersnow.com

               - and -

          David B. Thomas, Esq.
          Philip Judson Combs, Esq.
          Susan M. Robinson, Esq.
          THOMAS COMBS & SPANN
          P. O. Box 3824
          Charleston, WV 25338-3824
          Telephone: (304) 414-1800
          Facsimile: (304) 414-1801
          E-mail: pcombs@tcspllc.com


EXP REALTY: Hernandez Seeks to Stop Realtors' Unsolicited Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington company, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01882 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by
directing, authorizing or ratifying its realtors' unsolicited,
autodialed text messages to consumers.

In the Plaintiff's case, an eXp realtor sent an autodialed text
message to his cell phone number, using one of the two autodialers
that the Defendant supplied to that (and every other) eXp realtor.
In response to this invasion enabled by the Defendant, the
Plaintiff is filing this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief,
requiring the Defendant to cease directing its realtors to violate
the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages en masse to
consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone
dialing system, as well as an award of statutory damages to the
members.

The Plaintiff is a Texas resident.

eXp Realty is a realtor-owned real estate brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Homsher, Esq.
          510 Bell Street
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Phone: (425) 320-9628
          Email: Homsherf7@aol.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          Email: Law@StefanColeman.com


FACEBOOK INC: Opiotennione Sues Over Age Bias on Financial Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEUHTAH OPIOTENNIONE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-07185 (N.D. Cal., Oct 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of older and female Facebook users, who
were denied the opportunity to receive advertising and information
about financial services opportunities within Facebook's business
establishment, in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

Ms. Opiotennione alleges that she and the proposed class members
have been denied the opportunity to learn about and obtain
financial services, such as mortgages, personal loans, bank
accounts, insurance, investment opportunities, and financial
consulting services over the past three years (or longer) due to
Facebook's discriminatory advertising and business practices and
its aiding and abetting of financial services companies'
discriminatory advertising and business practices.

Facebook encouraged its advertisers, including financial services
companies, to send advertisements that excluded Facebook users from
receiving the ads based on their ages or genders, the Plaintiff
contends. Then, advertisers and Facebook followed this direction by
routinely placing financial services advertisements on Facebook
that excluded older persons and women, the lawsuit says.

Due to Facebook's discriminatory practices, millions of older and
female Facebook users have been denied the opportunity to receive
valuable advertisements about financial services opportunities that
advertisers sent to younger persons and men, and to pursue those
financial services opportunities within and outside of Facebook,
the Plaintiff asserts.

Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California. It was founded by
Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and
roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and
Chris Hughes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
          Pooja Shethyi, Esq.
          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Michael Litrownik, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111 601
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  atk@outtengolden.com
                  prf@outtengolden.com
                  pshethji@outtengolden.com
                  mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          William Most, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST
          201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, N.# 101
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: 504 509 5023
          Email: williammost@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jason R. Flanders, Esq.
          AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP
          490 43rd Street
          Oakland CA 94609 777
          Phone: (916) 202-3018
          E-mail: jrf@atalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          Rachel Nadas, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411
          E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com


FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soto FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Re: Soto, v. Law Offices of Faloni &
Associates, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-16472 (SDW) (LDW) (D. N.J.),
Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss David Soto's
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Prior to May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey,
incurred a financial obligation to WebBank.  The Debt was
subsequently purchased by and/or sold to LVNV Funding, LLC, and
then referred to the Defendant for collection.  At the time the
Debt was referred to the Defendant, the Debt was past due and was
in default pursuant to the terms of the agreement creating the Debt
and/or by operation of law.  On May 10, 2019, the Defendant sent
written notice to the Plaintiff, which stated that the amount of
the Debt was $772.21, and was subject to change pursuant to state
or federal law.

On Aug. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint in
the Court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
alleging that the Defendant's letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss on Aug. 30, 2019.


Judge Wigenton is satisfied that the Plaintiff's Complaint
sufficiently sets forth a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Section 1692e of
the FDCPA which prohibits the use of misleading, deceptive or false
representations in the collection of debts and Section 1692f which
prohibits the use of improper means to collect a debt to which the
debt collector is not legally entitled.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Letter violates the FDCPA because it
would lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the
amount due could increase when, in fact, the Debt was in default
and could not be increased.  

Although it remains to be seen whether the facts will ultimately
support the Plaintiff's allegation (and, indeed, the parties
disagree as to the state of the Debt when the letter was sent),
Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient
to sustain his claim that the language of the Letter was misleading
and/or improper under Sections 1692e and 1692f.  Accordingly, Judge
Wigenton denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HRT1TU from Leagle.com.

DAVID SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by BEN A. KAPLAN --
bak@cruegerdickinson.com.

LAW OFFICES OF FALONI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
DAVID A. FALONI, Jr., FALONI & ASSOCIATES LLC.


FASTAFF LLC: Settlement in Dalchau FLSA Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted final approval of the Class and
Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned STEPHANIE
DALCHAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FASTAFF, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The classes covered by the Order are defined as follows:

      a. FLSA Collective: All individuals who, at any time within
         three years prior to the date of conditional
         certification, worked an assignment pursuant to an
         Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff, LLC, during
         which they received a housing stipend or in-kind housing,
         worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks,
         and had the value of their housing benefit excluded from
         their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime.

      b. Rule 23 Class: All individuals, except for those who
         worked exclusively on or after Nov. 16, 2017 and
         received in-kind housing, who, at any time from March 25,
         2013 through the date of certification, worked in
         California pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter
         with Fastaff during which they received a housing stipend
         or in-kind housing, received overtime pay, and had the
         value of the housing benefit excluded from their regular
         rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay.

Judge Orrick approved (i) the class counsel's attorneys' fees in
the amount of $916,666.66 and reimbursement of the class counsel's
litigation expenses in the amount of $27,753.14; (ii) the service
awards to Plaintiffs Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin in the
amount of $10,000 each; and (iii) the settlement administration
fees and expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of $42,000,
which amounts will be paid in accordance with the terms of the
Class and Collective Settlement.

Within 21 days after distribution of all payments owing under the
Class and Collective Settlement, the Plaintiffs will file a
post-distribution accounting in accordance with the Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements found on the Court's website
(www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mV5HmL from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Dalchau, individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated & Michael Goodwin, individual on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Matthew Bryan Hayesmhayes@helpcounse.com, Hayes Pawlenko LLP &
Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes
Pawlenko LLP.

Fastaff, LLC & U.S. Nursing Corporation, Defendants, represented
by John S. Battenfeld -- jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Anne-Marie Estevez --
annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,
LLP & Shannon B. Nakabayashi -- snakabayashi@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


FEDEX CORP: Robbins Named Counsel in Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned RHODE ISLAND LABORERS' PENSION FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF,
JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM,
DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants. SELWYN KARP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF,
JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM,
DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants, Case Nos.
19-CV-5990 (RA), 19-CV-6183 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the unopposed motion of the City of Bradford Metropolitan
District Council as administering authority to the West Yorkshire
Pension Fund for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff; approval of
selection of the lead counsel; and consolidation of the cases.

Plaintiff Rhode Island Laborers' Pension Fund filed the Rhode
Island Laborers' Pension Fund v. FedEx Corp. action on June 26,
2019 on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired FedEx common stock between Sept. 19, 2017 and Dec. 18,
2018.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

West Yorkshire seeks appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval
of its selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead
counsel.  It alleges the largest financial interest in the action,
including over $3,366,000 in losses.  

Judge Abrams finds that after reviewing West Yorkshire's
submissions, each of the other Plaintiffs either withdrew their
motions, or stated that they do not oppose West Yorkshire's
appointment.  West Yorkshire has also made a preliminary showing of
meeting the typicality requirement of Rule 23.  As no other
Plaintiff has come forward with rebuttal evidence establishing that
West Yorkshire will not fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render such
Plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class, West
Yorkshire will be appointed the Lead Plaintiff.  The Judge also
concludes that West Yorkshire's chosen counsel Robbins Geller has
sufficient expertise to litigate the case and will thus be
appointed the lead counsel.

West Yorkshire also seeks consolidation of Rhode Island Laborers'
Pension Fund v. FedEx Corp. with Selwyn Karp v. Fedex Corp.  Judge
Abrams finds the consolidation as appropriate.  The actions assert
virtually identical claims based on virtually identical factual
allegations.  Both complaints allege violations of the same federal
securities laws based on the same set of facts.   Moreover, neither
the Defendants nor any other party has objected to consolidation,
suggesting that consolidation will not prejudice any party.  The
cases will thus be consolidated to promote efficiency and judicial
economy.

Accordingly, Judge Abrams appointed the City of Bradford
Metropolitan District Council as administering authority to the
West Yorkshire Pension Fund as the Lead Plaintiff and its counsel,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as class counsel.  The captioned
actions are consolidated for all purposes.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/7QCp0P from Leagle.com.

Selwyn Karp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

FedEx Corporation, Frederick W. Smith, Alan B. Graf, Jr., David J.
Bronczek, Rajesh Subramaniam, David L. Cunningham, Donald F.
Colleran & Michael C. Lenz, Defendants, represented by Jay B.
Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Andrew Robert Beatty -- andrew.beatty@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Susan Leslie Saltzstein
-- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP.


FEDEX FREIGHT: Emetoh Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THEODORE A. EMETOH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FEDEX
FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-07272-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 14, 2020, for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a settlement class;

      "all persons who have worked for Defendant as non-exempt,
      hourly-paid Road Drivers, City Drivers, or Driver
      Apprentices in California at any time during the Class
      Period." The Class Period means from November 14, 2013
      through the date of Preliminary Approval (not earlier than
      December 1, 2019), except that for Road Drivers, the
      settlement class period for all but the cell phone
      reimbursement claim begins on January 1, 2016;

   2. preliminarily approving parties' proposed class action
      settlement;

   3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative, his
      counsel as the Class Counsel, and Simpluris, Inc., as the
      Settlement Administrator;

   4. approving forms of Class Notice and proposed timeline for
      administration; and

   5. scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement

      for June 26, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the Court is
      available.

The Defendant will pay a maximum aggregate Gross Settlement Amount
of $3,250,000.00.

The Gross Settlement Amount covers:

-- the Class Representative payment of $7,500.00 to Plaintiff in
    compensation for having prosecuted the action and undertaken
    the risk of payment of costs in the event this matter had not
    been successfully concluded;

-- Settlement Payment paid to Class Members for their class
    claims;

-- PAGA Payment in the amount of $112,500.00 to be allocated to
    claims for civil penalties under PAGA, which includes
    $84,375.00 awarded to the State of California, subject to
    Court approval, and $28,125.00 awarded to Qualified Claimants,

    divided pro-rata based upon the Qualified Claimants' number of

    Workweeks during the PAGA Period of November 9, 2016 through
    the date of Preliminary Approval;

-- the Class Members' respective shares of any applicable payroll

    taxes (including but not limited to Class Members' FICA and
    FUTA contributions and any other taxes) attributable to any
    payments under the Settlement;

-- the Class Counsel Award, consisting of attorneys' fees not to
    exceed $1,082,250 -- 33-1/3% of the Gross Settlement
    Amount, plus costs not to exceed $20,000 -- to compensate
    Class Counsel for all work performed thus far and all work
    remaining to be performed in connection with the Settlement,
    including without limitation documenting and administering
    the Settlement and securing Court approval; and

-- the fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, not to
    exceed $35,000.

