CAR_Public/191128.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 238

                            Headlines

A-1 HEALTH CARE: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Orientation Period
AIRBNB: Quebec Residents Can Claim Compensation in Class Action
AZZ INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action
BAFFINLAND IRON: Settles Securities Class Action for CAD6.5MM
BIG CITY: Tenants' Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules

BREW DR. KOMBUCHA: Faces Class Action Over Probiotics Claims
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
CAREERBUILDER: Class Action Seeks Sales Reps' Unpaid Commissions
CHANNEL SEVEN: Class Action Unlikely Despite AWCC Ruling
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Ogletree Atty. Discuss ERISA Suit Ruling

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 9 Deadline
CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Gomez Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Class Action Against Schools Settled
COMCAST: Old Arbitration Agreement Can't Bar FCTA Class Action
DCD AUTOMOTIVE: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Employees

DEJA VU: Faces Case Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Judge to Assess if Workers Can Join Class Suit
DELL INC: January 10, 2020 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Faces Floyd Suit Over Failure of SCANA Project
DIGITAL FEDERAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $1.8MM

DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
DOORDASH INC: Driver Must Arbitrate Wage, Overtime Class Action
EAST BANK: Faces Muhammad Suit in Northern District of Illinois
ELECTROCORE INC: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
EPSON: Sued Over Third-Party Ink Cartridge Error Messages

FCA US: Class Action Over Dodge Dart Clutch Pedals Certified
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: $17.5M Deal in Homestead Exemption Suit Okayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Altice USA IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Contribution in SunEdison Suit Paid
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
GOOGLE LLC: Allen & Overy Atty Discusses Data Protection Case Order
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lindala Suit
HOWARD BEACH: Chader Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

IFINEX INC: Manipulates Prices of Bitcoin and USDT, Young Claims
INFOSYS: Rosen Law Firm Files Investor Class Action in New York
INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Kent Challenges Sale to One Rock Affiliates
J&M SECURITIES: Averts Suit Over Unauthorized Practice of Law
J.W.-YHTIOT: Finland Consumer Watchdog Mulls Class Action

JP MORGAN CHASE: Sued by Laser for Violating Disabilities Act
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Maker Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics
KIA: Settles Class Action Over Fire Issues for $750 Million
LOGITECH INC: Court Denies Porath's Bid for Class Certification
LOUISIANA: SPLC Files Class Action v. DOH

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Former Andeavor Employees Sue Over Bonuses
MARIETTA OPCO: Gammon Contests Deduction of 30-Min. Lunch Break
MAZDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlement in Class Action Over Airbags
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Johnson Fistel Investigates Claims v. D&O
MENN LAW FIRM: Settlement in Cole FDCPA Suit Wins Prelim. Court Nod

MICROTEL INNS: Sued by Geno for Violating FCRA Consumer Rights
MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Class Defective Boat Owners Filed
MIDWEST GAMING: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation
MYRIAD GENETICS: Zhang Reminds Investors of Class Action
NAT'L ASSOCIATION: Misinterprets Consent Decree Says Justice Dept.

NATIONAL FUNDING: Flo-Tech Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
NATIONAL PACKAGING: Sued by Guzman for Not Paying Overtime Wages
NCAA: Fitzgerald Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Health
NEW YORK, NY: Transit Authority Sued for Inadequate Notice of Fines
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
OSTERMAN PROPANE: Delivery Driver's Class Action Can Proceed
PG&E CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Parties' Accord for Class Cert. Gets Ct. Approval
PROGENICS: Johnson Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach

PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL: Muhammad Sues Over Inaccessible Web Site
PURDUE PHARMA: Maryville Takes Part in Opioid Class Action
PURE DEBT: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Discovery Order
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 6 Deadline
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit

RIVERS CASINO: Faces Class Actions Over BIPA Violation
RTR ENVIRONMENTAL: Lister Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCOTT FARMS: 2 Classes of Migrant Workers Certified in Mondragon
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
SOUTHLAKE, TX: Faces Watson Suit in Texas Supreme Court

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Guzman Sues Over Passes to Skip Airport Security
SPOTIFY USA: People Aren't Getting Paid After $43.5M Settlement
STRESS FREE: Haydel Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
TANDY LEATHER: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline

THIRD COAST MIDSTREAM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline
TJX COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Adequate Seating, Weems Alleges
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Can't Intervene in Class Settlement
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Bradley Arrant Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TROPHY NUT: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Coleman Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Cianci Suit Over Decline in IPO Price
UNDER ARMOUR: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
UNDER ARMOUR: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNILEVER: Faces Antiperspirant False Advertising Class Action
UNITED COMMUNITY: Halper Sadeh Files Shareholder Class Action Suit

UNITED STAFFING: Gonzales Sues Over Scheme Against Filipino RNs
UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Veterans' Class Action Denied
UNITED STATES: Mulangu Moves to Certify Class of FOIA Requesters
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman's Bid for Class Certification Denied
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Face Class Action Over "Free Refill" Policy

US SOCCER: Women's Team Has Class Action Status in Equal-Pay Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Connelly Suit Over Defective Timing Chain
W.M. FARES: Faces Class Action Over Crane Collapse
WACKENHUT: Settles Meal, Rest Break Class Action for $43.2MM
WALMART STORES: California Judge Decertifies Pitre's FCRA Action

WRIGHT BROS: Honaker Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
[*] Class Actions Having Significant Impact on Workplace
[*] Cos. Failing to Protect Customer Data May Face Class Action
[*] In Opioid Litigation, Review of 'Negotiation' Class Granted

                            *********

A-1 HEALTH CARE: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Orientation Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lacyra Henderson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. A-1 HEALTH CARE, INC., A-1 NURSING CARE OF CLEVELAND,
INC. and VIJAY PATEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-02766-SO (N.D. Ohio, Nov.
22, 2019), is brought to challenge the Defendants' payroll policies
and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well
as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

To encourage the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio
Class to engage in unpaid orientation, the Defendants hold the
unpaid orientation period out as "free home health care" training,
leading the Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins to believe that
they would receive a certificate of completion or other
transferable skill at upon the conclusion of the course. However,
the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants' purported "training"
consisted only of general information and standard operating
procedures specific to the Defendants' operation, and provided no
transferable skills to the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and
the Ohio Class.

The Plaintiff contends that the purported "training" was, in
reality, unpaid orientation that served the purpose of primarily
benefiting the Defendants. The unpaid course consisted of basic
knowledge and of the Defendants' job expectations for its employees
and included the Defendants' standard operating procedures. As the
Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class' participation
in the Defendants' required unpaid orientation period served the
primary benefit of the Defendants, the Defendants were required by
the FLSA and the OMFWSA to compensate the Plaintiff and the
Potential Opt-Ins at an amount no less than minimum wage, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, who was employed by
the Defendant.

A-1 Health Care is a Corporation for Profit Organized under the
laws of the State of Ohio and maintaining a principal place of
business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216.230.2955
          Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


AIRBNB: Quebec Residents Can Claim Compensation in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teddy Elliot, writing for MTLBlog, reports that if you're a Quebec
resident and booked an Airbnb anywhere in the world between 2014
and 2019, you can participate in a class-action lawsuit and get
compensated up to $45.

Approved by the Quebec Superior Court on September 23, the
class-action alleges that Airbnb illegally advertised "fragmented
prices" on their website and mobile app between August 22, 2014,
and June 28, 2019. The American company has seen a surge of
popularity in recent years across the globe and many Quebecers use
the site the book their vacation accommodations.

Under the settlement, Quebec residents will be eligible to receive
a $45 credit on their Airbnb account. The total compensation
package is $3 million.

The class-action is open to "all residents of Quebec who have made
a booking on the Airbnb platform for purposes other than business,
and who have paid more than the price originally posted," according
to the judgement.

The plaintiff, Martin Preisler, alleges that Airbnb violated
Quebec's Consumer Protection Act "by showing consumers one price,
but then adding 13% to 17% more on account of 'Service Fees' at the
last step." Airbnb categorically denies the allegations.

The company changed its policy on June 26, 2019, and "displayed
pricing for Accommodations inclusive of the applicable Guest
Fees."

The class-action was originally filed in 2017 but was only approved
in September.

The plaintiff alleges that while booking accommodation for a trip
to Florida, he paid an extra $141 in service charges on top of the
quoted room price.

Section 224 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act stipulates that no
company may "charge, for goods or services, a higher price than
that advertised."

The lawsuit will have a hearing at Montreal's courthouse on
December 3, 2019. Quebec residents can apply today if they qualify
for compensation.

If you qualify, you should receive an email that links you to a
page where you can claim your Redeemable Credit. Make sure to check
all your inboxes!

The credit will be applied to your Airbnb account for any future
reservations you might make. You'll be eligible to claim your
credit within 24 months (or 2 years) of obtaining it.

Keep in mind that the class-action lawsuit is only open to Quebec
residents.

So, if you booked an Airbnb between August 22, 2014, and June 26,
2019, and paid more than the advertised price due to "service
fees," you may be eligible for compensation.

To find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Airbnb and
to see if you qualify, call toll free at 1-888-770-6892 or visit
Velvet Payments. [GN]


AZZ INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges AZZ Inc. (AZZ) investors who have suffered
significant losses to submit their loss now to learn if they
qualify to recover their investment losses. A securities fraud
class action was recently filed on behalf of certain AZZ investors
against the company and senior executives.

Class Period: Jul. 3, 2018 - Oct. 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 3, 2020
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/AZZ
Contact an Attorney Now: AZZ@hbsslaw.com / 510-725-3000

AZZ Inc. (AZZ) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misled investors by engaging
in illicit accounting practices, including improper revenue
reconciliations.

On May 17, 2019, AZZ disclosed material weaknesses in AZZ's
internal controls over financial reporting related to the
preparation and review of revenue reconciliations after adopting a
new revenue recognition standard.

On May 20, 2019, AZZ announced that it had fired and replaced
outside auditor BDO. This news drove the price of AZZ shares lower
that day.

On October 8, 2019, AZZ stated it would not be timely filing its Q2
financial results. This news drove the price of AZZ shares down
$5.89, or down almost 14%, that day.

After the Class Period, on October 25, 2019, AZZ announced the
abrupt departure of its Chief Accounting Officer, James Byelick.

If you invested in AZZ Inc. between Jul. 3, 2018 and Oct. 8, 2019
(the "Class Period") and suffered significant losses, you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff--one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case. Contact Hagens Berman immediately
for more information about the case and being a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

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


BAFFINLAND IRON: Settles Securities Class Action for CAD6.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you tender securities of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation
("Baffinland") to the take-over bid or otherwise dispose of
Baffinland securities on or after January 14, 2011?

A settlement has been reached in the certified class action against
Baffinland and other defendants.  The class action alleges
misrepresentations, oppression and other causes of action in
connection with the take-over bid made by certain of the defendants
to acquire Baffinland securities that concluded in February 2011
and Baffinland's January 13, 2011 news release concerning the
results of the feasibility study on the road haulage option for its
Mary River Project.

The defendants have agreed that the total amount of CAD6,500,000
shall be paid in settlement of the class action.  The settlement is
a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of
liability or wrongdoing by the defendants.

The settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

For more information about your rights and how to exercise them,
see the long-form notice available online at
www.baffinlandclassactionsettlement.ca or contact the Administrator
at:

Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Securities Class Action
Settlement Administrator
c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
Nelson P.O. Box 20187 – 322 Rideau Street
Ottawa ON K1N 5Y5
Email: info@baffinlandclassactionsettlement.ca
Telephone: 1-833-414-8044
Fax: 1-866-262-0816   
[GN]


BIG CITY: Tenants' Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan M. Clark, writing for Law.com, reports that tenants living in
two dozen New York City apartment buildings may continue to pursue
their class action lawsuit against their landlords after a lower
court ruling that dismissed their claims as lacking commonality was
reversed by the New York Court of Appeals last month.

In a rare split decision, four of the seven judges on the state's
highest court agreed to revive the tenants' claims, saying a
decision to toss their lawsuit was "premature."

The court's three dissenting judges, meanwhile, argued that the
majority's decision could diminish the power of trial courts in New
York to prevent abuse of the class action process.

The tenants alleged in the lawsuit, brought three years ago, that
their landlords had overcharged them rent in four different,
illegal ways. While the trial court had ruled that those schemes
were too different to litigate as a class, the high court
disagreed.

"Here the complaint addresses harm effectuated through a variety of
approaches but within a common systematic plan and its class claims
should not be dismissed at this juncture," Associate Justice Eugene
Fahey wrote for the majority.

The tenants were represented before the Court of Appeals by
Roger Sachar, an associate with Newman Ferrara in Manhattan. Lucas
Ferrara, name partner at the firm who's litigated tenant and
housing matters for more than three decades, cheered the decision.

"It's a resounding victory for the tenants and reinforces that the
class action mechanism is alive and well in the state of New York,"
Ferrara said.

Sachar said the firm is looking forward to continuing at the trial
court level, where they'll now resume the tenants' case.

Fahey was joined on the majority opinion by Associate Judges Jenny
Rivera, Leslie Stein and Rowan Wilson. The court's remaining judges
-- Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Michael Garcia
and Paul Feinman -- dissented.

The court's majority agreed with a decision handed down last year
by the Appellate Division, First Department that reinstated the
tenants' claims after they were initially dismissed by Manhattan
Supreme Court Justice Erika Edwards.

Edwards, at the time, wasn't ruling on a motion to certify the
class, which is required for litigation to move forward as a class
action. She was, instead, considering a motion to dismiss the
litigation, which was brought against the owner of the tenants'
buildings, Big City Properties LLC.

In granting the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Edwards
also wrote that the tenants' claims lacked enough commonality to be
considered as a class action lawsuit.

The First Department, in its decision last year, wrote that Edwards
had erred when she decided to throw out the litigation and rejected
the tenants' claims without considering what information could be
gleaned from discovery. The Court of Appeals said the same on Oct.
22.

"We share the view that dismissal of class claims based on
allegations of a methodical attempt to illegally inflate rents was
premature," Fahey wrote.

That doesn't mean the litigation won't be dismissed in the future,
Fahey wrote. The Legislature, he said, has provided different
procedures that may provide an avenue to have the lawsuit thrown
out after precertification discovery, for example.

Associate Justice Michael Garcia, writing for the court's three
dissenting justices, disagreed with the majority's interpretation
that the tenants had shown some level of commonality among their
claims against Big City.

"Understandably: there are none," Garcia wrote. "For that reason,
the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss the class
allegations."

While each of the tenants alleged that properties owned by Big City
had overcharged them rent, that's not enough to justify class
action litigation, Garcia wrote. Such a lawsuit requires a common
factor in an overall scheme, not separate claims with an underlying
result, he wrote.

"There is no common 'defect' alleged here that produces disparate
harms," Garcia wrote. "The allegation is only that the plaintiffs
have been harmed -- by paying inflated rents -- but the cause of
that harm is not a 'common flaw.' Rather, it is different for at
least four different classes of plaintiffs"

"Lack of any common question is fatal here," Garcia later wrote.

The claims shouldn't be analyzed collectively, Garcia wrote,
because each could have a different outcome.

The tenants had claimed that Big City overcharged them rent during
times when their buildings should have received tax incentives tied
to the J-51 program, immediately after their units were removed
from rent control, and following individual apartment improvements,
or IAIs.

In the case of the IAIs, for example, each apartment would have to
be reviewed individually to determine whether the improvements were
sufficient to justify an associated rent increase. That makes the
result dependent on each tenant's unique situation, Garcia wrote.

He also warned that the majority's decision could open the door for
future lawsuits to pursue status as a class action, even if there
isn't a clear-cut underlying claim. One function of trial courts is
to block inadequate class action litigation from moving forward,
which Garcia said may be hampered by the majority's opinion.

"That outcome invites parties to file class allegations -- even if
a class could never be certified -- knowing that they can force
opposing parties to bear the costs of class discovery and
certification proceedings," Garcia wrote. "The effect will be to
diminish the power of the court to prevent abuse of the class
action process."

The case was spurred by the Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit
tenants rights group that connected that plaintiffs in the lawsuit
to the attorneys at Newman Ferrara.

"This ruling will have broad implications for class action lawsuits
in the State of New York, particularly those involving rent
stabilization fraud," said Aaron Carr, who founded the group. [GN]


BREW DR. KOMBUCHA: Faces Class Action Over Probiotics Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Bell, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that a
lawsuit was filed against Brew Dr. Kombucha over probiotics
claims.

The suit seeks class action certification and claims that the
Portland company misrepresented what's in its popular kombucha
drinks. [GN]





BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
September 30, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a
putative securities class action brought against a pharmaceutical
company and certain of its current and former executives.  Tung v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., 18-cv-1611 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2019).  Plaintiffs allege that the pharmaceutical company (the
"Company") and defendant executives made materially misleading
statements and omissions concerning the design of the Company's
clinical trial that tested the efficacy of a newly-developed
anticancer drug in violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the claims
finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter, but
granted plaintiffs leave to amend to address the pleading
deficiencies.

In early 2014, the Company announced a clinical trial that sought
to determine whether its new drug, Opdivo, a checkpoint inhibitor,
would outperform chemotherapy as a treatment for non-small cell
lung carcinoma.  Plaintiffs brought suit after the Company's stock
dropped in 2016 following the Company's announcement that the trial
"failed to demonstrate" the drug was more effective than
traditional chemotherapy.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
mischaracterized the parameters of its trial by representing that
the purpose of the study is to show that the drug would improve
outcomes in subjects "with strongly Stage IV or Recurrent PD-L1+
non-small cell lung cancer."  PD-L1 is a protein that "when present
on healthy cells, prevents the immune system from attacking them,"
which is a mechanism cancer cells replicate to prevent an immune
response against it.  According to plaintiffs, defendants failed to
clarify how much PD-L1 expression was required for a patient to
"strongly" express PD-L1.  After the trial failed, the Company
disclosed that "strongly" meant any patient with at least 5% of
cancer cells expressing PD-L1, and that the study's design
"precluded the researchers from reaching any conclusions about the
efficacy of [the drug] for patients whose expression of PD-L1 were
higher than 5%."  According to plaintiffs, this meant that the
Company "had no means under accepted statistical methodologies of
finding a significant difference between the performance of [the
drug] and chemotherapy."

The Court first considered plaintiffs' scienter allegations and
found that plaintiffs failed to plead facts raising the requisite
"strong inference" that defendants had the motive and opportunity
to commit fraud or that they acted recklessly in "an extreme
departure from the standards of ordinary care."  The Court
initially rejected plaintiffs' contention that defendants had a
fraudulent motive "to protect competitively sensitive information,"
noting that guarding competitively sensitive information is merely
a "generalized business motive."  The Court further found that
plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants would receive any
"concrete benefits" from withholding information concerning the
parameters of the clinical trial, other than the general benefit of
"maintaining the appearance of corporate profitability."
Accordingly, the Court noted that "[i]f scienter could be pleaded
on this basis alone, 'virtually every company in the United States
that experiences a downturn in stock price could be forced to
defend securities fraud actions'" (citing Acito v. IMCERA Grp,
Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir. 1995)).  The Court also rejected
plaintiffs' contention that defendants had a fraudulent motive to
artificially inflate the stock price to sell their personal stock
holdings—finding that two of the six individual defendants did
not sell any stock during the putative class period, and the other
four individual defendants who did sell stock during the putative
class period either increased their overall holdings or maintained
their holdings during the period as a result of stock purchases.
According to the Court, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that that
the stock sales were "unusual" or "suspicious," which undermines
plaintiffs' motive and opportunity allegations.

The Court similarly held that plaintiffs failed to plead facts
alleging that defendants acted in a "highly unreasonable [manner]
which represents an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care."  The Court held that plaintiffs' allegations—(i)
that defendants knew the industry standards with respect to how
"strong" PD-L1 expression is defined given their leading role in
the market, (ii) that defendants had in prior trials "employed a 5%
cut-off to define mere 'positive' expression" of PD-L1 which
contradict their "current position. . . [that it can now] be used
to define 'strong' PD-L1 expression," and (iii) defendants' own
post-clinical trial statements that a 5% cut-off was not
high—"fall far short of [the] demanding standard" of pleading
scienter by recklessness, which requires plaintiffs to plead facts
that "indicate a state of mind approximating actual intent."  In so
holding, the Court noted that "conclusory allegations of
[defendants'] knowledge" do not sufficiently allege their knowledge
of and departure from industry standards.  The Court further noted
that plaintiffs did not allege the Company took the categorical
position in its earlier studies that "strong" compelled a cut-off
of more than 5%, and defendants' post-clinical trial statements
occurred "long after" the alleged misrepresentations were made.
Additionally, the Court found that although a competing
pharmaceutical company defined "strong" PD-L1 expression as 50% or
greater in a similar study conducted shortly after the Company's
study, plaintiffs failed to allege that the competitor's study
"indicated that 'strong' must mean, as a matter of industry
practice, a cut-off greater than 5%."  According to the Court,
"[a]t best, the [competitor's] study could have informed" the
Company how the competitor was defining "strong" in their own
study, which is insufficient to meet the heightened pleading
standards under the PSLRA.  Lastly, the Court rejected plaintiffs'
argument that the alleged "unexpected" departure from the Company
by one of the individual defendants less than six months following
the end of the putative class period provided support for scienter,
finding that such departure did not rise to the level of being
"highly unusual and suspicious."  For these reasons, the Court
found that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter and
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims.

Based on the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims against the
Company and the individual defendants, the Court dismissed the
Section 20(a) and 20A claims as there were no predicate violations
of the Exchange Act under which control-person violations could be
established.  Noting that district courts "typically" grant
plaintiffs at least one opportunity to plead fraud with greater
specificity when claims are dismissed under FRCP 9(b), the Court
granted plaintiffs leave to amend. [GN]


CAREERBUILDER: Class Action Seeks Sales Reps' Unpaid Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a new class action lawsuit has
accused Careerbuilder of underpaying its sales representatives,
allegedly stripping those workers of commissions they had earned.

On Nov. 1, attorneys Myles McGuire, Esq. and Paul Geske, Esq. of
the firm of McGuire Law P.C., filed suit in Cook County Circuit
Court on behalf of named plaintiff Benjamin D. Fongers and
potentially "hundreds if not thousands" of additional plaintiffs
who worked at Careerbuilder.

According to the complaint, Careerbuilder instituted a new
compensation plan in the spring of 2019. Under the previous
compensation plan, sales representatives allegedly were paid
monthly commissions of 4% of monthly net revenue from the sale of
"most Careerbuilder products and services."

Under the new compensation plan, however, the compensation was
allegedly ratcheted down, first to just 0.25% of net revenue, and
then commissions were removed entirely.

According to the complaint, those changes were also applied
retroactively, "meaning that sales representatives who were
promised a commission of 4% on revenue from sales made under the
prior compensation plan were now going to be stripped of those
commissions and only paid a lesser amount (if anything) instead.

" . . . In other words, these employees would be completely unable
to recover past commissions that they were still owed."

The complaint asserts Careerbuilder first encouraged its sales
representatives to "sell long-term, multi-year contracts in order
to ensure a steady stream of income from commissions received under
those contracts," and then took away the income they were
expecting.

The lawsuit alleges Careerbuilder's actions violated the Illinois
Sales Representative Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Careerbuilder to pay
restitution of "any commissions and wages that have been unjustly
withheld," plus interest and attorney fees.