After all Court-approved deductions from the Gross Settlement
Amount, it is estimated that the Net Settlement Amount constitute
an expected $2,020,875 out of the $3,250,000 Gross Settlement
Amount for Class Members including related tax payments (excluding
Defendant's portion of tax payments).

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay him and the
Class Members for all hours worked and at the correct rate of pay;
provide them with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; reimburse
them for all necessary expenses; provide them with compliant wage
statements; and pay their final wages on time.

The Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant violated statutes
subjecting them to liability under the California Unfair
Competition Law; and violated the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff is a former Road Driver of Defendant.

The Defendant operates a national less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
service that offers pallet-level tracking and multiple-pallet
shipments. Defendant provides service throughout the U.S., Puerto
Rico, Canada and Mexico. Defendant also provides freight service to
more than 130 countries and territories.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  alex@setarehlaw.com

GENDLIN LIVERMAN: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY KARAS and ANDREA
THUNHORST, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENDLIN LIVERMAN & RYMER S.C., ANDREW
R. LIVERMAN, and TIMOTHY J. RYMER, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01291-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller
entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019:

   1. granting parties' stipulated motion for conditional class
      certification and class notice;

   2. conditionally certifying Paralegal Class of:

      "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as
      a Paralegal in Wisconsin at any time since September 6,
      2016";

   3. conditionally certifying Investigator Class of:

      "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as
      an Investigator in Wisconsin at any time since September 6,
      2016";

   4. directing Defendants to  produce separate class lists for
      the Paralegal Class and the Investigator Class employed at
      any time within three years of the date of this Order,
      respectively, to identify and produce to Plaintiffs'
      Counsel for each class the first name, last name, last
      known street address, city, state, zip code, phone
      number (if available), last four digits of social
      security number, and dates of employment of all persons
      who have been employed by Defendants and meet the above
      conditional class definitions; and

   5. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel to send the agreed-upon
      and respective Notices of Right to Join Lawsuit to all
      individuals on each respective Class List, and that the
      agreed-upon and respective Notices of Right to Join Lawsuit
      shall be placed in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage
      prepaid, addressed to each such respective individual on
      each respective Class List within five calendar days of
      Defendants' production of the separate class lists for the
      Paralegal Class and the Investigator Class.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law against Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime wages for investigators and paralegals employed to assist
Defendants' law practice.[CC]

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Khelalfa Seeks to Stop Downsizing in France
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taha Khelalfa, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly Situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No.
1:19-cv-10727 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to prevent a
redundancy plan in France that would result in termination of at
least 1,000 employees.

In order to secure a very important and strategic acquisition in
France, the Defendant entered into contracts, made representations
and made promises that it would keep know-how and employment in
France. GE even went as far as promising to increase the acquired
businesses' number of employees in France, according to the
complaint.

In order to give these assurances to the Plaintiff, the Defendant
went on French national television, spoke to the French President,
entered into contracts, to make sure that its projected game
changing acquisition be secured. However, it now appears now that
these commitments were taken lightly by GE as it is engaged in a
massive downsizing redundancy plan to secure that at least 1,000
French GE employees be terminated, says the complaint. The
Plaintiff now seeks to prevent this redundancy plan in France, as
it would be catastrophic for employments and strategy in France.

Plaintiff Taha Khelalfa is a French national and resides in
Venissieux, France.

GE is engaged in various businesses, including business appliances,
consumer appliances, aviation, consumer electronics, power, power
project consulting services, energy management, healthcare, home,
housewares, industrial solutions, intelligent platforms, and
lighting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philippe Jean Joseph Pradal, Esq.
          PRADAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          112 West 34th, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10120
          Phone: (212) 502-6773
          Fax: (917) 750-3106
          Email: philippe.pradal@pradallaw.com


GLOBAL RADAR: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Sanders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele grants the parties' Consent Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned
SHAWANA SANDERS, on their own and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals and KENYATTA WILLIAMS, on their own and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. GLOBAL RADAR
ACQUISITION, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00555-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.).

The Court approves the settlement agreement as set forth in the
Amended Proposed Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action
Settlement, Awarding Service Awards, Expenses and Attorneys' Fees,
and Final Judgment to be issued, including the release provisions
incorporated therein.

The  Court held that the Clerk shall enter judgment, subject to the
terms of the Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action
Settlement, Awarding Service Awards, Expenses and Attorneys' Fees,
and Final Judgment, as attached.  The Clerk shall attach a copy of
the Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement to the
judgment, terminate all pending deadlines and motions, and close
the file.[CC]


GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Seeks Certification of 3 Classes & 1 Sub-Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ADTRADER, INC., et al. v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), filed with the
Court their corrected and redacted motion for class certification
seeking an order certifying the DBM Advertiser Class, DBM-AdX
Advertiser Subclass, AdX Advertiser Class, and AdWords Advertiser
Class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GRANDVISION USA: Golan Seeks to Certify Class of Store Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE GOLAN, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
GRANDVISION USA RETAIL HOLDING CORPORATION, FOR EYES OPTICAL CO.,
INC.; FOR EYES OPTICAL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and FOR EYES
OPTICAL COMPANY OF COCONUT GROVE, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-21937-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order conditionally certifying class pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

   "all current and former salaried, overtime-exempt classified
   Store Managers (Sms) who worked for Defendants Grandvision USA
   Retail Holding Corporation; For Eyes Optical Co., Inc.; For
   Eyes Optical Co. of California, Inc.; or For Eyes Optical
   Company of Coconut Grove, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants" or
   "For Eyes") at any of their locations in the United States any
   time from May 14, 2016 to the present".

GrandVision is a global leader in optical retailing. For Eyes
Optical Company distributes and supplies optical products.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective

          Camar Jones, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 3431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
          cjones@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 0016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Kyle T. Berglin, Esq.
          Jake E. Marcus, Esq.
          BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L.
          100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 425-1045
          Facsimile: (786) 425-3905
          E-mail: ServiceMIA@boydlawgroup.com
                  kberglin@boydlawgroup.com
                  jmarcus@boydlawgroup.com


GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER DENNIS, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GREATLAND HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and MONSURU HASSAN, Case No.
1:19-cv-05427 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks to conditionally
certify her FLSA overtime claims as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed collective class is defined as:

     All individuals employed by Greatland Home Health Services,
     Inc. as home health Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists,
     Occupational Therapists, and Speech Therapists and who were
     paid on a "per visit" basis during a period from three years
     prior to the entry of the conditional certification order to
     the present.

Ms. Dennis also asks the Court to:

   (1) order the Defendants to produce to her, within 10 days of
       its Order, a computer-readable data file containing the
       names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers,
       dates of employment, social security numbers, and dates of
       birth for the members of the FLSA Collective Class;

   (2) order Court-facilitated notice of this collective action
       to the FLSA Collective Class in the form attached;

   (3) authorize her to send the Notice by first-class U.S. Mail,
       e-mail, and text message to all members of the FLSA
       Collective Class to inform them of their right to opt-in
       to this lawsuit and a reminder notice 20 days before the
       end of the opt-in period; and

   (4) order the posting of the Notice at a location in
       Greatland's office where members of the FLSA Collective
       Class are likely to view it.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM LINDALA, the
Plaintiff, v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 19‐CV‐1696 (E.D. Wisc.), the William E. Duffin entered an
order on Nov. 19, 2019, granting Plaintiff's placeholder motion to
stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. The
parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth
in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).

On November 18, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.[CC]


HEALTH INSURANCE: Rector Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled RE: HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.),
the Lead Plaintiff Robert Rector moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") common
      stock between August 4, 2017, and September 11, 2017,
      inclusive (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the class are
      Defendants, directors, and officers of Health Insurance
      Innovations, Inc. as well as their families and affiliates.

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Class
      Counsel, and George Gesten McDonald, PLLC as liaison counsel

      for the class.

The case is a securities class action brought against HIIQ and its
Chief Financial Officer Michael D. Hershberger for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
during the proposed class period of August 4, 2017, and September
11, 2017, inclusive.

HIIQ develops and administers health insurance products (i.e.
short-term medical plans) that do not provide the essential
benefits (such as coverage of pre-existing conditions) required by
the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

The company targets "new graduates, divorcees, early retirees,
military discharges, the unemployed" and other individuals who
cannot afford ACA-compliant health insurance.HIIQ's distribution
network includes websites and call centers that sell insurance
products that are underwritten by insurance companies.[CC]

Counsel for Robert Rector and Counsel for the Class are:

          Ramzi Abadou. Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
          912 Cole Street, # 251
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          Facsimile: 504-455-1498
          E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Alexander L. Burns, Esq.
          Alayne K. Gobeille, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          Facsimile: 504-455-1498
          E-mail: alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com
                  alayne.gobeille@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: 561-232-6000
          E-mail: dgeorge@4-Justice.com


HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to face the putative class action
styled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et
al.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act
that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28,
2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS
Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems
(Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion
to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral arguments
were held on October 23, 2018.

Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were
voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without
prejudice to such claims being refiled.

The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

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

Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.


HERSHEY CO: Class Certification Bid in Clark et al. Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HOWARD CLARK, TODD HALL,
ANGELA PIRRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06113-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019:

   1. granting Hershey's motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying as moot Plaintiffs' class certification.

The Court will allow the Plaintiff to promptly move for another
Plaintiff to intervene and to amend the complaint accordingly
provided the motion is made by December 5. However, this does not
mean the motion will be granted. It only means the motion will be
considered, the Court says.

In this food-mislabeling case, the Defendant moves for summary
judgment to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims.

The Hershey Company sells small ball-shaped dark chocolates with a
fruit-flavored center called "Brookside Dark Chocolate." Each of
the Brookside products at issue in this action are sold in packages
with labels that represent the product is made with "No Artificial
Flavors." These products contain malic acid, a synthetic chemical.

Howard Clark purchased the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai &
Blueberry Flavored Product between April and July 2018. Todd Hall
purchased the Brookside Dark Chocolate Pomegranate Flavored
Product, the Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberries Flavored
Product, and the Brookside Dark Chocolate Goji & Raspberry Flavored
Product from around 2014 until approximately June 2018. Angela
Pirrone purchased Brookside Dark Chocolate Acai & Blueberry
Flavored Product and the Brookside Dark Chocolate Pomegranate
Flavored Product from approximately March 2014 to August 2018.

Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant's Brookside
Dark Chocolate candy products violate California, New York, and
federal statutes because the "No Artificial Flavors" labeling
statement is false and misleading due to the presence of malic acid
in the product.[CC]

HURLEY INT'L: Settlement Approval in Tincher Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, JENA N. TINCHER, on behalf of herself, and
all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on
behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff(s), vs. HURLEY
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; NIKE,
INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04104-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), will move the
Court on January 6, 2020 for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving Joint Stipulation of Class Action
      Settlement and Release of Claims;

   2. preliminarily granting class certification of the Class
      solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23;

   3. preliminarily appointing David G. Spivak of The Spivak Law
      Firm and Walter Haines of the United Employees Law Group as
      Class Counsel;

   4. preliminarily appointing herself as Class Representative;

   5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures;

   6. directing Notice of Class Action Settlement be mailed to the

      proposed Class via first class U.S. mail; and

   7. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on Plaintiff's motion
      for final approval of class action settlement.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Stephanie Greenberg, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  stephanie@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Askew Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALISHA ASKEW, DEBORAH
WILLIAMS and, SHAVONNA ASKEW, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION
(a/k/a "IHG"), LINGATE HOSPITALITY, an assumed name of GLENN
ENTERPRISES, INC., LINGATE, a subsidiary of Glenn Enterprises,
Inc., BURGER THEORY, an assumed name of BIG BLUE BAR, INC., and,
GLENN HIGDON, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00024-JRW-LLK (W.D. Ken.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an Order:

   1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action
      against Defendants LinGate Hospitality, an assumed name of
      Glenn Enterprises, Inc. LinGate, Burger Theory, an assumed
      name of Big Blue Bar, Inc., and Glenn Higdon for violations
      of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provisions,
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing Defendants to immediately provide a list of names,

      last known addresses, last known email addresses, and last
      known telephone numbers for all putative class members
      within the last three years;

   3. providing that notice be prominently posted at each of
      Defendants' restaurants in Kentucky where putative class
      members work, be attached to its current Hourly-Paid Tipped
      Employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed and
      emailed to putative class members so each can assert their
      claims on a timely basis;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as

      of the date this motion is fully briefed;

   5. authorizing a reminder postcard be issued mid-way through
      the 90-day notice period; and

   6. requiring that the opt in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
      deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts is a hotel brand founded in 1946
as a subsidiary of Pan American World Airways. As of September
2018, there are 200 InterContinental hotels featuring over 68,000
rooms worldwide.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Lori Keen, Esq.
          GLASSMAN EDWARDS WADE & WYATT, PC
          26 North 2nd St.
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-4673
          E-mail: lkeen@gwtclaw.com

KAIGHT INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaight Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos
Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kaight Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06415-JMA-SIL (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).

Kaight is an independently-owned boutique located in New York City
and a pioneer retailer in the eco-fashion movement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 280-2007
   Fax: (212) 656-1845
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


LABORATORY CORP: 22 Class Suits Filed over AMCA Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in 22 putative class
action lawsuits over a data breach.

On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection
agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA
experienced that may have involved certain personal information
about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident).

The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct
collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were
not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA
Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection
requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any
pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the
Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to
AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, and that
AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information
on AMCA's system was at risk during that time period.

Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have
included name, address, and balance information for the patient and
person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone
number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service.
The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance
information may have been included for some individuals, and
because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number
as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number
for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests,
laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company
were in the AMCA affected system.

The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing
address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was
affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit
monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided
free of charge for 24 months.

Twenty-two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident. Numerous similar lawsuits
have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA.
The lawsuits against the Company were filed in various United
States District Courts.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Company did not adequately
protect its patients’ data, and assert various causes of action,
including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data
protection statutes. The lawsuits seek damages on behalf of a class
of all affected Company consumers.

The attorneys for certain of the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) seeking to have
all cases related to the AMCA Incident consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a multi-district litigation. The JPML ordered the
transfer of the cases to the District of New Jersey. The Company
will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation.

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


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
class action suit entitled,. Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al.

On April 22, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 6, 2019, the
defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and at least
40 other recipients without the recipients' prior express
invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual
damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 28, 2019. In
response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which contains additional allegations, including
allegations related to another facsimile. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Ignacio Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America.

On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

Plaintiff alleges that non-exempt employees based in California
were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, and
meal and rest break premiums, were not indemnified for business
expenses, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not
properly paid wages upon termination of employment.

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

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

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


LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Enters Final Judgment in Morales Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, entered a final
judgment in the case captioned EDGAR MORALES, SALVADOR MAGANA, and
MATTHEW BAGU, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGGETT & PLATT,
INC., a Missouri Corporation, L&P FINANCIAL SERVICES CO., a
Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01911-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

On Oct. 22, 2019, a hearing was held on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement; Class Representative Incentive
Payments; Class Counsel's Fees and Costs; Claims Administrator's
Costs; and Entering Final Judgment.

For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge
Mendez finds and determines that the proposed Class, as defined in
the definitions section of the Settlement and conditionally
certified by the Preliminary Approval Order, meets all of the legal
requirements for class certification.  Judge Mendez ordered that
the Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes
of the Settlement.

Judge Mendez further finds and determines that the terms of the
Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to
each Class Member.  Judge Mendez finally approved the Settlement.
All terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and are
ordered to be consummated.

Because he finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be
paid to the Class Members are fair and reasonable, Judge Mendez
granted final approval to and ordered the payment of those amounts
be made to the Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in
accordance with the Settlement.

Judge Mendez gave final approval to and ordered that (i) the fees
and expenses in administrating the Settlement in the amount of
$10,000; (ii) the Class Representative Incentive Payments in the
amount of $30,000; (iii) the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses
Payment in the amount of $583,275 for fees and $42,033.80 for
costs, be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance
with the Settlement.

Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement
Administrator will provide written certification of such completion
to the Court and counsel for the parties.  

The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the
Settlement.

Judge Mendez entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement filed on June 19, 2019, and the Order.  The
Order will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document
constituting the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as
otherwise provided by the Court's order granting the Class Counsel
Fees and Expenses Payment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fH4s5S from Leagle.com.

Edgar Morales, on behalf of themselves, the State of California,
and all other similarly situated individuals, Salvador Magana, on
behalf of themselves, the State of California, and all other
similarly situated individuals & Matthew Bagu, on behalf of
themselves, the State of California, and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph Donald
Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Marco
A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez,
Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@mallisonlaw.com -- Mallison &
Martinez & Eric Sebastian Trabucco -- etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com
-- Mallison & Martinez.

Leggett & Platt Incorporated, a Missouri Corporation & L&P
Financial Services Co., a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Carrie A. McAtee -- cmcatee@shb.com -- Shook Hardy
& Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, William C. Martucci --
wmartucci@shb.com -- Shook Hardy and Bacon, pro hac vice & Tammy
Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P..


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned FRANCISCO CANTU and NORBERTO ELIZONDO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a/ COBRA ENERGY and HIGHER POWER
ELECTRICAL, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00615-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and court-authorized notice of
this action against the Defendants.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification for
this Fair Labor Standards Act class:

     All workers employed by, or working on behalf of, Cobra
     and/or Higher Power who paid a day rate at any time during
     the last three (3) years regardless of their classification
     (Day Rate Workers).

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should conditionally certify
this FLSA Class because they have more than satisfied their minimal
burden of demonstrating that they and the Putative Class Members
are similarly situated, as they were all subjected to the
Defendants' uniform day rate compensation policy that deprived them
of overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Final Approval of $1.2MM Deal in Moodie Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement
Class in the lawsuit entitled SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.).

The Court grants final approval to the parties' Class Action
Settlement Agreement and directs the parties to perform their
obligations pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
this Order.  The Court also grants the Plaintiff's Motion for an
Award of Class Representative Incentive Payment and Attorney's Fees
and Costs.

This class is certified under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for settlement purposes:

    "All individuals who (1) were hired by Maxim between May 5,
     2009 and August 27, 2012; (2) executed one of the forms
     collectively attached as Exhibit 'A' or a substantively
     identical version of those forms; and (3) were the subject
     of a consumer report procured by Maxim before August 27,
     2012."

The relief available to the class will come from a $1,200,000
non-reversionary settlement fund, after all Court-approved
deductions for attorney's fees, costs, settlement administration
fees, and the class representative incentive payment. Class
members, who submitted a claim form will each receive $32.87.

Judge Olguin rules that Plaintiff Shonntey Moodie shall be paid a
service payment of $5,000 and class counsel shall be paid $300,000
in attorney's fees and costs in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.  The Claims Administrator, JND Legal
Administration, shall be paid for its fees and expenses in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement).  Except as to any class
members, who have validly and timely requested exclusion, this
action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their
own fees and costs except as set forth herein and in the prior
orders of the Court.

Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court
retains jurisdiction over the parties, including class members, for
the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order
and Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.

On May 5, 2014, Ronald Kroenig filed this class action against
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. and E-Verifile.com, Inc. asserting
a single claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Following Kroenig's passing in April 2017, the Third Amended
Complaint, the operative complaint, was filed, replacing Kroenig
with Shonntey Moodie as the named plaintiff.[CC]


MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL INC: Runke Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Runke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Medical-Commercial Audit, Inc., d/b/a MCA
Management Company/Medical-Commercial Audit Inc., a Missouri
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02957 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 31,
2019), alleges that the Defendant's form debt collection letter
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to
collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted
consumer debts. MCA operates a defaulted debt collection business
and attempts to collect debts from consumers in the State of
Missouri. In fact, MCA was acting as a debt collector as to the
defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from the
Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent Ms. Runke an initial
form collection letter, dated June 21, 2019, demanding payment of
defaulted consumer debts that she allegedly owed for medical
services. Nowhere in the Defendant's letter did they advise Ms.
Runke that disputes had to be in writing, to be effective, so that
she could require MCA to provide validation of the debt.

The Defendant's failure to provide informational disclosures, which
are mandated by Congress in the FDCPA, constitutes a
material/concrete breach of her rights under the FDCPA, and
confused and misled Ms. Runke as to her rights to obtain
verification of the debt under the FDCPA, and the appropriate
method to invoke those rights, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
          James R. Crump, Esq.
          CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 East Gregory, Suite A
          Kansas City, MI 64114
          Telephone: (816) 822-4041
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1799
          E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
                  james@callahanlawkc.com


MOVING RIGHT: Angerosa Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT ANGEROSA, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOVING RIGHT ALONG SERVICE,
INC. and JIM RUEDA, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-04810 (RML) (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. preliminarily approving proposed Settlement Agreement;

   2. approving proposed Notice of Proposed Class and Collective
      Action Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, and
      approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, two overlapping
      settlement classes -- one under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and the other under 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b) -- with individual members jointly referred
      to as "Class Members," and defined as:

      Rule 23 Class:

      "all individuals who worked for Defendants as a driver
      and/or helper at any time between August 23, 2012 and July
      31, 2019";

      FLSA section 216(b) Final Collective:

      "all individuals who worked for Defendants as a driver
      and/or helper at any time between August 23, 2012 and July
      31, 2019, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby
      opting into the settlement of all FLSA claims";

   4. appointing Robert Angerosa as the Class Representative
      for both Classes;

   5. appointing Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel;

   6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
      Administrator for this settlement; and

   7. approving Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a
      motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a
      Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed
      settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.

Moving Right offers local and long-distance moving as well as
crating, packing, shipping and storage services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000

MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS: Court Grants Writ of Prohibition Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel., MUNICIPAL
WATER WORKS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DEREK C. SWOPE, sitting
by special assignment as Judge of the Circuit Court of Wyoming
County; SHERMAN TAYLOR, DAVID BAILEY, and JOANNA BAILEY,
Respondents, Case No. 19-0404 (W. Va. App. Div.), Judge Tim
Armstead of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted
Municipal Water's writ of prohibition request.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of "a class of similarly
situated individuals," filed a complaint on June 19, 2018, in the
Circuit Court of Wyoming County against Municipal Water.  The
complaint alleged that each putative class member was a customer of
Municipal Water and, as a result, was exposed to illness causing
pollutants in their water supply.  The exposure, according to the
complaint, put the class members at an increased risk of illnesses
including, but not limited to, kidney and liver disease, failure
and/or cancer.  Further, the complaint alleges that the polluted
water led a "certain subset" of the class members to develop and
seek treatment for illnesses including "kidney and liver disease,
failure, or cancer."