The lawsuit seeks to include as plaintiffs "all current and former
employees" of Careerbuilder who worked as a sales representative
and were allegedly due commissions under the prior compensation
plan, but did not receive them after March 2019.[GN]




CHANNEL SEVEN: Class Action Unlikely Despite AWCC Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bungard and Broede Carmody, writing for Sydney Morning Herald,
report that doubts have been cast over the likelihood of a reality
television class action despite a landmark decision in an
Australian Workers Compensation Commission, which ruled Channel
Seven was the employer of House Rules contestant Nicole Prince and
liable for trauma she suffered on the show.

Kaitlin Ferris, a senior associate at Slater and Gordon, said the
provisions outlined in the Federal Court Act meant the chances of a
class action by other aggrieved reality contestants were "next to
zero."

"It's difficult to imagine there'd be circumstances with a
sufficient amount of people would be affected," she said.

In Australian federal law, a class action must have at least seven
people with the same or similar circumstances.

Ms Ferris said that if a piece of the stage fell on a group of
contestants, for example, it would meet the basic requirements of a
class action if it was found that the employer had been negligent.

"The preposterousness of that scenario indicates how unlikely it is
that you're going to have that amount of people affected in the
same way by a TV network or programming companies conduct," Ms
Ferris added.

She also said that under one of the provisions of the Federal Court
Act, a class action can be broken up for a variety of logistical,
financial and other reasons, or if the cases make more sense to be
brought individually.

"In the case of this woman, if every contestant had been portrayed
in a negative light and each contestant's views were presented to
the others to only show negative thoughts and that had happened to
at least seven of them, you can imagine there might be significant
commonality," she said.

Despite only being handed down by a tribunal and not a court,
Jonathan Mamaril believes the decision "would still be a leading
ruling in the world of reality TV."

Mr Mamaril, a director with NB Lawyers, the Lawyers for Employers,
said the ruling was "pretty consistent" with how employment was
defined in most workplaces and that "there would definitely be
concern" going forward for TV networks.

"If they're an employee, then depending on their contract, they
potentially have entitlements to things like leave and
superannuation," he said.

A network could also be held responsible for illegal activity by
contestants, whereas independent contractors wouldn't be.

Channel Seven have not commented yet on if they will appeal. But Mr
Mamaril said that the risk was that they might lose, and then it
would become stronger case law.

"In the past this has been a grey area. This goes back a long way,
and not just here in Australia where you've got contestants who
come out of the limelight and experience mental health issues or
are convicted of criminal acts."

Tracey Jewel, a former contestant on Married at First Sight, said
she started seeing a psychologist after the show. She was
subsequently diagnosed with PTSD and said that reality TV
contestants should be entitled to worker's compensation.

"We're paid to be on this show," she said. "You're under contract
for two years. If you're under contract, you should have some kind
of duty of care."

Ms Jewel described the ruling as a "very positive step" for the
entertainment industry and said she "never" received any financial
support for ongoing mental health costs from production company
Endemol or Channel Nine.

"We've had suicides in London after Love Island," she said.
"Something obviously needs to change. Maybe this is the catalyst.
I'm not the only one struggling mentally because of this show.

"They've not offered to pay for my psychologist . . . or GP or loss
of income because I've been unable to work. To the people saying,
what do you expect for going on reality TV? I expect a level of
support." [GN]


CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Ogletree Atty. Discuss ERISA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq. -- mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com -- and
Madeline Chimento Rea, Esq. -- madeline.rea@ogletree.com -- of
Ogletree Deakins, in an article for Lexology, report that "late
last year, we wrote about Shore v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Hospital Authority, et al., in which former Atrium Health employees
filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The employees alleged that the
defendants wrongfully treated Atrium Health's employee benefit
plans as ERISA-exempt governmental plans and thus failed to comply
with ERISA. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the ERISA
claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure."

Background

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority (Authority) is a
nonprofit healthcare conglomerate that established and maintains a
pension plan, a 401(k) retirement savings plan, and a health plan.
The Authority treats these plans as exempt from ERISA under the
statute's governmental plan exemption. Under ERISA, a governmental
plan is a "plan established or maintained for its employees by the
Government of the United States, by the government of any State or
political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality
of any of the foregoing."

The court first analyzed whether the Authority was a political
subdivision of North Carolina, applying the test set forth in
National Labor Relations Board v. Natural Gas Utility District of
Hawkins County, 402 U.S. 600, 604–605 (1971). Under this test,
"political subdivisions" are "entities that are either (1) created
directly by the state, so as to constitute departments or
administrative arms of the government, or (2) administered by
individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the
general electorate."

Under North Carolina's Hospital Authorities Act (HAA), the state
authorized cities and counties to create hospital authorities in
the interest of the public health and welfare. The state thus
delegated its authority to the city of Charlotte, which then
created the Authority pursuant to the HAA. According to the court,
the city's creation of the Authority through an enabling state
statute satisfies the first prong of the Hawkins test.

Although only one of the two prongs needs to be satisfied, the
court also examined whether the Authority met the second prong,
i.e., whether the Authority was administered by individuals
responsible to public officials or the general electorate. The
court noted that, according to case law, this prong is satisfied
when public officials have the power to appoint and remove the
entity's governing members.

Here, the Authority's board of commissioners was appointed by a
public official from a list of nominees provided by the board. Even
though the public official historically approved all nominees
provided, he had the power to reject the nominees and request new
nominees. The official also had the power to remove a commissioner
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

Other characteristics of the Authority that further demonstrated
that it was a political subdivision included its power of eminent
domain, its broad grant of authority from the HAA, the
appropriations it received from the general tax fund, the fact that
it was subject to public records laws, and that its commissioners
were not compensated.

The District Court's Decision

The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that
the Authority was a political subdivision of the state and thus
exempt from ERISA. The court did not address whether the Authority
was an agency or instrumentality of the state.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on September 27, 2019.

Key Takeaways

Shore is interesting for two reasons. First, it is a challenge to
ERISA exemptions, similar to cases that have challenged the ERISA
church plan exemption in an effort to apply more stringent ERISA
requirements to non-ERISA plans. Second, it challenges medical plan
fee arrangements in a manner similar to fee challenges filed
against ERISA 401(k) plans. It remains to be seen whether these
types of cases will get any traction. [GN]


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of The Chemours Company (NYSE:
CC). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

The Chemours Company (NYSE: CC)

Class Period: February 16, 2017 to August 1, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 9, 2019

Chemours is a spin-off of the Performance Chemicals division of
industrial conglomerate E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
("DuPont"). Chemours began trading as its own public company in
2015. The spin-off was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement
that required Chemours to protect DuPont for historic environmental
liabilities. The action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions relating to Chemours' statements and accruals for
environmental liabilities arising from its decades-long production,
use, and discharge of chemicals manufactured by the Performance
Chemicals division, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS")—toxic chemicals that have become the basis
for environmental regulatory actions, prosecutions, personal injury
lawsuits, and extensive remediation efforts.

The complaint, filed on October 8, 2019, alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants misled investors by representing that
Chemours had appropriately accounted and accrued reserves for its
environmental liabilities, that the possibility of costs exceeding
accrued amounts was "remote," and that, in any event, additional
costs would not be material. Chemours also assured investors that
its "policies, standards and procedures are properly designed to
prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment,"
and that its "handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous
substances are in accordance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations." As a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours
shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

A series of disclosures beginning on May 6, 2019, culminating on
August 1, 2019 when the Company revealed the truth about its
environmental practices, and that Chemours' liabilities were far
greater than the Company had represented. These disclosures
included the June 28, 2019 unsealing of a complaint Chemours had
filed under seal against DuPont on May 13, 2019, in which Chemours
made detailed allegations that its spin-off from DuPont was part a
deliberate plan by DuPont to rid itself of significant exposures
incurred through decades of PFAS discharge and to unload that
responsibility onto Chemours. These disclosures triggered sharp
declines in the price of Chemours stock. Chemours shares price fell
from $34.18 per share on May 3, 2019 to close at $14.69 per share
on August 2, 2019.

For more information on the Chemours class action got to:
https://bespc.com/cc

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]




CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Gomez Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matilde Yamileh Ulloa Gomez, Laura V. Purca, Abigail Guzman Rivas,
Kevin Alexis Riveras Cornejo, Yessica Magaly Espinoza Canas, and
William Velasquez, On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly
Situated v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 472550V, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Nov. 25, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-03398-DKC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges claims for unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Code
Labor and Employment Article.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Email: mamster@zagfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A. Johnston, Esq.
          Jessica A. Glajch, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 659-6600
          Email: mjohnston@eckertseamans.com
                 jglajch@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Bulat Turner, Esq.
          Hee Won Choi, Esq.
          MARTENSON, HASBROUCK, & SIMON LLP
          3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 909-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 909-8120
          Email: bturner@martensonlaw.com
                 lchoi@martensonlaw.com


COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Class Action Against Schools Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
Dannielle Garcia and Michael Mora, writing for WINK, report that
students sued the Collier County School District. The two sides
just settled the class action lawsuit and it did not cost the
district a dime.

Nehemy Antoine came to Naples from Haiti four years ago. He was
just in time for highschool. "I was excited, you know?" he said. "I
was going to get into a high school with friends and stuff like
that and get access to playing soccer and basketball."

But Antoine said Collier County Public Schools told him he could
not go to Golden Gate High. "It's not fair that they didn't let me
in," he said. "They just said, 'Go away.'" The reason was that
Antoine did not speak English.

Antoine claims Collier County Schools pushed him to enroll in an
adult English program at Lorenzo Institute. The English classes at
the institute would not count toward his diploma. "You shouldn't
have to be with adults who are 25 or older than you," Antoine
said.

It turns out that Antoine was not alone. He and other students
joined together to file a lawsuit. The Southern Poverty Law Center
took the case and Attorney Gillian Gillers represented the
students.

"We're very delighted that our clients stood up for themselves and
for hundreds of foreign-born English language learners," Gillers
said. "That said, that's not right, that's actually illegal."

Gillers argued that Collier County Schools denied students
opportunities available to others. "They're not exposed to the
rigorous high school curriculum or high school activities that you
would be exposed to in a traditional high school setting," she
said.

Now, if Collier County Schools refuses a student to enroll because
of limited English skills, the district must also make it clear
that he or she can appeal. A Collier County Schools spokesman
denied the original allegation. He said if students could not
graduate by age 19, the district recommended non-traditional
programs.

Antoine is proud of the precedent he may have set as part of the
lawsuit. He does not want anyone to say to another person that he
or she is not good enough and does not deserve the same
opportunities as others. "I have siblings younger than me," he
said, "and I don't want anything like that to happen to them or
anybody." [GN]


COMCAST: Old Arbitration Agreement Can't Bar FCTA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in
Atlanta rejected arguments by Comcast that a binding arbitration
clause in its service contract with a former customer bars a
putative class action claiming it pulled Georgian's credit reports
without permission.

The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia said the plaintiff, Michael Hearn, was on the phone with
a Comcast representative discussing renewing his service when the
rep initiated a "hard pull" of his credit score.

A "hard pull" or "hard inquiry" occurs when a creditor checks a
consumer's credit for the purpose of issuing a loan or credit card
and can affect a credit score and remain on a credit report for two
years.

Hearn's complaint said he immediately received a notification that
his credit had been pulled, and a simultaneous notice that his
credit score had dropped.

The putative class action Hearn filed in March said he did not sign
up with Comcast and was not a customer and that the telecom's
representative never requested his Social Security number or told
him his credit would be checked.

The complaint, filed by Mason Law Group principal Jonathan Mason,
said Comcast's "impermissible access of private and confidential
information contained within a consumer's credit report violates
the privacy rights conveyed by Congress in enacting the (Fair
Credit Reporting Act)."

The lawsuit seeks to certify an "impermissible access" class of
anyone in Georgia whose consumer reports "display an inquiry" by
Comcast, and who have no open account with the company and no
record of a request to open one for the last five years.

A second "impermissible use" class would encompass any Georgia
resident whose records were received by Comcast, and for which
there is record that the data was reviewed within the last five
years.

Comcast responded with a motion arguing that Hearn had signed on
with it from 2016 to 2017 and that part of that contract included a
binding arbitration clause specifying that "disputes will be
arbitrated on an individual basis," and that the obligation to
arbitrate "shall survive the termination" of the customer's
service.

The contract included a 30-day opt-out period for the arbitration
clause, Comcast argued, and there is no record that Hearn ever
attempted to do so.

When he contacted Comcast in 2019 to discuss reconnecting his
service, Hearn verified the information on file with the company
was correct and "alleges that as a part of that interaction,
Comcast initiated a credit check without his approval."

Comcast's motion to compel arbitration, filed by Samuel Woodhouse
-- swoodhouse@woodhouselawfirm.com -- of Woodhouse Law and Michael
McTigue Jr. -- mmctigue@akingump.com -- and Meredith C. Slawe --
mslawe@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in
Philadelphia, said Hearn's complaint violates a Federal Arbitration
Act requirement that says any dispute governed by a binding
arbitration agreement must be stayed until such arbitration is
ordered and concluded.

In an order issued Oct. 21, Chief Judge Thomas Thrash disagreed.

Hearn did not dispute that he signed the 2016 contract, Thrash
wrote, but argued he was no longer bound by it after canceling with
Comcast the following year. He also argued that the arbitration
clause did not apply to FCRA claims, and that if it were deemed to
do so, it would be "unenforceable because it is unconscionable."

Thrash agreed with Comcast that the survival clause of the contract
"unambiguously reflects the parties' intent that their agreement to
arbitrate would survive termination of the 2016 Service
Agreement."

But, he said, Comcast's claim that the contract was so broad as to
encompass the FCRA dispute—or any dispute between the parties,
for that matter—cannot pass judicial muster.

"Unlike the standard arbitration clauses typically found in
commercial contracts, the arbitration provision at issue in this
case lacks language limiting the scope of arbitrable claims to
those 'arising out of' or 'relating to' the 2016 Service
Agreement," wrote Thrash, and is "limited only by the requirement
that the claim be 'related to Comcast.' This is, of course, no
limit at all, as any claim brought against Comcast necessarily
'relates' to it in some way."

Under Comcast's reading of the contract, any current or future
claim against it would fall within the scope of the arbitration
agreement, Thrash wrote.

"For example," he said, "if the plaintiff was run over by a Comcast
truck, he would be required to submit his personal injury claim to
arbitration."

Comcast "has not identified a single case in which a court has
compelled arbitration of a claim that was (1) unrelated to the
agreement containing the arbitration provision and (2) arose after
the arbitration provision had expired," Thrash said. "Indeed, the
case law interpreting arbitration provisions like the one at issue
in this case is sparse and largely unfriendly" to its position.

Citing multiple federal decisions, Thrash said he agreed that
absurd results would follow if federal courts compelled arbitration
of claims that are substantively and temporally unmoored from the
agreements containing the arbitration provisions.

State law governing contract construction also weigh against
Comcast, he said, concluding that "no reasonable customer would
have understood himself to be signing over his right to pursue any
claim against [Comcast] in perpetuity simply by signing a work
order acknowledging receipt" of a contract.

"Because the court has determined that the parties did not agree to
arbitrate the Plaintiff's FCRA claim, it does not reach the
question of whether enforcement of the arbitration provision would
be unconscionable," Thrash wrote.

Neither Mason nor Comcast's attorneys responded to requests for
comment on Oct. 22. [GN]


DCD AUTOMOTIVE: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DCD AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC. and DANIEL S.
DAGESSE, Defendants, Case No. 19-1419 (Mass. Super., Nov. 1, 2019),
alleges that DCD Automotive failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday
Premium Pay to its sales employees, as required by state law.

The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current
employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and
related products. These employees work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours
and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law, the
lawsuit says.

DCD Automotive is a company operating a car dealership and selling
vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


DEJA VU: Faces Case Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Case, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. DEJA VU - COLORADO SPRINGS, INC., a Colorado
Corporation; DAVID KRONTZ, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and
DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-03319 (D. Colo., Nov. 22,
2019), is brought for damages arising from the Defendants' evasion
of the mandatory minimum and overtime wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for illegally absconding with the
Plaintiff's tips.

The Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime
pay as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and
other dancers as "independent contractors," according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
her minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked, in
violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2017 until
August 2018.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Colorado Springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Fax: (310) 507-7906
          Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (713) 554-2377
          Fax: (888) 995-3335
          Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Judge to Assess if Workers Can Join Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that one of Georgia's largest school
districts could owe hundreds of millions of dollars to employees
after the state Supreme Court ruled it stopped making retirement
contributions without proper notice.

The 7-0 decision, released on Oct. 21, finds the DeKalb County
district broke its bylaw requiring a two-year notice before ceasing
contributions, upholding an earlier ruling from the Georgia Court
of Appeals.

A teacher and a school counselor sued the district in 2011, but the
suit will likely become a class-action covering the more than
10,000 affected employees.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that in 2009-2010, the
last year DeKalb County funded the benefit, it paid $26.5 million.
If DeKalb County is found liable for that much in each year since,
the 97,000-student district could be ordered to pay more than $250
million, about 20% of its $1.2 billion annual operating budget.

DeKalb County started putting away 6% of an employee's salary, with
no employee match required, after the district withdrew from
contributing to the federal Social Security system. The school
board adopted a bylaw calling for the notice before ending
payments, but waived that bylaw when it stopped contributions amid
recession-driven state budget cuts.

But justices ruled the bylaw was part of an employee's contract and
couldn't be waived.

"Here, the record shows that (the school district) offered their
employees a retirement benefits plan, and also promised to provide
two years' notice before reducing any of the funding provisions of
the benefits plan," Chief Justice Harold Melton wrote in the
opinion. "In exchange, the employees agreed to begin to work or
continue to work for (the district), and to wait until their
retirement to collect these funds."

The school system started a less generous retirement fund in 2015,
contributing 2% of employee salary, if employees match that amount.
Employees also get a state pension.

A DeKalb County Superior Court judge will now determine if other
employees can join the suit in a class action, and then award
compensation.

"Although we would have liked to see a different outcome, we will
move forward with the next phase of this process," Superintendent
Steve Green said. "We value the hard work of all DeKalb County
School District employees. Despite the disposition of this case, we
remain committed to our teachers and employees."

Former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
said a class-action suit would "ensure that everyone who was
impacted by the district's unlawful action is fairly compensated."

"The district says it wants to retain good teachers in the
classroom," said plaintiff Elaine Gold, now a retired teacher. "But
breaking this promise has hurt everyone -- the students, the
community and especially the classroom teachers." [GN]


DELL INC: January 10, 2020 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DELL INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00374-LY
CLASS ACTION
The Honorable Lee Yeakel

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DELL INC.
("DELL") PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM
FEBRUARY 22, 2012, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 22, 2012 (THE
"CLASS")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, that the above-captioned
action (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Litigation, City
of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and the other Class Members, has reached a proposed
settlement of the Litigation with defendants Dell, Michael S. Dell,
Brian T. Gladden and Stephen J. Felice (collectively, "Defendants")
for the sum of $21,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the
Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the
Litigation.

A hearing will be held on January 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. CT, before
the Honorable Lee Yeakel at the United States Courthouse, 501 West
5th Street, Austin, TX 78701, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 13, 2019; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4)
the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with
this Litigation, together with interest thereon (which request may
include an award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995).

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED DELL PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK
DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 22, 2012, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY
22, 2012 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS
LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not received a
detailed Notice as referred to above and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Dell
Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 43306, Providence, RI 02940-3306, or by downloading this
information at www.DellSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release online at
www.DellSecuritiesSettlement.comby February 14, 2020, orby mail
postmarked no later than February 14, 2020, establishing that you
are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, postmarked by December 20, 2019.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dell publicly traded common
stock during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than December 20, 2019, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of
the Class who do not validly request exclusion from the Class will
be bound by any judgments or orders entered in the Litigation
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class
Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is receivedno
later than December 20, 2019:

COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CLERK OF THE COURT
United States Courthouse
501 West 5th Street, Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701

LEAD COUNSEL:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
JOHN L. LATHAM
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: September 26, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
[GN]


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Faces Floyd Suit Over Failure of SCANA Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel R. Floyd, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Deloitte LLP, Case No.
3:19-cv-03304-MBS (D.S.C., Nov. 22, 2019), is brought as a
securities fraud class action arising from the failure of SCANA
Corporation's South Carolina nuclear project.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit arises from one of the most
high profile fiascos in modern South Carolina history--SCANA's
failed $9 billion, decade-long effort to build two nuclear reactors
in South Carolina in partnership with state-owned utility South
Carolina Public Service Authority.

The Plaintiff alleges that Deloitte issued unqualified audit
reports on SCANA and SCE&G's financial statements for the years
ending December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, December 31, 2016, and
December 31, 2017, certifying that it had audited those statements
in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board for the United States and that the statements
presented the financial position of SCANA and SCE&G fairly and in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. SCE&G
(South Carolina Electric & Gas Company) is a subsidiary of SCANA.

Deloitte knowingly or recklessly abdicated its responsibilities in
connection with its audits of SCANA and SCE&G's financial
statements for fiscal years 2014 through 2017, the Plaintiff
contends. Had Deloitte conducted its audits in compliance with
Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and PCAOB standards, the
investors, including Plaintiff and the Class, would have been
furnished with the information that there was concern that the
project would not be finished in time to receive the tax credits.

The Plaintiff also assert that the Defendant and SCANA failed to
disclose the existence of known trends or uncertainties within the
Company regarding the Project, namely, that SCANA was not going to
be able to complete construction of the Project by the end of 2020,
was not going to be eligible to receive $1.4 billion in Nuclear Tax
Credits, and that failure to complete the Project by the end 2020
would have a material unfavorable impact on revenues.

The Plaintiff and the Class purchased SCANA securities at
artificially inflated prices and were damaged thereby when the
price of SCANA securities declined when the truth was revealed. The
price of SCANA securities significantly declined (causing investors
to suffer losses) when the Defendants' misrepresentations, and/or
the information alleged herein to have been concealed from the
market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, and/or the risks
that had been fraudulently concealed by the Defendants
materialized, says the complaint.

Deloitte is the leading auditor of financial statements for the
investor-owned electric utility industry in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryl G. Hawkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARYL G. HAWKINS, LLC
          P.O. Box 11906
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 733-3531
          Email: dgh@dghlaw.net

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Jonothan Tanner Ball, Esq.
          Steven Chase Fann, Esq.
          GORDON BALL, LLC
          7001 Old Kent Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Phone: (865) 525-7028
          Email: gball@gordonball.com
                 jtannerball@gmail.com
                 chasefann@wfptnlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
          JESSEE & JESSEE
          P.O. Box 997
          Johnson City, TN 37605
          Phone: (423) 928-7175
          Email: jjlaw@jesseeandjessee.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW FIRM, PC
          PO Box 11714
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 451-2775
          Email: esullivan@sullivanlaw.com


DIGITAL FEDERAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $1.8MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Stewart, writing for Credit Union Journal, reports that
Digital Federal Credit Union in Marlborough, Mass., has agreed to
pay $1.8 million to settle claims regarding its overdraft
practices.

The $9 billion-asset institution will also forgive roughly $766,000
in overdraft charges that haven't been collected yet, according to
court documents. It also agreed to use ledger balances to calculate
overdraft fees for at least the next three years.

The class action lawsuit claimed that Digital charged members
overdraft fees even when they had enough money in the ledger
balances of their checking accounts, but not their available
balances, to cover a payment. The case also claimed that that the
credit union did not have members properly opt in to its overdraft
program for ATM and debit cards.

A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for December.
Representatives from the credit union did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

The lawsuit was filed against Digital in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts in June 2018 and alleged a number
of claims, including breach of the credit union's overdraft opt-in
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. The CU
initially requested the suit be dismissed but, as reported, a
federal judge ruled the case could proceed.