The Plaintiffs defined two sub-classes in their complaint: (1)
customers who suffered and were treated for adverse health effects,
and (2) customers who require medical monitoring for adverse health
effects.  The complaint provides that the class action seeks
damages, punitive damages, costs, establishment of a medical
monitoring fund, attorneys' fees, and other relief as a result of
Municipal Water's conduct described.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, asserting that the proposed class potentially
consists of thousands of who were exposed to carcinogenic water
provided by Defendant Municipal Water between 2016-2018, including
not only those who suffer from adverse health effects, but also
those who appear to be healthy but seek medical monitoring relief.
The Counsel for Plaintiffs have already been retained by 26 of
those affected who are seeking to file suit.  

Municipal Water filed a response to the motion, noting that limited
discovery had occurred, and asserting that only one Plaintiff,
Sherman Taylor, alleged an actual injury.  Based on this argument,
it urged the circuit court to deny the motion for class
certification because the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four
prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a) of the West Virginia Rules of
Civil Procedure.

After holding a hearing, the circuit court entered an order
granting class certification.  The "conclusions of law" section of
the circuit court's order recites the case law addressing the four
prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a).

Following entry of the circuit court's order, Municipal Water filed
the instant writ on April 26, 2019, seeking to prohibit enforcement
of the class certification order.  On May 2, 2019, the circuit
court judge, the Honorable Warren R. McGraw, advised the Court that
the counsel for Municipal Water filed a motion for his
disqualification.  Further, the circuit court judge advised that he
wishes to recuse himself voluntarily from presiding over the
matter.  By administrative order entered on May 16, 2019, the Court
granted the motion for disqualification.

Municipal Water asserts that it is entitled to a writ based on the
first three State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger factors.  In support of
its argument, Municipal Water raises two main assignments of error:
(1) the circuit court judge should have disqualified himself prior
to granting the motion for class certification because he is a
potential class member, and (2) the circuit court's order did not
contain a "thorough analysis" explaining how the Plaintiffs
satisfied the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a).

Judge Armstead finds that the circuit court judge is a potential
class member and could be entitled to recover financially if the
class action is successful.  He finds that this potential financial
interest creates an appearance of impropriety.  Under the Court's
well-established case law, a person cannot be a judge in a cause
wherein he is interested, whether he be a party to the suit or not.
The circuit court judge appropriately requested that he be recused
from presiding over further action in the matter.  The Court
granted his motion for disqualification.  However, because the
circuit court judge granted the class certification order prior to
his disqualification, and because the certification order is the
central issue in the litigation, the Judge finds that Municipal
Water's writ challenging the circuit court's March 12, 2019, order
certifying the class must be granted.

Judge Armstead also finds that it is clear that the circuit court's
order did not contain a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors
-- the order's brief, general analysis of the four factors falls
far short of the detailed and specific showing that is required.
Instead of clearly delineating the contours of the class along with
the issues, claims, and defenses to be given class treatment, the
circuit court's order provides only a general, non-specific review
of the Rule 23(a) requirements.  Because the circuit court failed
to conduct a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors, the order
granting class certification must be vacated, Judge Armstead
notes.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Armstead finds that
Municipal Water is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prohibit
the enforcement of the circuit court's March 12, 2019, order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
circuit court's order is vacated and the case is remanded for
further proceedings.  Writ granted.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/em3JcY from Leagle.com.

Duane J. Ruggier, II, Esq., Evan S. Olds, Esq. -- eolds@pffwv.com
-- Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

Adam D. Taylor, Esq. -- ataylor@kaplaw.com -- Taylor & Hinkle,
Attorneys at Law, Inc., Stephen P. New, Esq. , Amanda J. Taylor,
Esq., The Law Office of Stephen P. New, Beckley, West Virginia,
Counsel for Respondents.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Texas Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. 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 parties in the
class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, have filed appellate
briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 29, 2017, the company was sued, along with Tesco
Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.  

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order.

The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors
Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed
its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29,
2019. The parties have filed appellate briefs with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nabors will continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S.
Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling
Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded
in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NETGEAR INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for December 5
---------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, 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 29, 2019, that a motion to dismiss
class suit is set for hearing on December 5, 2019.

On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions
have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al..

In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed
in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is
named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits.

The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained
false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra
product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims.

The Company is not presently named in the federal action.
Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in
deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on
April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits
and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and another hearing on May 31, 2019
to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases.

On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the
Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome
of the federal case.

The case will now proceed only in federal court.

On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019. The motion is set for hearing on December 5,
2019. The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of
the federal action.

It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the
Company resulting from these matters.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.


NEW AVON LLC: Rivas Appeals Opinion and Order in Ruiz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maxine Rivas filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion and order issued on September 22, 2019, in the lawsuit
titled Ruiz, et al. v. New Avon LLC, et al., Case No. 18-cv-9033,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this
class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of two former Avon
employees alleging the beauty company practiced "systematic
discrimination" against women "based on pregnancy, maternity and
the rights of nursing mothers to pump breast milk at work."  The
suit takes aim at the company's branding, specifically its claims
that it's a "company for women."

The suit alleges, "Avon distinguishes itself from mainstream
companies based on its 'passionate commitment' to empowering women"
and that "because of this branding, women spend millions on Avon
products."  The suit goes on to allege that "because of this
branding, women apply to work at Avon, believing that the company
will empower them to succeed and provide women opportunities for
advancement."

The appellate case is captioned as Ruiz, et al. v. New Avon LLC, et
al., Case No. 19-3398, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Maxine Rivas is represented by:

          Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 357-6800
          E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee New Avon LLC is represented by:

          Felice B. Ekelman, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4005
          E-mail: Felice.Ekelman@jacksonlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee Avon Products, Inc., is represented by:

          Nicole Eichberger, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2024
          E-mail: neichberger@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Keisha-Ann Grace Gray, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3855
          E-mail: kgray@proskauer.com


NOCHES PAISAS: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. NOCHES PAISAS CORP, dba NOCHES DE COLOMBIA,
and RUBIELA OSPINA, individually, Case No. 2:19-cv-20507 (D.N.J.,
Nov. 19, 2019), seeks recovery against the Defendants for their
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State
Wage Payment Law.

The Defendants did not properly compensate the Plaintiff for all
overtime hours he worked in a work week, says the complaint. The
Plaintiff avers he was not compensated for his overtime hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, in connection with the
Defendants' widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating
the FLSA and NJWHL.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants full time as a
non-exempt kitchen cook, performing cooking duties, from 2011
through October 19, 2017.

The Defendants own and/or maintain a restaurant that provides
services for persons located throughout the State of New Jersey as
well as neighboring states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          Email: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                 jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Allison Moves to Certify Class of Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LEA ALLISON, et al., on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. BRADLEY R.
ALLEN, SR., in his official capacity as Chief District Court Judge,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01126 (M.D.N.C.), move for certification
of and seek to represent a class, which is proposed to be defined
as:

     All people who are arrested and charged with non-domestic
     violence offenses who are or will be detained in the
     Alamance County Detention Center because they are unable to
     pay monetary conditions of pretrial release.

Named Plaintiffs Lea Allison, Antonio Harrell, and Katherine Guill,
who are individuals being held pretrial in the Alamance County
Detention Center solely because they cannot afford to pay a secured
bond for their release, bring this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action
alleging that the Defendants maintain bail and pretrial detention
practices that violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as
the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Named Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and appoint their counsel of record as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
          Eric Halperin, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6124
          Facsimile: (202) 609-8030
          E-mail: katherine@civilrightscorps.org
                  eric@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Irena Como, Esq.
          Leah J. Kang, Esq.
          Ann C. Webb, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA
          LEGAL FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 28004
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 834-3466
          E-mail: icomo@acluofnc.org
                  lkang@acluofnc.org
                  awebb@acluofnc.org

               - and -

          Twyla Carter, Esq.
          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LEGAL REFORM PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: tcarter@aclu.org
                  bbuskey@aclu.org


NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SARAH SCHMIEDER, individually
and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTHWEST COLLECTORS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05457 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying a proposed class consisting of:

      "all persons with Illinois based area codes who were called
      by Defendant on within the last four years where Defendant
      played or left pre-recorded messages";

   b. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel.

According to the complaint, the Defendant called Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in an attempt to collect a purported red light
ticket.

The Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff's cellular telephone and
played pre-recorded messages when Plaintiff answered the calls. At
other times, the Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff's cellular
telephone and left pre-recorded messages on her voice mail without
her permission. In failing to have obtained her permission, the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA makes it unlawful for a debt collector to call another
person's cellular telephone using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" or "artificial or prerecorded voice" without the consent of
the person being called. See, 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Accordingly, because Defendant violated the TCPA and appears
willing and able to continue to violate the TCPA in relation to
other Illinois residents, Plaintiff seeks to certify the class for
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: 630-581-5456
          Facsimile: 630-575-8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

OAPSE: Littler Seeks to Certify Public Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Christina Littler, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Ohio Association of Public School Employees, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-1745-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Ms. Littler moves the Court
to certify a class consisting of:

     "every public employee who was offered membership in OAPSE or
its
affiliates while working in an agency shop".

According to the complaint, the Court may wish to divide this class
into sub-classes.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Talcott J. Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730
          Facsimile: (800) 727-0659
          E-mail: tal@talcottfranklin.com

               - and -

          Paul W. Leithart II, Esq.
          Strip, Hoppers, Leithart, McGrath &
             Terlecky Co., LPA
          575 South Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 545-7728
          Facsimile: (614) 228-6369
          E-mail: pwl@columbuslawyer.net

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686 3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686 3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Counsel for Ohio Association of Public School Employees are:

          Richard F. Griffin Jr., Esq.
          Georgina Yeomans, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER P.L.L.C
          805 15th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: rgriffin@bredhoff.com
                  gyeomans@bredhoff.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Walter, Esq.
          Lane Alton
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 220
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-6885
          E-mail: rwalter@lanealton.com

ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The Company and one former and two current officers are named
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the
federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and
misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March
18, 2019.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the current and
former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain
periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting related to
goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a
result the required adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable
materially impacted the company's financial statements causing the
company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the class
period.

Orion Group said, "The Company will respond to the complaint,
considers all of these allegations without merit and will
vigorously contest the allegations."

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

Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction
company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in
the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean
Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The
company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed
its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Punturieri Securities Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PUNTURIERI, Individually And On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., PATRICK M.
BYRNE and GREGORY J. IVERSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00850-DB
(D. Utah, Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Overstock.com, Inc. between May 9, 2019,
and September 23, 2019, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants published a series of
materially false and misleading statements which the Defendants
knew and/or deliberately disregarded were false and materially
misleading at the time of each statement, and which omitted to
reveal material information necessary to make Defendants'
statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially
false and misleading.

Throughout the Class Period, Overstock.com operated a Web site
where individuals could buy household furniture and accessories,
such as bed, bath, and kitchen products. The Company had been
hemorrhaging cash quarter over quarter for years, not reporting a
net quarterly profit since the fourth quarter of 2016, according to
the complaint. Part of the problem was the Company's involvement in
a desperate fight for market share against Wayfair.com, a direct
competitor willing to lose billions of dollars to obtain
significant market share in the industry.

By the beginning of the Class Period, however, the Company's
outlook suddenly seemed to change. First, the Company was abruptly
and reporting profits on an EBITDA basis for the first time since
the second quarter of 2017. Additionally, profitability was
increasing so rapidly that the Company had raised year-end guidance
by 50% at the start of the Class Period. Further, not only had the
Company allegedly become cash flow positive, but it had done so at
an important juncture--at the start of the Company's cryptocurrency
project tZERO, which up to this point had reportedly cost
shareholders over $100 million to get to a point where it could be
introduced to the market.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants portrayed to investors
that upgrades in the Company's Retail Division would bankroll the
introduction of tZERO to the market and that the Company's 2019
year-end EBITDA would reach or exceed $17.5 million.