The class action settlement includes members who were charged an
overdraft fee between June 15, 2012 and June 15, 2019, when they
had sufficient funds in their ledger balance, but not available
balance. The suit also covers members who were charged an overdraft
for an ATM or debit card transaction from June 15, 2017, to Sept.
1, 2018.

A number of credit unions have faced complaints and lawsuits about
their overdraft policies in recent years. United Federal Credit
Union and VyStar Credit Union have also recently settled overdraft
lawsuits. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
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 SCANA Corporation
continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.  

In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that SCANA, DESC, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND
Project.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and
Santee Cooper.

The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract
and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the
defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the
Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are
pending.

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

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.


DOORDASH INC: Driver Must Arbitrate Wage, Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Murphy, writing for New England In-House, reports that a
Whitman DoorDash driver must arbitrate a class action complaint
alleging that the online food delivery dispatcher violated state
law by failing to pay him minimum wage and overtime, a federal
judge in Massachusetts has ruled.

In December 2017, Darnell Austin filed a putative class action in
Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of himself and others who
worked as DoorDash drivers in the state.

The plaintiff alleged the company improperly classified him as an
independent contractor to avoid meeting its obligations under the
Massachusetts Wage Act. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged his
wages fell below the state's minimum wage of $11 an hour for
certain periods when taking into account the fact that the company
did not reimburse him for gas and car maintenance.

DoorDash removed the case to federal court and moved to compel
arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause in the online
contractor agreement Austin executed when he first signed on as a
delivery driver in October 2016.

The plaintiff argued that DoorDash drivers fall within the
"transportation worker" exception to the Federal Arbitration Act
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2001 decision in
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams. On that point, the plaintiff
argued that the prepared meals delivered by DoorDash drivers remain
in the flow of interstate commerce for purposes of the exception --
even for drivers like himself who never cross state lines.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani disagreed and granted the
company's motion to compel in her Sept. 30 order. The judge found
distinguishable cases from other circuits cited by the plaintiff
for the proposition that a worker, or even a class of workers, does
not need to drive across state lines in order to be engaged in
interstate commerce.

The judge explained that the cases on which the plaintiff relied
shared a "unifying theme" in that they involved manufacturers in
interstate commerce that ultimately intended to see their goods
through to the final destination at issue.

"Plaintiff makes no allegation of any tie between the out-of-state
manufacturers of packaged goods and Defendant, such as allegations
that a soft drink manufacturer intended to make its products
available directly to consumers in their homes via Defendant's
service and drivers," Talwani wrote. "Instead, the final
destinations from the vantage point of the interstate food
distributors are the restaurant where Plaintiff picks ups orders,
and not the customers to whom he makes deliveries."

The plaintiff is represented by Boston attorney Shannon E.
Liss-Riordan. Michael Mankes of Boston represents defendant
DoorDash.

The nine-page decision is Austin v. DoorDash, Inc. [GN]


EAST BANK: Faces Muhammad Suit in Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against East Bank Club
Venture, LLC. The case is captioned as Rasul Muhammad, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. East Bank
Club Venture, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07238 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 2, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman.

East Bank Club Venture, LLC offers fitness facilities. The company
provides health clubs, spa, salon, locker rooms, car was, dry
cleaning, physical therapy, children's activity center, physical
sports facilities, and dining services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Joseph Kramer, III, Esq.
          KRAMER LLC
          225 West Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (773) 910-1104
          E-mail: joe@rjklawyer.com


ELECTROCORE INC: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of electroCore, Inc. (ECOR) pursuant
and/or traceable to the company's June 2018 Initial Public Offering
("IPO") and/or from June 22, 2018 through September 25, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for electroCore, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 25, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action, go
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=electrocore-inc&id=2080
  or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose:  (1) the Company's lead product,
gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments
for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) as a result,
doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing
treatments; (3) the Company's voucher program was not effective to
increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) the Company lacked sufficient
resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5) the
Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because
electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6) the
Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate
reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (7) the
lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of
gammaCore; and (8) as a result, electroCore's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

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

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  

Contact:

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



EPSON: Sued Over Third-Party Ink Cartridge Error Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
John Oates, writing for The Register, reports that Epson is facing
a class-action suit from disgruntled US punters sick of being told
what sort of ink cartridges to put in their machines.

Of course it is a cliche of printers that they send dismal warnings
of imminent destruction if owners dare to go with cartridges bought
from anywhere but the machine's manufacturer.

But the US case alleges that Epson went further with firmware
updates that detected third-party ink in printers and simply
disabled them. The suit claims the unofficial cartridges work
perfectly well in machines that have not been updated.

It complains that Epson never warned users that installing the
firmware would remove their ability to use third-party cartridges.

The case names complainants who own Epson WorkForce WF-3640
All-in-One Printer or an Epson XP-830 Small-in-One® printer.

The complaint quotes from Epson's 2018 annual report, which noted
that third-party ink supplies could hit its profits but suggested
it would counter this by emphasising the quality of Epson ink,
rather than knackering machines that were not using it.

The firmware issued error messages stating that the third-party
cartridges were incompatible with the printers, after which the
printers no longer worked.

Cheaper alternative ink and toner suppliers have long been a
bugbear of the print vendors. HP has done its best to rubbish
cloned and remanufactured consumables, highlighting what it claims
are security and environmental issues that buyers should consider.

HP has decided to charge more upfront for customers who buy its
printer hardware but want to use non-HP branded supplies. Those who
commit to using only HP supplies will be able to buy the printer
more cheaply.

Epson refused to comment. [GN]


FCA US: Class Action Over Dodge Dart Clutch Pedals Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge
Dart clutch lawsuit has been certified as a class action, but only
for customers who purchased or leased the cars in California.

The original class action was filed to represent Dart customers
nationwide, including owners and lessees of used cars. But the
lawsuit now includes all consumers who purchased or leased new
2013-2016 Dodge Darts from authorized dealerships in California.

The Darts must be equipped with Fiat C635 manual transmissions and
the cars must have been purchased or leased "primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes."

Plaintiff Carlos Victorino says the Fiat C635 manual transmission
caused his clutch to fail and stick to the floor.

According to the class action, defects in the hydraulic clutch
systems existed since the cars were first sold or leased, defects
that cause the clutch pedal to lose pressure and stay on the
floorboard. This prevents a driver from shifting gears and
allegedly causes a dangerous driving situation that leads to a
stalled car.

FCA issued a technical service bulletin (TSB 06-001-16) entitled
"Clutch Pedal Operation X62 Extended Warranty" because of problems
with contaminated hydraulic fluid caused by the degradation of the
clutch reservoir hose. Dealerships were told to replace the
hydraulic clutch master cylinders and reservoir hoses for 2013-2015
Dodge Darts.

The plaintiff, however, claims the X62 extended warranty failed to
fix the clutch problems and did nothing concerning contaminated
hydraulic fluid which is what damages the components.

According to plaintiff, any repair requires replacement of all
component parts, including the clutch slave cylinder, and cleaning
of any steel tubing with brake cleaner and drying it before
reassembly.

FCA denies there is anything wrong with the cars and told the judge
that even with more than 107,000 miles on the odometer, the
plaintiff's Dodge Dart hasn't showed any signs of clutch problems
caused by a defective reservoir hose.

Chrysler argues an investigation conducted together with the
reservoir hose supplier determined the condition caused by the
defect affects only 16% of 2013-2016 Dodge Darts. According to
Chrysler, the reason only 16% of the cars may be affected is
because each car has component parts that are manufactured
differently.

The automaker also told the judge the existence of the problem
depends on many things, including the amount of plasticizer in the
reservoir hose, the size and position of the clutch system seals
and varying tolerance levels.

The Dodge Dart clutch lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California - Victorino, et al., v. FCA
US LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Capstone Law APC.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the cars.

2013 Dodge Dart
2014 Dodge Dart
2015 Dodge Dart
2016 Dodge Dart
[GN]


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: $17.5M Deal in Homestead Exemption Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that a
superior court judge approved a $17.5 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit over improperly applied homestead exemptions
on Nov. 8, 2019.

According to a consent order issued by Cobb County Superior Court
Judge G. Grant Brantley, Glynn County government and the Glynn
County Board of Education must pay $17.5 million into an aggregate
fund out of which the class members will be refunded.

The county and school board are on the hook for roughly, $6.9
million and $10.6 million respectively.

"Defendant Glynn County shall pay its portion of the Aggregate
Refund Fund in the amount of $6,907,308.20 into the Aggregate
Refund Fund on or before Nov. 20, 2019," Brantley's order reads.

"Pursuant to (state law) the Glynn County Tax Commissioner is
directed to withhold the portion of the Aggregate Refund Fund
representing the percentage of funds received by the Glynn County
School Board in the amount of $10,592,691.72 from 'his next
distribution to the . . . [School Board]' with said amount to be
paid into the Aggregate Refund Fund by Nov. 20, 2019."

If either party fails to make the required payments, interest will
begin accruing at a seven percent annual rate, the order states.

Brantley said on November 8 that he would return to hold another
hearing on Nov. 22 to make sure all parties were complying with the
order.

Attorney's fees and a reward for the class representatives will
come out of the aggregate fund, according to the order.

St. Simons Island law firm Roberts Tate litigated the case on
behalf of the class, and requested $7 million - or 40 percent of
the aggregate fund — in attorney's fees and another $93,455 to
cover expenses incurred over the last seven years.

Brantley wrote in the order that he felt the request was fair as
the firm has been litigating the case for seven years and has,
until now, received no compensation. His order also states that 40
percent is within the range of standard attorneys' fees for tax
refund cases.

The judge also awarded $350,000 to J. Matthew and Elizabeth
Coleman, the class representatives in the case.

"The court finds that as the Colemans provided invaluable
assistance to counsel in these lawsuits by first identifying the
issue concerning the incorrect application of the exemption and
then by, among other things, locating relevant documents,
participating in conferences with class counsel and attending and
testifying at hearings," the order states.

All told, a little more than $10 million remains to refund members
of the class.

The class-action lawsuit goes back to 2012 when the Colemans filed
a lawsuit alleging they had been overcharged on property taxes due
to misapplication of the Scarlett Williams homestead exemption.

In effect, the homestead exemption "freezes" a property's assessed
value at the value of the base year. In the lawsuit, the Colemans
alleged the county had used the wrong base year. It had used the
year they applied for an exemption as the base year, when it should
have used the year before.

For some, this means the county has been overcharging them on
property taxes. For others, it may mean an increase in property
taxes as their base year is changed to a year in which their
property values were higher.

Two more lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 alleged the same thing,
and all three were certified as a single class-action lawsuit in
2015.

Brantley sided with the county in 2017, clearing it of civil
charges.

In March 2018, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed his decision.
The case went to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear
the case later that year in August. As such, the appeals court's
ruling stood.

The county announced a preliminary settlement early last month, and
Brantley approved the settlement on November 8. [GN]



GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Altice USA IPO-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action suit related to
Altice USA, Inc.'s $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering
remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York
Supreme Court, County of Queens and the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018, relating to
Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public
offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Altice and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $368 million.

On May 10, 2019, plaintiffs in the district court filed an amended
complaint, and on June 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the state court
action filed a consolidated amended complaint. On July 23, 2019,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the state
court action.

On October 14, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
the district court action.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit related to Sea
Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering, is
still pending.

Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November
1, 2018 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of
American depositary shares.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote
28,026,721 American depositary shares representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $420 million. On January 25, 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit related to
variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a
putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations
(VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate
complaint7s and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Contribution in SunEdison Suit Paid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the firm
has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlement in
the class action suit related to SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible
preferred stock.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible
preferred stock. The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's
directors and officers.

On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million.

On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class
action was granted in part and denied in part. On February 11,
2019, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the class
action was granted.

On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the
individual actions filed amended complaints.

The defendants have reached a settlement with certain plaintiffs in
the individual actions and a settlement of the class action, which
the court approved on October 25, 2019. The firm has paid the full
amount of its contribution to the settlement.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., together
with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., continues to
defend a putative class action lawsuit in Canada.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's
auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.

The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.
Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $453
million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of
sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in
principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013
Rule 144A offerings.

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

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


GOOGLE LLC: Allen & Overy Atty Discusses Data Protection Case Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Rix, Esq. -- jason.rix@allenovery.com -- of Allen & Overy
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote: Did you have an iPhone in
2011/2012? I still had a BlackBerry. If I had had an iPhone, I
would have been a member of the class of more than four million
users on whose behalf Mr Lloyd makes this claim. It is alleged that
Google tracked, surreptitiously, some of the internet activity of
those users, so infringing rights protected by data protection
legislation. The litigation is interesting for two reasons: it
shows that you can claim damages under data protection legislation
without proving any financial loss or even distress; and, it
considers what is required for a representative action to be
brought for this claim: Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599

Google's "DoubleClick Ad" cookie

At the time Apple's Safari web browser, by default, blocked all
third party cookies. However this prevented some popular websites
from working. Consequently Apple introduced some exceptions.
Google, it is alleged, used these to enable its "DoubleClick Ad"
cookie to be put on a user's device without their knowledge or
consent whenever the user visited a site with Google's content.
This, according to the judge, allowed Google to tell, among other
things, the date and time of any visit, how long the user spent
there, which adverts were viewed and for how long, and the
approximate geographical location of the user (from the IP
address). Over time, it seems, Google was able to build up profiles
of the users who were grouped as, for example, "football lovers",
or "current affairs enthusiasts".

Was damage sustained by iPhone users in the UK?

The backdrop to the case is that Lloyd was seeking permission to
serve the claim out of the jurisdiction on Google in the U.S.. To
do that he had to show that the claim had a reasonable prospect of
success, that there was a good arguable case that the claim
advanced fell within one of the jurisdictional gateways, and that
England was the appropriate place to try the claim. The
jurisdictional gateway in question -- for the tort of breach of
statutory duty -- required that damage be sustained in the
jurisdiction. The question for the Court of Appeal therefore was
whether the impact of the Safari workaround meant that there was a
good arguable case that damage was sustained within the
jurisdiction.

Damage was loss of control of data

A previous decision of the Court of Appeal, also about the Safari
workaround (but not a representative action), had held that damages
for distress were recoverable (Google v Vidal-Hall). But Lloyd's
argument here was that you did not need to show distress, as the
breach alone was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal stated that the question of whether or not the
claimants had "suffered damage" under the Data Protection Act 1998
and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC that stood behind it
(this being a pre-GDPR cause of action) was an autonomous question
of EU law that could differ from domestic law.

Having analysed case law on misuse of personal information,
referencing the importance of there being a damages award for
breach of data protection legislation, and the GDPR, the court held
that damages were capable of being awarded for loss of control of
data under the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and the Data
Protection Act 1998 even if there was no pecuniary loss and no
distress.

In principle, the court said, the damages claimed could be assessed
as "negotiating damages" under the principle set out by the Supreme
Court in One Step v Morris-Garner: a fee for the notional release
of the right. In other words the court could ascertain what price
the iPhone user would reasonably have asked for ceding control of
their personal data.

Who is in the class?

Once the court had analysed the claim as one of compensation for
loss of control of browser-generated information, many of the
concerns of the judge at first instance -- about whether there was
the "same interest" as is required to bring a representative action
-- fell away. Lloyd had deliberately framed the claim as one that
would not take account of any special or individual circumstances.

The judge had also been troubled by how the class would be
identified. He described the idea of relying on disclosure by
Google as "Micawberite" and felt that self-certification by iPhone
users was open to honest error and abuse.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The data that Google held would
identify who was within the class and each affected person would
know whether they satisfied the criteria.

Discretion in favour of allowing claim to proceed

The court held the judge was justified in observing that the main
beneficiaries of the claim would be funders and lawyers, that
litigation would be costly and individual compensation modest, and
that none of the millions of the class had come forward to
complain. However the judge had been wrong to say that you could
not identify the class and to require that the class authorise the
claim (since there was no such requirement).

On this basis the Court of Appeal granted permission to serve
proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Google.

Comment

In Morrisons (which is going to the Supreme Court), the mechanism
for gathering together claimants, for a breach of data protection
legislation, was a Group Litigation Order. The number of claimants
was around 5500 employees. Here, the claimants are using the
representative action mechanism to create a sort of opt-out class
with over four million members.

The finding in relation to damages is, perhaps, less surprising, at
least when viewed from an EU data protection perspective as opposed
to a common law one.

The combination of these two elements is no doubt encouraging to
the "plaintiff bar" that is increasingly active in the UK. [GN]


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lindala Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Lindala moves the court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM LINDALA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01696 (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 avers.

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


HOWARD BEACH: Chader Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amel Chader, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
HOWARD BEACH ANIMAL CLINIC, PC, STEVEN WEINSTEIN, PETER ROUFAIL,
and LUCECITA GURRERA, Case No. 1:19-cv-06611 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay and statutory penalties arising from the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked more than 50 hours per week throughout the
vast majority of her employment. Nonetheless, at no time did the
Defendant pay her overtime at a rate of 1.5 times her regular
hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week, as the Defendants was required to do under the FLSA and the
NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
veterinary technician at Howard Beach Animal Clinic, PC, in October
2014.

HBAC is a full-service veterinary care and animal boarding
facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Greben, Esq.
          LAW OF OFFICES OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
          316 Great Neck Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 304-5357


IFINEX INC: Manipulates Prices of Bitcoin and USDT, Young Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Young and Adam Kurtz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. IFINEX INC.; BFXNA INC.; BFXWW INC.; TETHER
HOLDINGS LIMITED; TETHER LIMITED; DIGFINEX INC.; TETHER OPERATIONS
LIMITED; TETHER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; AND JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No.
2:19-cv-01902 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 22, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act, and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

Tether (USDT) is a blockchain-based cryptocurrency whose
cryptocoins in circulation are backed by an equivalent amount of
traditional fiat currencies, like the dollar, the euro or the
Japanese yen, which are held in a designated bank account.

The Defendants, through their unique control and access to printing
USDT, manipulated prices of Bitcoin by issuing USDT unbacked by a
1:1 U.S. dollar reserve and using the newly created USDT to
purchase Bitcoin through U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchanges
Bittrex and Poloniex. The Defendants' unbacked printing of USDT
artificially inflated the price of Bitcoin, which enabled
Defendants to extract supra-competitive profits from Bitcoin
traders, the Plaintiffs allege.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' analysis demonstrated that Bitcoin
returns generally declined just before the USDT issuance dates and
improved afterwards. Moreover, the Defendants' inside information
about USDT issuances enabled the Defendants to sell Bitcoin once
Bitcoin prices were artificially inflated, thus, permitting the
Defendants to replenish Tether Defendants' U.S. dollar reserves.

In addition, by manipulating the price of Bitcoin, the Defendants
necessarily manipulated the market for derivatives linked to
Bitcoin, including Bitcoin futures traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange and Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Plaintiffs
contend. Bitcoin futures provide a wide variety of market
participants the ability to gain exposure to Bitcoin and hedge
Bitcoin price exposure.

The Defendants' conduct resulted in artificial prices in Bitcoin
and Bitcoin futures, throughout the Class Period, and otherwise
harmed the legitimate forces of supply and demand in the Bitcoin
market and related on-exchange market. The Plaintiffs have been
injured by paying artificial and anticompetitive prices for Bitcoin
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs transacted in Bitcoin during the Class Period at
artificial prices.

iFinex Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
British Virgin Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Phone: 206-652-8660
          Fax: 206-652-8290
          Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 699-1194
          Email: dkovel@kmllp.com
                 klerner@kmllp.com
                 amaneiro@kmllp.com

               - and -

          John Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (646) 245-8502
          Fax: (609) 385-0745
          Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


INFOSYS: Rosen Law Firm Files Investor Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jochelle Mendonca and Anandi Chandrashekhar, writing for ETtech,
report that a US law firm filed a lawsuit seeking damages on behalf
of Infosys investors in a New York court on Oct. 23, posing fresh
challenges for the embattled IT company that is facing increased
regulatory scrutiny on whistleblower charges of financial
malfeasance by top executives.

In India, the BSE has asked Infosys to explain why it did not make
appropriate disclosures about the receipt of the whistleblower
complaint in late September.

The exchange has asked the Bengaluru-headquartered company to
provide an explanation citing Sebi regulations even as Infosys
braces for an inquiry by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

Meanwhile, news agency PTI reported that Sebi has begun a probe
into the matter. ET could not independently verify this.

The class action lawsuit filed by Rosen Law Firm has demanded a
jury trial and accused Infosys of making false and misleading
statements, besides failing to make appropriate disclosures,
according to a statement by the firm.

Infosys did not immediately reply to emails seeking comment on the
lawsuit.

Earlier in the day, a representative of the IT company had said
there were no "further updates" beyond the statement issued to
stock exchanges on Oct. 22.

After the sharpest single-day fall in six years on Oct. 22, Infosys
shares recovered slightly on Oct. 23, closing 1.16% higher at Rs
650.75 on the BSE.

In a statement to regulators, Infosys non-executive chairman Nandan
Nilekani had announced the appointment of law firm Shardul
Amarchand Mangaldas to look into the whistleblowers' charges and
said the executives who had been implicated -- CEO Salil Parekh and
CFO Nilanjan Roy -- had been recused from the investigation.

"The board in consultation with the audit committee will take such
steps as may be appropriate based on the outcome of the
investigation," Nilekani said. The board discussed the charges made
by the whistleblowers on October 11, but the company did not
immediately inform the regulators or investors.

The whistleblowers, in their letters to the SEC as well as the
Infosys board, had alleged malfeasance in the way the company was
calculating revenue and margin. The group, which termed itself
"ethical employees", claimed to have shared emails and audio
recordings to support its charges. ET has reviewed a copy of the
letter.

'SEC may be interested'

Legal experts are of the view that the SEC would likely take notice
of the charges.

"From what I have seen of the letter, the allegations appear to be
from credible, well-placed whistleblowers. (They) are making
allegations of current misbehaviour that includes C-suite
executives," Erika Kelton, a Washington DC-based lawyer at the firm
Phillips & Cohen, told ET. "These are the types of cases that the
SEC is very interested in."

In his statement on Oct. 22, Nilekani had indicated the board had
not been provided any voice recordings or emails containing
evidence of alleged wrongdoing.

Governance experts said the whistleblowers would have shared such
evidence with American regulators to establish greater credibility
for their charges.

"If the recordings and mails have been sent to the US SEC, there
could be a shade of credibility in the allegation . . . with the US
SEC, the speed of decision-making and pressure created (could be
factors). In the US, there are multiple class action lawsuits,
whereas in India there are hardly any," said JN Gupta, managing
director of Stakeholders Empowerment Services -- a proxy advisory
firm.

Recording audio without permission is an infringement of privacy in
India, said Ashish Pyasi, associate partner at law firm Dhir and
Dhir Associates. "The people whose privacy has been infringed upon
can sue those who have made the recordings for damages," he added.
[GN]


INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Kent Challenges Sale to One Rock Affiliates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INNOPHOS HOLDINGS, INC., GARY CAPPELINE, JANE HILK, KIM
ANN MINK, LINDA MYRICK, KAREN OSAR, JOHN M. STEITZ, PETER T.
THOMAS, and ROBERT J. ZATTA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02193-UNA (D. Del.,
Nov. 25, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Innophos will be acquired by Iris Parent LLC and Iris Merger
Sub 2019, Inc., which are affiliates of One Rock Capital Partners,
LLC.