During the Class Period, the Defendants delivered a number of press
releases and made statements in SEC filings and during Conference
Calls for analysts and investors that advanced the Company's
transformation to cryptocurrency exchange service provider, and
sang the praises of the advantages that this would allegedly yield
to investors. The Defendants, however, failed to disclose the major
risks and foreseeable volatility that was likely to come to
fruition if and when the Defendants' true motives behind the tZERO
Dividend Offering were ever detected, the Plaintiff contends.

In fact, according to the complaint, as investors belatedly found
out beginning on September 16, 2019, the Defendants had
manufactured the tZERO offering as a way to get back at short
sellers and tried to devise a short squeeze by offering a digital
token dividend that would not be registered with regulatory
authorities and could not be resold for at least six months. The
lockup period established by the issuance of an unregistered
security effectively culminated in short sellers being unable to
deliver the security upon the surrender of their shares. Because a
short seller is accountable for any dividends issued during the
period when that seller has borrowed shares, the inability to
obtain the locked-up digital token dividend made it unattainable
for short sellers to sustain their short positions. This was a
major issue because during the Class Period Overstock.com was a
stock that was heavily shorted.

During the period when the Defendants were carrying out this short
squeeze, and as shares of Overstock.com spiked before the expected
cryptocurrency dividend date, however, investment banks began to
communicate to the investing public that they would accept cash
instead of the cryptocurrency dividend. This alone had the effect
of terminating the short squeeze, but not before shares of the
Company spiked from $16 to nearly $27 per share. The Company
quickly capitulated, and on September 18, 2019, Overstock announced
that it would change the terms of its tZERO Dividend and register
such shares with regulatory authorities in order to prevent any
lockup. This also had the effect of ending the restriction against
short sellers.

The Defendants were motivated to and did hide the actual
operational and financial condition of the Company, and materially
misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were
negatively impacting the Company throughout the Class Period,
because it (i) allowed them to mislead the investing public
regarding Overstock.com's business, operations, management and the
actual value of Overstock.com common stock; (ii) allowed Defendants
to artificially inflate the price of Overstock.com common stock;
(iii) allowed Defendant Byrne to sell over $100 million of his
personal Overstock.com shares while in possession of material
adverse non-public information about the Company; (iv) allowed
Defendants to sell additional shares of Overstock.com in the market
to create a cash fund necessary to bankroll its cryptocurrency
projects (while such projects were being abandoned by investment
partners); and (v) caused the Plaintiff and other members of the
Class to purchase Overstock.com common stock at
artificially-inflated prices, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary J. Weyher, Esq.
          TRUE WEST LEGAL
          665 S. 600 E.
          Salt Lake City, UT 84102
          Telephone: 801-750-5425
          E-mail: zachweyher@gmil.com

               - and -

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


PART AUTHORITY: Did Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Henao Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson Henao and Miguel Mero, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons v. PART AUTHORITY, LLC, PARTS AUTHORITY,
INC., and NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a "Diligent," Case No.
1:19-cv-10720 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for their violations of the New York Labor Law.

Pursuant to their policies and practices, the Defendants failed to
pay minimum wage and overtime wages to their Delivery Drivers, in
violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Defendants also
failed to reimburse the Delivery Drivers for the cost of driving
their own vehicles to deliver Parts Authority's auto parts to its
customers, which causes their net wages to fall below, or to fall
further below, the New York minimum wage, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
drivers.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of 81 automobile parts sales
and distribution stores in the States of New York and around the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          W. Scott Terrell III, Esq.
          Andrew C. White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone (914) 298-3290
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                 sterrell@fbfglaw.com
                 awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 984-810
          Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Marquel Reddish, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                 mpr@kellerlenkner.com


PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Petisco Brazuca LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petisco Brazuca LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06413-JMA-AKT (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).

Petisco Brazuca opened it first store in Bedstuy, Brooklyn,
offering not only quality products but also an authentically
Brazilian food experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 280-2007
   Fax: (212) 656-1845
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREWS, the Plaintiff, v.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, LP., the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order on Nov. 18, 2019, taking following
motions under submission according to Civil Minutes – General:

-- Defendants' motion for reconsideration of order granting
    in part and denying in part motion for partial summary
    judgment or, in the alternative, for judgment on the
    pleadings; and

-- Plaintiff's motion to amend order certifying fisher class
    pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) filed August 30, 2019.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Robert J Nelson, Esq.
          Barry Capello, Esq.
          Leila Noel, Esq.
          Matthew Preusch, Esq.
          Julie Farris, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com

Attorneys Defendants:

          Henry Weissmann, Esq.
          Daniel Levinv, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          Telephone: (213) 683-9150
          Facsimile: (213) 683-5150
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          E-mail: Henry.Weissmann@mto.com


PLURALSIGHT INC: Birmingham Pension Suit Transferred to D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND
POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff; and Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust; Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System; City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System; Pluralsight Institutional Investors Group; Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; Employees' Retirement System
of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority; City of Sarasota
General Employees Defined Benefit Pension Plan; Hallandale Beach
Police and Firefighters Retirement Fund; and Sudeep Uprety, Movants
v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON SKONNARD, and JAMES BUDGE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07563 (Filed Aug. 13, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the  Southern District of New York to
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Northern) on Oct 31,
2019.

The District of Utah Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00128-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Romero.

The case is a federal securities class action against Pluralsight
and certain of its officers for violations of the federal
securities laws.

The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pluralsight common
stock from August 2, 2018, through July 31, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Exchange Act claims allege that certain defendants made a
series of false and misleading statements and omissions, which
artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

The Company completed its initial public offering ("IPO") in May
2018, whereby it sold 23.8 million shares at a price of $15.00 per
share, for gross proceeds of $357 million. Less than a year later,
Pluralsight completed a secondary public offering ("SPO") on March
6, 2019, whereby it sold 15.6 million shares at a price of $29.25
per share, for gross proceeds of over $450 million. The SPO served
as a massive cash-out for Pluralsight insiders, as all the proceeds
went to Company insiders and related parties; and conversely none
of the money was raised to fund corporate developments or
initiatives.

Pluralsight is a provider of cloud-based and video training courses
for employees such as software developers, IT
administrators, and creative professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          Facsimile: (888) 631-361 1
          E-mail: ssinger@Wsaxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE
          150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 997-0860
          Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
          E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company 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
Court of Appeals in Oregon has yet to rule on an appeal from a
decision in the Trojan Investment Recovery litigation.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and
ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County
Circuit Court.

The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that
the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy
could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or
refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the
Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which refunds were completed
in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon
Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted
the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral
argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In March
2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the
Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by
the plaintiffs. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit
Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.

A Court of Appeals decision remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and refunds
discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject
to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is
reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result.

Portland General said, "As these matters involve unsettled legal
theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient
information is currently not available to determine the amount of
any such loss."

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp et al. Seek to Certify Class of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DARCEY SHARP, MARY
LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG
LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURITAN'S PRIDE,
INC., a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. f/k/a NBTY,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 14,
2016), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Jan. 9, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individual consumer residents of California who
      purchased Defendants' Products pursuant to a BOGO price,
      directly from Defendants, within the applicable statutory  
      limitations period, including the period following the  
      filing of the date of this action."

   2. appointing Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, Mary Ludolph-Aliaga,  
      and Penelope Mueller as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Marlin & Saltzman, LLP and The Law Office of W.  
      Hansult as lead class counsel; and

   4. directing parties to meet and confer and present the Court,

      within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a  
      proposed notice to the certified class.

Whether Plaintiffs and the proposed Class can ultimately prevail on
the merits in this case depends on one common question: are
Defendants' perpetual "buy something get something free" ("BOGO")
offers deceptive, misleading, or unlawful?  According to the
complaint, the overwhelming majority of Defendants' sales of
Puritan's Pride-branded vitamins, minerals, and health supplements
were made through BOGO offers, answers that question with an
unqualified "yes."

California law similarly regulates BOGO offers, as follows: "It is
unlawful to notify any person by any means that he or she will
receive a gift and that as a condition of receiving the gift he or
she must pay any money, if the majority of the gift offeror's sales
or leases within the preceding year, through the marketing channel
in which the gift is offered. . . of the type of goods or services
which must be purchased or leased in order to obtain the gift item
was made in conjunction with the offer of a gift. Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 17537(c)(4)."

The Defendants have built a business model that blatantly
disregards these clear directives. They sell millions of dollars'
worth of Products every year in California, predominantly through
the puritans.com website and mail order catalogs. The primary way
that Defendants sell the Products is through BOGO promotions, such
as Buy 1-Get 1/or 2 Free; and/or Buy 2-Get 3/or 4 Free, which
Defendants often represent are only available for a limited time or
during certain times of the year.

Indeed it is, as sales under BOGO promotions represent
approximately 86%-93% of total sales.

Along with being unlawful, Defendants' BOGO promotions are
deceptive, misleading, and unfair because consumers are not
receiving anything for "free" with a purchase. Instead, Defendants
build the cost of the "free" Products into the BOGO promotion price
and offer BOGO promotions on substantially all of their Products
with such frequency that Defendants' stated "regular price" or
"single unit price" is wholly fictitious.

In fact, Defendants only disclose that "you can buy single bottles
of the Products outside of BOGO promotions in footers on certain
pages in the catalogs and on a separate, innocuous page on their
website: www.puritans.com/singles (which has a BOGO promotion at
the top of the page it as of the date of this filing)."[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          William Hansult, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT
          1399 Ramona Avenue
          Grover Beach, CA 93433
          Telephone: (805) 489-1448
          E-mail: hansultlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Tina Mehr, Esq.
          VISION LEGAL, INC.
          4712 E. 2 ND Street, Suite 840
          Long Beach, CA 90803
          Telephone: (877) 870-9953
          Facsimile: (877) 348-8509
          E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com

QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Lorenzo Benton v.
Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.

Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in
this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

In February 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff class's
final motion for summary judgment on damages awarding the class
approximately $7.5 million for its meal/rest break and overtime
claims and denied the motion as to penalties.

Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.

In July 2019, TNS prevailed, in part, on its own motion for summary
judgment on the remaining wage statement and penalty claims, with
the court dismissing the claims for penalties based on alleged meal
and rest break violations.

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

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


RESOURCES ENTERPRISE: Hancock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hancock, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. RESOURCES ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability
company, WORK MARKET, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 19CV358675 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov.
19, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for misclassifying
their employees as independent contractors and failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants made unlawful
deduction, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks, to issue
itemizes wage statements and to reimburse for business expenses.
The Plaintiff seeks penalties under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights
of all employees in for failure to provide accurate payroll
records, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants have engaged in,
among other things a system of willful violations of the California
Labor Code, by creating and maintaining policies, practices and
customs that knowingly deny employees their rights and benefits,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in 2018.

The Defendants are doing business throughout the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: (831) 531-4214
          Fax: (831) 634-0333

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
          Phone: (213) 381-1515
          Fax: (213) 465-4885
          Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality 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
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero
v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.  

This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's
Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et
al.; Case No RIC1804127).  

Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or
reasonably estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend
this matter."

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

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.


SAHADI FINE: Calcano Files Suit under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Sahadi Fine Foods Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sahadi Fine Foods Inc., Sahadi
Importing Co., Inc. and Sahadi's LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06412 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019).

Sahadi Fine Foods Inc. is a food supplies wholesaler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 280-2007
   Fax: (212) 656-1845
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net



SCI DIRECT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Nicole Romano, the Plaintiff,
v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II
heard the motion to certify class and motion for attorney fees on
Nov. 18, 2019..[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St Ste 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Lonnie J Williams, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher P Leyel, Esq.
          Carl M Lewis, , Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: 602.212.8505
          E-mail: lonnie.williams@stinson.com

SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy 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 two consolidated class action suits in
California.

In January 2017, two consolidated class action complaints were
filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a
putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real
property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class
Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons
and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility
(the Business Class Action).

Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per
se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance,
and inverse condemnation.

The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints
seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the purely
economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not
recoverable under the law, and in September 2019, in accordance
with the ruling, the LA Superior Court dismissed the strict
liability, negligence and negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage causes of action in the Business Class Action
complaint.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Valdez Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JORGE BERMUDEZ, VIRGINIA
VALDEZ, and ANGELICA PEDROZO, as individuals, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 521, and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04312-VC (N.D. Cal.), Ms. Virginia
Valdez will move the Court on January 9, 2020, for a order:

   1. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement between
      Plaintiff and Defendants, dated November 19 2019, on the  
      grounds that its terms are sufficiently fair, reasonable,  
      and adequate for notice to be issued to the class;

   2. certifying the proposed settlement class for settlement  
      purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  
      23(c);

   3. approving the form and content of the proposed class notice

      and notice plan;

   4. appointing Banys, P.C. to represent the class as class  
      counsel;

   5. appointing Defendant Service Employees International Union,

      Local 521 as Settlement Administrator;

   6. scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the  
      proposed settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys'

      fees and costs, and an enhancement payment to Plaintiff; and

   7. granting such other and further relief as may be  
      appropriate.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant Local 521 will create a
non-reversionary settlement fund of $75,000 to be distributed
among the proposed class, which consists of 183 individuals. In
addition, Local 521 has agreed to separately pay  for Valdez's
attorney fees and costs up to a maximum of $25,000, subject to this
Court's approval.

Importantly, any attorney fee and/or cost award will not affect the
amount of the settlement fund. Nor will there be any administrative
costs taken from the settlement fund, as Local 521 will handle the
administration of the settlement at its own expense.

Also, as non-monetary relief, Local 521 will use its best efforts
to encourage its Chapters to amend their bylaws to address Valdez's
concerns regarding time restrictions on union membership
terminations.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          Christopher D. Banys, Esq.
          BANYS, P.C.
          567 Marsh Street
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 996-0394
          Facsimile: (650) 353-2202
          E-mail: cdb@banyspc.com

SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL LEWIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SHAFER PROJECT RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00183 (Sept. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Dakota, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Oct.
30, 2019.

The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-04268 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Charles Eskridge.

Mr. Lewis brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from Shafer Project Resources, Inc. under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Shafer employs workers, like Lewis, to carry out its work. Lewis,
and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 10-12
hour shifts, 6-7 days a week. But Shafer does not pay all of these
workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
Defendant pays these workers a day-rate.

Shafer is an energy services support company specializing in
providing project managers, designers, inspectors, safety
consultants and administrative personnel to the energy industry.
Shafer operates throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          William Richard Liles, Esq.
          Michael A Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, ESQ.
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Tx 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: wliles@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Amber Lea Karns, Esq.
          700 Milam Street, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-1470
          E-mail: akarns@munsch.com

               - and -

          Daniel Douglas Pipitone, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
          700 Milam Street, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-4060
          Facsimile: 222-5813
          E-mail: dpipitone@munsch.com

SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie
Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media, LLC in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation
of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition,
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972
(referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings").

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification
to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions.
The California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by Ponderosa Twins Plus One against Pandora Media,
LLC, a company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and others filed a
class action suit against Pandora alleging claims similar to those
asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.

This action is also currently stayed in the Northern District of
California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Settlement Reached in Buchanan TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement has
been reached in the class action suit initiated by Thomas
Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
action alleges that Sirius XM violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making
telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call
registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude
themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive
the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to
consumers in violation of the company's internal Do-Not-Call
registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the
TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen
hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA
and a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from making, or
having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the
National Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call
registry.

Following a mediation, in April 2019, Sirius XM entered into an
agreement to settle this purported class action suit. The
settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October
2013 through January 2019. As part of the settlement, Sirius XM
paid $25 into a non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to
class members, notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees
and costs will be paid. The settlement also contemplates that
Sirius XM will provide three months of service to its All Access
subscription package for those members of the class that elect to
receive it, in lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and
who are not active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The
availability of this three-month service option will not diminish
the $25 common fund.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM will also implement certain
changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and telemarketing
programs. Settlement of this matter is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Court.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action
suits initiated by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan against Pandora
Media, LLC, a company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed
separate class action suits against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district courts for the Northern District of California and
the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and
state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights
of publicity arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties
for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings.

The Sheridan actions in California and New Jersey are currently
stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger-Related Class Suits to be Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
SJW Group 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 complaints over a merger
transaction will be dismissed now that the deal has closed.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water
Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action
complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of
directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS.

The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20,
2018, allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain
material information and that SJW Group and Mr. Thornburg aided and
abetted the alleged breaches by the CTWS board of directors. Among
other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and other
damages and attorney's fees and costs.

SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. The parties to
the lawsuits have agreed in principle to settle the lawsuits in
exchange for the issuance of additional disclosures by CTWS.

Pursuant to the agreements to settle the lawsuits, the plaintiffs
have reserved the right to seek a mootness fee from CTWS.

The parties moved to stay proceedings, other than fee-related
proceedings, until such time as the transaction closes, and the
court granted the parties' motion to stay on November 14, 2018. On
November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opening brief in support
of their fee application. The stay of proceedings expired on
February 28, 2019.

On March 1, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue
the stay and ordered that the stay was to continue until May 29,
2019. On May 29, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to
continue the stay and ordered that the stay be continued until
September 11, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the court granted the
parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay be
continued until November 11, 2019.

Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle the litigation,
the complaints will be dismissed now that the merger transaction
closed on October 9, 2019.

SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility
services in the United States. It engages in the production,
purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and
retail sale of water. SJW Group was founded in 1866 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


STATE FARM: Bally Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH A. BALLY,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-04954-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on March 27, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
      policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of
      California whose policy was in-force on or after January 1,
      2002 and who was subject to at least one monthly deduction";

      and

   2. designating Elizabeth Bally as the class representative and
      the law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Miller Schirger,
      LLC; and Girard Sharp LLP as class counsel.

The Plaintiff challenges State Farm Life Insurance Company's
interpretation and implementation of its form universal life
insurance policy.

The case is well-suited for class certification, the Plaintiff
contends, because it turns on the interpretation of a form contract
under California law, and State Farm's uniform conduct toward all
class members.

In fact, a nearly identical case brought on behalf of a class of
Missouri policy owners was certified and tried to jury verdict just
last year. See Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 16-4170-CV-C-NKL
(W.D. Mo.).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415 981-4800
          Facsimile: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  aornelas@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MI 64111
          Telephone: 816 561-6500
          Facsimile: 816 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

SWAROVSKI NORTH AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Swarovski North America Limited is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swarovski North America
Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10536 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13,
2019).

Swarovski North America Ltd provides crystal and fashion jewelry.
The Company's line of business includes manufacturing costume
jewelry. Swarovski North America operates worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TATE & KIRLIN: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zarczynksi moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TATE & KIRLIN
ASSOCIATES, INC. and AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-01663-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff
(and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Metcalf Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Michele Metcalf for herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TransPerfect Global,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01653 (Aug. 28, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square) on Oct 31, 2019.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-10104-AJN to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan.

The case is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all of
Defendant's Client Services Associates and Senior Client Services
Executives, who worked in the Defendant's New York City offices
from December 31, 2018, to the present. The suit Seeks $75,000 in
damages.

The Plaintiff and the other Class Members regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week--often working 50-55 hours or more each
week. Unless an exemption applies, pursuant to 12 N.Y.C.R.R.
section 142-2, New York employers are required to pay their
employees one-and-one half times their regular hourly rate of pay
for each hour worked over 40, according to the complaint. Even
though no exemption applied, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the other Class Members one-and-one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40, in violation of
the New York Labor Law.

TransPerfect Translations is a translation services company based
in New York City. The company provides "foreign words" primarily to
companies in the legal and healthcare fields. As of 2012,
TransPerfect was "the largest privately owned language services
provider, with offices in over 90 cities worldwide."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nona Yegazarian, Esq.
          BROWN NERI SMITH AND KHAN LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
          E-mail: nona@bnsklaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3284
          Facsimile: (914) 908-6722
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan M Smith, Esq.
          BROWN NERI SMITH AND KHAN LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
          E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michelle Chung, Esq.
          Eric S. Beane, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP US
          North Tower
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: michelle.chung@dlapiper.com
                  eric.beane@dlapiper.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mendel Appeals Ruling in O'Connor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movant S. Patrick Mendel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 14, 2019, District
Court Judge Edward M. Chen granted the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release,
and (i) Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

The Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits against Defendant Uber,
alleging that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent
contractors rather than as employees.  Five years of contentious
litigation ensued.  The parties eventually entered into an
agreement to settle both suits, and on March 29, 2019, the Court
granted preliminary approval to the parties' class action
settlement.

The Settlement Agreement covers all Drivers in California and
Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since Aug. 16,
2009, up to and including Feb. 28, 2019, and who have validly opted
out of arbitration or for whom Uber has no record of acceptance of
an arbitration agreement.

In exchange for the Class Members' release of their claims, the
Settlement provides monetary and non-monetary consideration.  The
monetary component of the Settlement is a $20 million
non-reversionary fund.  From the fund, $5 million will be deducted
for attorneys' fees, approximately $311,092 will be awarded for
attorneys' out-of-pocket expenses related to the litigation,
$300,000 will be awarded for costs of claims administration, and
$40,000 will be ordered as incentive awards for the Settlement
Class representatives.

The appellate case is captioned as Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-17073, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on December 11, 2019;

   -- Appellant S. Patrick Mendel's opening brief is due on
      January 21, 2020;

   -- Appellees Thomas Colopy, Elie Gurfinkel, Matthew Manahan,
      Douglas O'Connor and Uber Technologies, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on February 21, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Movant-Appellant S. PATRICK MENDEL of San Leandro, California,
appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, MATTHEW
MANAHAN and ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Samuel Eckman, Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (484) 354-8170
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  seckman@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8383
          E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          E-mail: KRingDowell@gibsondunn.com


UNIFIED CAPITAL: Mizel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mizel, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated and STEVEN MIZEL and PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP F/B/O STEVEN
MIZEL ROTH IRA, Derivatively on Behalf of Consolidated Asset
Funding 3 LP v. UNIFIED CAPITAL PARTNERS 3 LLC, and UNIFIED ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, and CONSOLIDATED ASSET FUNDING 3 LP,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10712 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duties.

There is a Limited Partnership Agreement between UPC, the General
Partner on the one hand, and the Limited Partners, including the
Plaintiffs, on the other hand. Section 10.1 of the LP Agreement
provides that the Partnership shall dissolve on the third
anniversary of the date of the Final Subsequent Closing (October 1,
2013) with 2 permissible consecutive 1 year extensions if the
General Partner (UPC) determines that such extension is necessary
or advisable for the orderly liquidation of the Partnership's
Assets.