On October 20, 2019, Innophos' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with One
Rock. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Innophos'
stockholders will receive $32.00 in cash for each share of Innophos
common stock they own.

On November 14, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Plaintiff alleges.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections, omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor (Lazard Freres & Co. LLC) in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, and fails to disclose the timing and
nature of the past services Lazard provided to the parties to the
Merger Agreement and their affiliates, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Innophos common stock. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing
the Plaintiff and the Company's stockholders to approve the
Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and misleading
statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff contends that
Class members are threatened with irreparable harm.

Innophos is a leading international producer of essential
ingredients. The Company partners with world-leading health and
nutrition, food and beverage, and industrial brands to create
science-based solutions that improve quality of life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


J&M SECURITIES: Averts Suit Over Unauthorized Practice of Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a "judgment
enforcement firm" and its owner are off the hook in a proposed
class action alleging the owner engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law when requesting the garnishment of wages and bank
accounts, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.

But the would-be class lawsuit wasn't frivolous, the court said,
affirming that J&M Securities LLC shouldn't get attorneys' fees for
having to defend the case.

J&M Securities isn't a law firm, and Shannon Metzger, its owner,
isn't a lawyer, according to the court. Metzger filed J&M's
garnishment application forms and interrogatories in court in an
effort to collect on unpaid-rent judgments against Velma Mitchell,
Tanisha Winston, and Kayla Sanders. J&M had obtained the default
and consent judgments by assignment or in other ways.

Mitchell, Winston, and Sanders sued the collection firm and Metzger
on behalf of a proposed class of hundreds of Missouri residents
whose wages or bank accounts J&M sought to garnish.

Only a licensed Missouri attorney could "submit court filings" on
J&M's behalf, and as a limited liability company, it could not do
so itself, they allege, arguing Metzger and J&M engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.

The trial court dismissed the suit, saying a 1997 Missouri Court of
Appeals precedent controlled the issue. It declined to award
attorneys' fees to the defendants, however.

The appeals court said that in the intervening years since that
ruling, a pre-printed form has become the vehicle for such
garnishment requests, and the earlier case didn't address filing
interrogatories, the appeals court said.

Nonetheless, "No legal skill, knowledge or discretion was required
to fill in any of the information required by either of these
forms—only a basic ability to put factual information into the
correct box," it said.

Mitchell, Winston, and Sanders, in arguing the precedent doesn't
apply, presented a nonfrivolous case and shouldn't be sanctioned,
Judge Robert G. Dowd Jr. said.

Judges Robert M. Clayton III and Roy L. Richter also served on the
panel.

Butsch Roberts & Assocs. LLC represented the plaintiffs.

Frankel Rubin Klein Siegel Payne & Pudlowski PC represented the
defendants.

The case is Mitchell v. J&M Sec., LLC, 2019 BL 404866, Mo. Ct. App.
E.D., No. ED107431, 10/22/19. [GN]


J.W.-YHTIOT: Finland Consumer Watchdog Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Uutiset reports that the consumer ombudsman plans to put a stop to
the prohibitive costs associated with payday loans by gathering
names for a possible class action suit against two quick loan
firms.

The ombudsman wants more reasonable terms for loans that are not
covered by new rules aimed at capping prohibitively high interest
rates on consumer credit. If the lawsuit proceeds to court, it will
be the first time the authority pursues such action against quick
loan firms.

The Competition and Consumer Authority, KKV, is currently preparing
legal action against two payday loan companies. The suit calls on
the Lahti-based J.W.-Yhtiot and Euro24 Finance from Turku to void
customer agreements or alternatively, to halve the annual interest
costs generated by their loans.

Both Euro24 Finance and J.W. Yhtiot, the firm behind the
Suomilimiitti payday loan provider, have been on the market for
about three years. The authority is initially seeking an
out-of-court settlement. However if the lenders don't agree to its
demands, it will become the first class action suit to be tried in
Finland.

The consumer ombudsman can take the matter to court on behalf of
customers if enough of them indicate that they are dissatisfied
with the terms of their agreements and would like to change them.
Class action legislation does not define the number of plaintiffs
required for a class action lawsuit.

One month to gather plaintiffs
The authority said that it is taking the matter to court based on
the number of people who come forward within one month to say that
they are dissatisfied with their current payday loans. The lawsuit
could focus on either one of the companies and any collectors to
whom bad debts were sold could also find themselves embroiled in
the case.

If the payday firms bow to the ombudsman's first demand, consumers
will only have to pay back the capital that they borrowed, without
interest or other costs. However if the parties don't reach an
out-of-court settlement, and the ombudsman and other plaintiffs win
the lawsuit, consumers will have to pay the equivalent of a maximum
50 percent of the real annual interest rate on their loans.

The case will lower costs that plaintiffs pay on their loans by
hundreds of euros. Officials do not know how many people have
borrowed money from the firms named in the suit. It is also unclear
how much consumers in Finland have borrowed from payday firms
overall, a situation confirmed by analysis conducted this autumn by
the authority.

A spring review by Finnish banks indicated that consumers had drawn
down around 660 million euros in quick loans in 2017. However they
accounted for only a small portion of the rapidly-growing consumer
debt stock.

Legal reforms aim to protect consumers
The authority pointed out that there have been dozens of operators
similar to the two firms it identified offering credit at
exorbitant interest rates, although there were variations in their
loan terms and conditions.

Finland first introduced the option of class action lawsuits about
10 years ago. The government tabled a proposal to allow consumer
protection officials to address extortionate interest rates by
imposing substantial financial penalties against offenders.
Authorities hope such sanctions would persuade the industry to
comply with consumer protection laws in a business that the Bank of
Finland has described as very profitable.

Legislative reforms designed to afford consumers greater protection
came into force this autumn. The changes mean that new consumer
loans -- including payday loans -- cannot charge more than 20
percent interest and loan administration fees have also been
capped. In addition, firms that do not comply with the interest
rate ceiling will no longer be allowed to charge interest or any
other fees.

Before the reforms took effect, interest rates were only regulated
on loans with a value of less than 2,000 euros. As a result, loan
firms have been offering credit valued at 2,000 euros and above
with real annual interest rates of over 1,000 percent annually.
[GN]


JP MORGAN CHASE: Sued by Laser for Violating Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and WHAT CHEER III LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-06645-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019), seeks to redress
the Defendants unlawful disability discrimination against the
Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The services, features, elements and spaces of the Defendants'
place of public accommodation are not readily accessible to, or
usable by the Plaintiff as required by the ADA, according to the
complaint. The Defendants' place of public accommodation has not
been designed, constructed, or altered in compliance with the
Accessibility Standards and the Administrative Code. Because of the
Defendants' failure to comply with the laws, the Plaintiff was and
has been unable to enjoy equal and complete access to the
Defendants' place of public accommodation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult female confined to a wheelchair, who is
required to use a wheelchair as a result of being diagnosed with
Multiple Sclerosis.

The Defendants are public accommodations as they own, lease, lease
to, control or operate a place of public accommodation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Maker Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------
FindBiometrics.com reports that Juul Labs has become the latest
company to get hit with an Illinois class action lawsuit for
gathering biometric information without proper consent. The
e-cigarette manufacturer uses biometrics to verify the ages of
customers on its website, and while the information does allow Juul
to confirm that online shoppers are legally old enough to purchase
vapes, the process may not be compliant with the requirements in
the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

BIPA is currently the most comprehensive data protection law in the
United States, and has ensnared a growing roster of large and small
companies since the legislation went into effect.  Dr. Pepper,
Vimeo, and the Chicago Heating Company have all become the targets
of BIPA complaints in the past few months, while the embattled
startup WeWork is facing a similar class action lawsuit for using
facial recognition to keep tabs on people in its shared workspaces.


The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently noted that BIPA is a
groundbreaking piece of legislation precisely because it allows
common citizens to file complaints against larger corporations. The
privacy watchdog made those comments in relation to the Facebook
class action lawsuit that has been making its way through the
courts since 2015.  [GN]



KIA: Settles Class Action Over Fire Issues for $750 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke, writing for wsoctv.com, reports that Action 9 has
followed mounting cases of Hyundai and Kia vehicles randomly
catching on fire and injuring people.

The carmakers agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit, which could
result in a $750 million payout to customers.

More than four million cars and SUVs could be affected.

"I was just driving down the road, and I had both hands on the
wheel, and I realized I had no power steering and, immediately, I
went for the brake," driver Michaela Fink said. "I didn't have any
brakes and then (I) saw smoke everywhere."

She was driving a Kia Optima in Stallings.

"I started seeing flames and I thought, 'I'm about to die,'" Fink
said.

Debi Morris said her Kia Soul wasn't moving when the car burst into
flames in front of her house.

"And all I could think about, 'Was it was going to blow up?'"
Morris said.

The Center for Auto Safety has received more than 230 complaints of
Hyundais and Kias catching fire without being in a wreck.

CAS officials said that at least six people have been hurt in the
fires, which prompted the agency to push the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to investigate.

CAS urged Hyundai and Kia to issue recalls and in January, the car
companies did that.

Vehicles recalled:

2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
2013-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
2019 Hyundai Santa Fe
2014, 2015, 2018 and 2019 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2019 Kia Sportage, Sorento and Optima
*All with 2.0-liter and 2.4-liter GDI engines.

Customers sued the automakers the next month and in April, the
NHTSA launched an investigation.

"We were pleased to see, finally, the federal government take these
Kia and Hyundai fires seriously," said Jason Levine, who is with
CAS.

The lawsuit could also give customers lifetime warranties, free
repairs and new software for their vehicles.

"I'm really glad," Fink said. "I'm really glad that they're finally
doing something about it."

Hyundai said in a statement: "This settlement acknowledges our
sincere willingness to take care of customers impacted by issues
with this engine's performance."

Kia said in a statement: "This resolution is the result of
good-faith efforts among all parties to resolve owner concerns."

If your vehicle is one of the ones on the list, you should get a
notice in the mail.

There will, typically, be a settlement website with important
dates. [GN]


LOGITECH INC: Court Denies Porath's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled JAMES PORATH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOGITECH, INC.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-03091-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Alsup overrules all evidentiary objections.

At the hearing, the Plaintiff's counsel stated that he had another
California plaintiff waiting in the wings. Judge Alsup rules that
this order now gives the Plaintiff's counsel yet another chance to
seek to add a new proposed class representative. The new deadline
will be December 19, 2019.

Plaintiff Porath will remain an individual plaintiff, Judge Alsup
states.  If a new representative is not timely proposed, Judge
Alsup says, then, the Plaintiff's counsel will likely have to
provide notice to absent class members of the demise of this class
action.

In this consumer putative class action, the Plaintiff moves to
certify two classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  However, the proposed class representative, a
three-time convicted felon, cannot be trusted as a fiduciary to
lead any class, Judge Alsup opines.  Judge Alsup explains that Rule
23(a)(4) is not satisfied and the Court finds that the Plaintiff
cannot fairly and adequately protect the interest of the proposed
class.

Logitech manufactures, distributes, and sells a computer speaker
system called the "Logitech Z200."  The complaint alleges that
Logitech falsely and deceptively advertised its Z200 speakers as
containing four drivers when two of those "drivers" did not
independently produce sound and were merely parasitic.  In brief,
speaker systems contain a component called a "driver," which is an
electromagnetic coil that turns modulated electrical signals into
sound waves.  So, the greater number of drivers, the louder,
perhaps richer, the sound.

In May 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant putative class action,
alleging three claims: (i) common law fraud; (ii) violation of
Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; and
(iii) violation of Section 17500 of the California Business and
Professions Code.  He sought to represent a nationwide class of
"[a]ll individuals in the United States who purchased Logitech's
Z200 stereo sound system," and a California subclass of "[a]ll
members of the [n]ationwide [c]lass that are domiciled in the State
of California."[CC]


LOUISIANA: SPLC Files Class Action v. DOH
-----------------------------------------
Emily Enfinger, writing for Shreveport Times, reports that the
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has filed a class action lawsuit
against the Louisiana Department of Health claiming it has failed
to provide mental health services to Medicaid-eligible children and
families in the state.