Under the LP Agreement, the dissolution date is no later than
October 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs demanded that the UPC as General
Partner dissolve the Partnership and liquidate and distribute the
Partnership's assets. UPC as General Partner refused the
Plaintiffs' demand and failed to dissolve the Partnership or to
liquidate the Partnership's assets. The Plaintiffs contend that
there is no provision in the LP Agreement for further extensions of
the term of the Partnership beyond October 1, 2018.

This decline is due to the wrongful conduct of the Defendants and
further demonstrates the inadvisability of the General Partner's
failure to dissolve and liquidate Consolidated at the end of the
Limited Partnership's term as provided in Section 10.1 of the LP
Agreement, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs have demanded that
Defendants reform and correct the financial statements issued, to
correctly state that the Preferred Return to the Limited Partners
is 15% per annum. The Defendants have refused to reform and correct
the financial statements of Consolidated either by themselves or by
giving instructions to the public accountancy firm to do so, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Steven Mizel is a resident of the State of California.
Steven Mizel is the beneficial owner of the Steven Mizel Roth IRA.

Unified Capital Partners 3 LLC is the General Partner of
Consolidated and is a limited liability company formed under the
laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
          Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com


US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Clairton Fire-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation 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 parties
in the class action suit related to the December 24, 2018 fire at
Clairton are engaged in discovery.

On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton. The complaint
asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the result of
U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S. Steel's
operations subsequent to the fire.

An initial Court status conference was held on June 27, 2019 and
the parties are currently engaged in discovery.

U. S. Steel is vigorously defending the matter.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


US STEEL: Motion to Certify Class of Claimants Pending
------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation 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 plaintiffs
have moved to certify the class of claimants which is being
challenged by the remaining Defendants.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class
action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former
officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial
underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public
offering of the Company's common stock (collectively, Defendants)
violated federal securities laws in making false statements and/or
failing to discover and disclose material information regarding the
financial condition of the Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions
granting them in part and denying them in part.

On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the
Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the
underwriters are no longer parties to the case.

Plaintiffs have moved to certify the class of claimants which is
being challenged by the remaining Defendants.

The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


VERATIP CORP: Court Denies Bid to Amend Sarikaputar FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint captioned Paranee Sarikaputar et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Veratip Corp. et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00814 (ALC)
(SDA) (S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against Veratip,
J. Akira LLC, ThaiNY Restaurant LLC, Ninety-Nine Plus Corp.,
Perapong Chotimanenophan, Shue-Lee Cheng Li, Chardenpong Oonapanyo,
9999 Midtown Corp. and Michael P. Bronstein, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
and New York General Business Law.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Complaint on Feb. 2, 2017.  J. Akira and Mr. Bronstein filed their
Answer to the Complaint on Sept. 7, 2017.  No other Defendants have
appeared in the case.

On Oct. 25, 2017, a mediation was held that was unsuccessful.  On
Dec. 12, 2017, the case was referred to Judge Aaron for general
pretrial purposes.  An initial conference was held with the parties
on Jan. 29, 2018, after which the Judge entered an order setting a
June 29, 2018 discovery deadline.  By Order dated July 10, 2018,
the discovery deadline was extended by the Court until Oct. 31,
2018.

On July 25, 2018, District Judge Carter granted Mr. Bronstein leave
to file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  Judge Carter
denied Mr. Bronstein's motion on March 22, 2019, and denied his
motion for reconsideration on June 3, 2019.

Following the motion practice, on July 2, 2019, a new Case
Management Plan was entered requiring discovery to be completed by
Sept. 30, 2019.  In that Plan, the Plaintiffs did not indicate that
they desired to amend the Complaint.  By letter dated Aug. 19,
2019, the Plaintiffs for the first time sought leave to amend the
Complaint.

On Aug. 20, 2019, following a telephone conference with the
parties, Judge Arron entered an Order providing in relevant part as
follows: If the Plaintiffs believe they have a good faith basis to
move to amend their complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, as
requested in their letter dated Aug. 19, 2019, they will file the
motion no later than Aug. 26, 2019.  

On Aug. 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs purported to file an Amended
Complaint, which was rejected by the Clerk of Court since leave to
file the document had not been granted.  On Sept. 23, 2019, Judge
Aaron entered a Text Only Order stating that the operative pleading
in this case remains the Complaint.

The next day, on Sept. 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their motion
to amend that is currently before the District Court.  In their
motion, the Plaintiffs -- without explanation for their delay --
seek to add additional Plaintiffs, as well as additional
Defendants.  The Defendants opposed the motion.

Judge Aaron holds that the Plaintiffs have unduly delayed in
seeking to amend their pleading in the case.  The discovery period
is now closed.  Allowing them to add additional Plaintiffs and
Defendants, two and one-half years after the filing of the original
complaint would cause the Defendants prejudice by requiring them to
expend additional resources and, in addition, would significantly
delay the resolution of the proceedings.  Mr. Bronstein should be
permitted to obtain resolution of the claims against him now.  If
the amendment were granted, there would be extensive delays in
service of the amending pleading and in reopening discovery.

On the other hand, the Judge opines that there is no prejudice to
the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs who seek to be added to the
amending pleading already have filed consents to seek redress in
this case for violations of the FLSA.  In addition, the Plaintiffs
may file a plenary action against the new Defendants that they had
sought to add.

Accordingly, Judge Aaron denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/x4jcBJ from Leagle.com.

Paranee Sarikaputar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Phouviengsone Sysouvong, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Supunnee Sukasawett, Vinai Patan &
Wipaporn Sittidej, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron B. Schweitzer
-- troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy, Troy Law,
PLLC.

Pedro Coj Cumes, Phaisit Sirimatrasit, Boonyarit Praphai, Kamphol
Kiatwanakorn, Chaichana Kittironnakornkul & Supatra Wungmarn,
Plaintiffs, represented by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC.

J Akira LLC, doing business as ThaiNY, M-Thai, Thai Rice, Tom Yum &
Michael P Bronstein, Defendants, represented by Bingchen Li --
eric.li@ncny-law.com -- Law Office of Z. Tan PLLC.


VIMEO INC: Acaley Civils Right Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Bradley Acaley, idividually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vimeo,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-10873, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Illinois for Cook County to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Oct 31,
2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07164 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights-related laws.

Vimeo is an ad-free video platform headquartered in New York City,
providing free video viewing services as a competitor to YouTube.
In 2007, Vimeo became the first video sharing site to support
high-definition video.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

Defendant Vimeo, Inc. is represented by:

          Joel Griswold, Esq.
          Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S. Orange Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 649-4088
          E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
                  bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


WAL MART: Court Takes Bid for Class Cert. under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as James S. Evans, the Plaintiff
v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-07641-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order on Nov. 15, 2019, taking Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification under submission, according to the Civil
Minutes - General.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S Beverly Dr, Ste 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-4309
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Robert J Herrington, Esq.
          Naomi G Beer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: 310 586.7700
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
                  beern@gtlaw.com

WELLNX LIFE: Choo Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MISTY CHOO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLNX
LIFE SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02517-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i)
dismissed with prejudice all the individual claims brought by
Plaintiffs Choo and Diane E. Lee, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice
all the class claims.

The parties jointly stipulate to dismiss with prejudice all
individual claims brought by Plaintiffs Choo and Lee, and all the
class claims without prejudice.  Judge Mueller is satisfied that
dismissal of the action will result in no prejudice to the putative
class members.  The parties do not indicate whether the statute of
limitations on the Plaintiffs' claims is "rapidly approaching" such
that it is likely to prevent potential class members from pursuing
individual claims.  Furthermore, the Court never certified the
class nor required the parties provide notice to the class of the
action, and the parties represent that no putative class members
have contacted counsel of either Party to inquire about the status
of the case or the filing of additional claims.  For these reasons,
dismissal of the case is not likely to prejudice the potential
class members.

Judge Mueller is also satisfied no settlement or concession of
class interests were made by the class representative or counsel in
order to further their own interests.  The parties move to dismiss
the class claims without prejudice, meaning the class members'
rights to pursue individual claims are not extinguished by the
dismissal.

Accordingly, Judge Mueller approved parties' stipulation.  The
Judge dismissed with prejudice all of the individual claims and
allegations brought by Choo and Lee.  She dismissed without
prejudice all of the claims and allegations of the putative class
members.  The Court, in its discretion, declines to maintain
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement.  Unless there is some independent basis for federal
jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for the state
courts.

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

Misty Choo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Dianne E. Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ian James Barlow,
Kershaw Cook & Talley PC, Adam A. Edwards --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law
PC, pro hac vice, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com --
Kohn, Swift & Graf P.C., pro hac vice & Mark E. Silvey, Greg
Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice.

Wellnx Life Sciences, Inc. & Platinum US Distribution, Inc., Doing
business as Wellnx Life Sciences, USA, Defendants, represented by
Peter James Farnese -- pjf@beshadafarneselaw.com -- Beshada Farnese
LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff in Coordes FDCPA Suit May Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONTY AND MICHELLE COORDES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0052-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge
Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint, and
(ii) denied Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The case arises out of Wells Fargo's use of flawed software to deny
the Plaintiffs' request for a mortgage modification in connection
with a federal program created in the aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis.   

In 2005, Plaintiffs Monty and Michelle Coordes built a new home in
Spokane Valley, Washington, secured by a mortgage serviced and
later acquired by the Defendant.  In early 2010, as a result of the
economic downturn, Mr. Coordes became temporarily unemployed.  In
March 2010, the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant to seek
assistance making their mortgage payments and to request relief in
the form of a mortgage loan modification.  In July 2010, Mr.
Coordes obtained full-time employment. In August 2010, the
Plaintiffs were offered a trial modification, which would have
required them to pay back payments and penalties that they could
not afford.

In January 2011, the Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and
their bankruptcy plan was approved in May.  In July 2011, they
again sought a mortgage modification from the Defendant.  In
December 2011, the Defendant rejected their mortgage modification
application.  In January 2012, the Plaintiffs lost their home in a
foreclosure sale.

In August 2018, the Defendant disclosed that a calculation error in
its internal mortgage loan modification underwriting software
resulted in the improper denial of approximately 625 modification
applications that should have been granted.  It discovered the
software error as early as 2015.  The error was reported to be an
automated miscalculation of attorneys' fees that were included for
purposes of determining whether a customer qualified for a mortgage
loan modification pursuant to the requirements of
government-sponsored enterprises.  In November 2018, the Defendant
disclosed that the number of wrongful denials had been updated to
870.

In a notice dated Sept. 11, 2018, the Defendant contacted the
Plaintiffs to inform them that their mortgage loan modification was
erroneously denied based on the calculation error.  Attached to the
letter was a check for $15,000.  In November 2018, the Plaintiffs
undertook mediation with the Defendant and were awarded an
additional $25,000.

On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against
the Defendant claiming violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA") and unjust enrichment.  On Aug. 9, 2019,
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class
Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs request the Court to take judicial notice of four
consent orders from the United States Department of the Treasury,
Comptroller of the Currency; a court order and two filings from
Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-cv-07354-WHA, in the
Northern District of California; and a copy of the Sept. 11, 2018
letter the Plaintiffs received from the Defendant notifying them of
the calculation error.

Judge Rice (i) declines to take judicial notice of the consent
orders at this time to establish general background about the
alleged misconduct; (ii) takes judicial notice of the Hernandez
filings because Hernandez deals with similar conduct by the same
Defendant as in the case; and (iii) takes judicial notice of the
notification letter because it is incorporated into the Amended
Complaint by reference.

The Defendant requests the Court takes judicial notice of the deed
of trust governing Plaintiffs' mortgage and a motion to dismiss and
declaration filed in Hernandez.

Judge Rice (i) takes judicial notice of the deed of trust; takes
judicial notice of the motion and its supporting legal arguments;
and (iii) holds that the Ferguson declaration is not subject to
judicial notice.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CPA claim for
failure to state a claim.  Specifically, it argues the Plaintiffs'
CPA claim is an impermissible attempt to enforce the federal Home
Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), which creates no private
right of action.

Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant
wrongfully denied their mortgage modification application and
failed to disclose for three years the software error that caused
the wrongful application denial.  Although the conduct is related
to the Defendant's HAMP participation, the Plaintiffs do not seek
to enforce HAMP.  Instead, they allege the conduct constitutes
unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of the CPA.  HAMP is
involved in the case as a "component" of the CPA claim.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim is not an improper attempt to
enforce the Defendant's HAMP agreement.  Construing the allegations
in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiffs have
alleged enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground is
denied, Judge Rice rules.

Because the benefits alleged to be the subject of the unjust
enrichment are governed by the parties' express contract, the
Plaintiffs are not able to maintain their unjust enrichment claim.
Judge Rice grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim.

The Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to
alternatively plead claims for breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  They imply that they
brought quasi-contract claims in reliance on arguments the
Defendant made in a similar case in the Northern District of
California.  Although the Plaintiffs imply bad faith in the
Defendant's allegedly inconsistent positions about whether contract
terms govern the relationships in Hernandez and the case, Judge
Rice does not find the Defendant's arguments to be inconsistent.
Regardless, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so
requires.  Where the Defendant has allegedly already conceded error
in its denial of the Plaintiffs' loan modification application,
justice requires such leave.

The Defendant moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class action
allegations.  In the context of a motion to strike class
allegations, in particular where such a motion is brought in
advance of the close of class discovery, it is properly the
Defendant who must bear the burden of proving that the class is not
certifiable.

Judge Rice denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
class action allegations.  The Defendant cites to the Ferguson
declaration, which the Judge declined to notice, to argue that the
Hernandez case puts the Plaintiffs on notice that only 14
Washington borrowers were potentially affected by the calculation
error.  The Plaintiffs argue the size of the class is unknown
because the Defendant continues to investigate the matter.  This
disputed issue of fact indicates that the motion to dismiss stage
is too early to determine whether a Washington class is
sufficiently numerous to sustain a class action.

For stated reasons, Judge Rice granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's original
Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class Action Complain.  The Plaintiff
is granted leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint
without delay.

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

Monty Coordes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Michelle Coordes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Chanele N.
Reyes -- creyes@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen
Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Alison E. Chase, Keller Rohrback LLP CA, pro hac vice, Matthew
J. Preusch, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves --
agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erin M.
Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Kobi K.
Brinson, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Pilar C. French, Lane
Powell PC & Rudy A. Englund -- englundr@lanepowell.com -- Lane
Powell PC.


WEST MARINE: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Adams Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant West Marine Products, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Adrianne Adams v. West Marine
Products, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-VC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was originally filed on January 22, 2019, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Mateo (assigned Case
No. 19CIV00436).  The case was later removed to the District
Court.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime
compensation, provide meal periods, authorize and permit rest
periods, pay minimum wage, timely pay wages, provide accurate wage
statements, and maintain accurate payroll records.

West Marine operates as a specialty retailer of boating supplies,
gear, apparel, footwear, and other water life-related products.

The appellate case is captioned as Adrianne Adams v. West Marine
Products, Inc., Case No. 19-80141, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ADRIANNE ADAMS, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, is
represented by:

          Heather Marie Davis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          E-mail: hdavis@littler.com

Defendant-Petitioner WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Ashley Farrell Pickett, Esq.
          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (949) 702-8117
          E-mail: farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com
                  kemplem@gtlaw.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal from Dismissal Order Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 appeal filed by City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement
Trust remains pending.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported
former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers
General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

The complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy
Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy
Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. [John]
Haley, [Dominic] Casserley, and [Jeffrey] Ubben, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of
California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. The
complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary
duty and against all other defendants for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the
court denied Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and Alaska's cross-motion.

On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint.
On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on
April 11, 2019 and, on July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.

On August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
from the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware. The parties are currently briefing the
appeal.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Rehearing by the 5th Cir. En Banc Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 certain plaintiff-appellants have filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc on the class action suit
related to The Stanford Financial Group's collapse.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to Stanford's collapse, for which Willis of Colorado, Inc.
acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The
complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants
actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing
Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew
would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective
Stanford client investors.

The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain
statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the
defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted
material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford
promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

     * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.
On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the
court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing
and oral argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January
18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs
were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument
on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court
affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on
September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for
briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail.

     * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.

On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or
coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including
Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014,
the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action
without prejudice.

     * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas
statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December
18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the
consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action
number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed
a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

     * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and
seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On
August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated
the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et
al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully
briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated
appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to
the complaint in Rupert.

     * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint
alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of
certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the
Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed
below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis
Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
have not opposed the motion.

     * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the
court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but
stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as
of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was
held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in
Rishmague.

     * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and
treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys’ fees
and costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the
Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to
the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination
with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and
stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance
with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed
above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October
14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in
MacArthur.

     * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County),
alleging violations of Florida common law.

The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on
behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30,
filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis
Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et
al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case
No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to
the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer
of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having
been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go
forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and
July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar
and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in
its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21,
2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21
days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

     * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the ‘OSIC’) against all defendants and (ii) on
behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual
damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As
alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective
losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.

On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the
court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

     * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages
in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to
the amended complaint in Martin.

     * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint
alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added
several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.
Further details on this settlement in principle are given below.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these
matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the
Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement
Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and
uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement
and the related bar orders described below, if upheld through any
appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to
conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued
overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade
ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the
Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss
the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all
current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in
exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company
of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who
have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution
plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation described above, and not just the
Actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may
be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders
is a condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in
the other actions above objected to the settlement, and a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January
20, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision. On August 23,
2017, the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders.


Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar
orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeals was heard
on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders.
On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a
petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a
response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a
response to the Petition. The Petition currently remains pending.

The Company will not make the $120 million settlement payment until
the settlement is not subject to any further appeal.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Petition for Rehearing in Regents Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit have
denied the petition of class action defendants for a rehearing en
banc.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management, and
certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers
Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and
Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly
false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the
Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for alleged 'control person' liability with respect to
such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint
further contended that the allegedly false and misleading
statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept
inadequate Merger consideration.

The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.

On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal.

On May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, and on August 30,
2019, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded
the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.

On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WINCO FOODS: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WINCO FOODS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an
Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on February 24, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying the class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to the claims
      against Defendants' violation of the California Labor
      Code:

      Class:

      "all hourly, non-exempt employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and
      WinCo Holdings, Inc. working in retail stores or
      distribution centers in the State of California at any time
      from August 23, 2013 through the date of certification:

      Drug-Testing Subclass:

      "all Class Members who were required to undergo mandatory
      drug-testing after August 23, 2013 through the date of
      certification.

      Rest Break Subclass:

      "all Class Members who worked any shift at least 3.5 hours
      in length in a distribution center at any time from August
      23, 2013 through the date of certification; and

      On-Premises Rest Break Subclass:

      "all Class Members 15 who worked any shift at least 3.5
      hours in length but less than 4 hours in length in a
      distribution center at any time from August 23, 2013 through

      the date of certification";

   2. appointing Alfred Johnson and proposed plaintiffs
      Thomas Wilson and Isaac Clark as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E, Ste 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com

XPO LOGISTICS: $16.5MM Deal in Carter FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RON CARTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XPO
LOGISTICS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01231-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted (i) the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and service awards.

Plaintiffs Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill
McDonald and Joel Morales commenced the lawsuit as a class and
collective action alleging that XPO LM misclassified as independent
contractors a class of delivery drivers who entered into Delivery
Service Agreements with and personally drove for XPO LM, and as a
result, failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses and
violated various wage and hour provisions of the California Labor
Code and the overtime requirements under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiffs subsequently amended their
complaint to add a PAGA penalties claim.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action in October 2016, and 116
individuals filed consents to join the FLSA collective action.
Following discovery, the parties reached a settlement in April
2019, and the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed
Settlement Agreement and conditional certification of the
Settlement Class on June 27, 2019, while directing that the time
provided in the Settlement Agreement for Class Members to deposit
checks be expanded to 180 days.

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and their
motion for attorneys' fees and service awards.  No Class Member has
requested to opt out of the Settlement Class or objected to the
Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Class consists of all persons who (a) entered into a
Delivery Service Agreement either in his or her individual capacity
or through a business entity with XPO LM or 3PD, and (b) according
to XPO LM's records was a driver who performed delivery services
pursuant to that Delivery Service Agreement, and (c) performed some
portion of those delivery services within the state of California,
(d) at any time during the Class Period [March 12, 2012 through
Feb. 21, 2019].

The gross settlement amount of $16.5 million, represents
approximately 20% of the maximum verdict in the case.  The net
settlement amount is at least $12,204,500.  According to the
Settlement Administrator, the Class Members can expect to receive
on average at least $14,775.70; 19 will receive at least $100,000.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates a second distribution to the
Class for any amounts from uncashed checks, with any residual
amount from uncashed checks or other remaining funds to be paid to
the Legal Aid at Work ("LAAW") (formerly Legal Aid
Society-Employment Law Center) as the cy pres beneficiary.  LAAW's
work on-behalf of low-wage workers, particularly in the area of
wage and hour, has a close nexus to the rights that the Plaintiffs
sought to vindicate in the action.

The Class Counsel request an award of $4,125,000 for attorney fees
and litigation expenses incurred in the case.  The Plaintiffs seek
class representative service awards of $20,000 for five of the
named Plaintiffs (Ronnel Carter, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald, Joel
Morales, and Jerry Green).

Judge Orrick concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and merits final approval.  Accordingly, he granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement
and class certification, and distribution will be made in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  He also
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and
class representative service awards in the amount of $4,125,000 to
the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs; $20,000 each to
Ronnel Carter, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald, Joel Morales and the
Estate of Jerry Green and $2,500 to the Estate of Juan Estrada for
class representative service awards.  The Counsel are reminded to
submit a Post-Distribution Accounting, pursuant to the Court's
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, within 21 days
after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of
attorney fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7PTLbP from Leagle.com.

Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald
& Joel Morales, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Sayoko Endo --
aendo@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP, Giselle Olmedo,
Leonard Cardner, LLP & Jennifer Grace Keating --
jkeating@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP.

XPO Logistics, Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam Lewis Lounsbury
-- Adam.Lounsbury@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, PC, pro hac
vice, Antonio Carlos Raimundo, Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus
McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
& Robert Irving Lockwood -- robert@pacificemploymentlaw.com --
Pacific Employment Law LLP.


ZENDESK INC: Faces Reidinger Class Action in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, 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 is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, Reidinger v. Zendesk,
Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB.

On October 24, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, entitled Charles Reidinger
v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB, against the Company
and certain of the Company's executive officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934
Act"), purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Zendesk,
Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019,
inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
our prior public filings.

Zendesk said, "To this point, no discovery has occurred in this
case. The class action is still in the preliminary stages, and it
is not possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential
liability to the individual defendants, if any. Management believes
that the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the
actions. We cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from the above described matter."

Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.



                            *********

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 ***