The complaint was filed Thursday, Nov. 7, 2019, in the U.S.
District Court of the Middle District of Louisiana and names
Rebekah Gee, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, and
the department as defendants.

The suit seeks a court order to require the state to fulfill its
obligation under law to provide the necessary services for children
with mental health needs and to prevent the unnecessary risk of
institutionalization. It also asks for a grant class certification
to include all Medicaid-eligible children and youth under the age
of 21 with a psychiatric illness, including children with severe
emotional disturbances.

It was filed by SPLC and its partners at the National Health Law
Program (NHeLP); the National Center for Law and Economic Justice
(NCLEJ), the Advocacy Center of Louisiana; and O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, on behalf of the children and their parents.

"We're filing this lawsuit because the state's failure to provide
these critical mental health services, as required by federal law,
is further harming children and youth," said Kimberly Lewis, Esq.,
an attorney for the National Health Law program, in a news
release.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are children who have intensive
mental health needs that are reportedly not being met or have been
institutionalized in facilities far from their families and
communities.

"Instead of addressing the mental health conditions of children and
youth by providing services and supports they need to succeed at
home, in school and in their community, the state's failure to
provide these services is resulting in them unnecessarily cycling
through hospitals and institutions, or ending up in the juvenile
justice system," Lewis said.

"These children and youth deserve a better chance for success."

One of the plaintiffs, named in the document as "B.B.", is a
13-year-old Medicaid recipient who lives in Caddo Parish. The teen
is diagnosed with multiple mental illnesses and conditions,
according to the court document.

"B.B.'s mental health needs have gone untreated to the point that
she is at serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization," it
read.

Another plaintiff, a 13-year-old Medicaid recipient living in
Rapides Parish, named "D.D.", also is diagnosed with multiple
mental illnesses and conditions. He has mental health needs that
have gone untreated and is at the point where is at "imminent and
unnecessary institutionalization."

D.D. is in need for constant medical attention because he has a
pacemaker, according to the court document.

"The Techniques used in institutional placement are even less
appropriate for him than other children because of his heart
condition," the document read.

Other children listed as plaintiffs are from East Baton Rouge,
Terrebonne and Pointe Coupee parishes. Their ages range from 11 to
13 years old.

"These children deserve the dignity of receiving quality mental
health services that allows them to lead healthy and productive
lives in their homes and communities," Victor Jones, Esq., SPLC
senior supervising attorney, said in a news release.

"In Louisiana, children with mental health needs are frequently
placed in hospitals and other facilities that do not adequately
address their needs. We are filing this lawsuit on behalf of the
approximately 47,500 children in the state who are in need of
intensive home and community-based services, which the state is
obligated to provide."

Kelly Zimmerman, press secretary at the Louisiana Department of
Health, told The Times the department is unable to comment on
current litigation. [GN]



MARATHON PETROLEUM: Former Andeavor Employees Sue Over Bonuses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Ngai and Scott Deveau, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that two former Andeavor employees have sued Marathon Petroleum
Corp. in Texas, alleging that bonuses they were promised before the
two refiners combined last year weren't honored despite
assurances.

In the lawsuit filed on Oct. 22 in Texas state court, Carol Garner,
Andeavor's former director of business improvement, and Dana
Harvey, former director of business insurance, said that Marathon
didn't fulfill its commitment to pay their full non-prorated 2018
incentive compensation program bonuses after the acquisition of
Andeavor in October of that year. [GN]


MARIETTA OPCO: Gammon Contests Deduction of 30-Min. Lunch Break
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Gammon and Cynthia Wilson on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. MARIETTA OPCO, LLC D/B/A ARBORS AT MARIETTA,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05140-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 22, 2019), is
brought to challenge the Defendant's payroll policies and practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio
overtime compensation statute.

The Defendant requires its non-exempt hourly employees to take a
30-minute unpaid lunch break in the course of the work day.
Accordingly, 30 minutes or working time is automatically deducted
per shift from its non-exempt hourly employees' payroll records.
However, the Defendant's operational needs frequently required
non-exempt hourly employees to work throughout their scheduled
shift without taking the 30-minute lunch break.

Accordingly, the Defendant's payroll practice of automatically
deducting for a lunch period resulted in non-exempt hourly
employees not being paid for all their hours worked, resulting in
unpaid overtime for the Plaintiffs, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the
Ohio Class, says the complaint. The Defendant, nevertheless,
willfully refused to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs,
the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class.

The Plaintiffs were employed as Registered Nurses by the Defendant
at its Marietta, Ohio facility.

The Defendant is a Limited Liability Company organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware and registered to do business in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


MAZDA MOTOR: Reaches Settlement in Class Action Over Airbags
------------------------------------------------------------
Epiq Class Action Services, which is acting as the court-appointed
settlement notice and claims administrator, announced that three
class actions have been certified for settlement purposes in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Stevenson et al. v. Mazda
Canada Inc. et al., CV-18-607848-CP and McIntosh v. Takata
Corporation et al., CV-16-543833-CP and in the Quebec Superior
Court, District of Montreal in E. Vitoratos and A. Frey v. Takata
Corporation et al., Court File No.: 500-06-000723-144.

Who is affected?

There are proposed settlements of class action lawsuits that were
filed in Ontario and Quebec against Mazda, Subaru and Toyota
concerning certain purchased or leased Mazda, Subaru, Saab, Lexus,
Scion and Toyota vehicles distributed for sale or lease in Canada
(collectively as "Subject Vehicles").  A full list of the Subject
Vehicles can be found at www.autoairbagsettlement.ca, which will be
operational shortly.  The settlements do not involve claims of
personal injury, wrongful death or actual physical property damage
to any property arising from an accident involving a Subject
Vehicle.  Mazda, Subaru and Toyota deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and the Courts have not made any determinations on the
merits of the cases.  

What about the approval hearings?

The Courts will hold settlement and counsel fees approval hearings
for all three settlements in Toronto on February 11, 2020 at 10:00
am and in Montreal on February 17, 2020 at 9:00 am .

What is the settlement relief?

Outreach Program:  The proposed settlements provide outreach
programs with the goal of increasing Takata recall remedy
completion rates among customers of the three automakers through
traditional and non-traditional means.

Customer Support Program: The proposed settlements provide
prospective coverage for repairs and adjustments (including parts
and labor) needed to correct defects, if any, in materials or
workmanship of Takata phase stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN")
inflators contained in the driver or passenger front airbag modules
or any replacement inflators installed as part of the recall
remedy, subject to the terms and conditions of each agreement.

Out-of-Pocket Claims Reimbursement Program:  The settlements
reimburse class members for certain reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses that were not otherwise reimbursed and that were
necessarily incurred and/or directly associated with the
performance of the Takata recall remedy, subject to certain terms
and conditions.  To be eligible for reimbursement, class members
must submit a timely and fully completed claim form(s) with
supporting documentation by certain deadlines.

What are my options?

If the settlement(s) is/are approved, and class members do nothing,
they will remain in the class(es) and be eligible to receive the
benefits of the settlement(s), but will not be able to sue Mazda,
Subaru and/or Toyota.

Class members have the right to appear in court(s) to object to the
proposed settlements.

Class members can exclude themselves from the class action(s) by
January 17, 2020 .  If they do so, class members will not get any
settlement benefits, but maintain the right to sue Mazda, Subaru
and/or Toyota about the issues in the lawsuits.

The full length notices describing how to obtain settlement relief
and object to the settlements, or exclude oneself are available at
www.autoairbagsettlement.ca.

For more information or to obtain a claim form(s), call
1-833-430-7539 or visit www.autoairbagsettlement.ca. [GN]



MCKESSON CORPORATION: Johnson Fistel Investigates Claims v. D&O
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, is investigating potential claims on behalf of
McKesson Corporation (NYSE: MCK) against certain of its officers
and directors.

Recently, a class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
McKesson and certain of its executives survived Defendants'
attempts to have the case dismissed.  The case arises out of
whether McKesson and certain of its executives made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Company's financial performance and its generics business.
Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges that defendants: (1)
falsely attributed generic drug price inflation to nonexistent
supply disruptions; (2) falsely represented that McKesson was
negotiating competitive prices for certain of its customers; (3)
concealed that a generic manufacturing subsidiary of the Company
was part of an overarching generic pharmaceutical price-fixing
conspiracy that is the focus of federal and state investigations;
and (4) failed to disclose that the Company's financial results
during the period between October 23, 2013 and January 25, 2017
("Class Period"), were positively impacted by, and heavily reliant
upon, collusive profits.  As a result of the forgoing, the class
action alleges, McKesson stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of McKesson stock, you
may have standing to hold McKesson harmless from the alleged harm
caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them
personally responsible.  You may also be able to assist in
reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future
wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.
If you email, please include your phone number.

Additionally, if you are a current, long-term holder of McKesson
stock, you can [Click here to join this action].  There is no cost
or obligation to you.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia.  The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.  For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com/

Contact:

         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com
[GN]



MENN LAW FIRM: Settlement in Cole FDCPA Suit Wins Prelim. Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach grants preliminary approval to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
in the lawsuit captioned KAITLYN COLE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MENN LAW FIRM, LTD., Case No.
1:19-cv-00527-WCG-JRS (E.D. Wisc.).

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and for settlement purposes only, the Court certifies this action
as a class action.  The Court also:

   (a) defines the "Settlement Class" as:

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

   (b) defines the "Class Claims" as those Fair Debt Collection
       Practices Act claims arising from Menn's collection
       letters in the form of Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint;

   (c) appoints the Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   (d) appoints STERN THOMASSON LLP as Class Counsel; and

   (e) appoints Class-Settlement.com as the Third-Party
       Administrator to send notice of the Settlement to Class
       Members and administer the Settlement.

The Court approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs
that it be mailed to the last known address of Class Member as
shown in Menn's business records.  The Administrator shall mail the
Class Notice to Class Members on or before November 29, 2019.

Class Members shall have until January 13, 2020, to exclude
themselves from, or object to, the Settlement. Any Class Members
desiring to exclude themselves from the Settlement must serve their
request on the Administrator by that date.

Any Class Members, who wish to object to the Settlement must submit
their objection in writing to the Clerk of Court and serve a copy
on the Administrator.

Any lawyer who intends to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing also
must enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel with the Clerk
of the Court no later than January 13, 2020, and shall include the
full caption and case number of each previous class action in which
that lawyer(s) represented an objector.  To be effective, any
request for exclusion or objection must be postmarked by January
13, 2020.

If not already filed, Menn shall, within seven days of this Order,
file with the Court its proof of compliance with the notice
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715(b).

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement
and whether final approval shall be given to it and the requests
for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on February 7,
2020, at 2:30 p.m.[CC]


MICROTEL INNS: Sued by Geno for Violating FCRA Consumer Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rylee Geno, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v.
MICROTEL INNS AND SUITES FRANCHISING, INC., a Georgia corporation;
MORGAN HILL LODGING LLC, a California limited liability company; K
PARTNERS HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS, a Texas corporation;
WYNDHAM HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV358953 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Nov. 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar
California laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to
conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective,
current and former employees, and use information from credit and
background reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated current, former and prospective
employees, seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to the
Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from November 19, 2018, through November 21, 2018.

MICROTEL INNS & SUITES FRANCHISING, INC. is a Georgia company doing
business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Class Defective Boat Owners Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled VISION POWER, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and GREGG WILLIAMS, individually v. MIDNIGHT
EXPRESS POWER BOATS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
0:18-cv-61700-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order certifying their lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Gregg Williams as
Class Representative, and to appoint The Miller Law Firm, P.C., as
Class Counsel.

The lawsuit is a nationwide class action brought on behalf of
approximately 76 owners of defectively designed and manufactured
Midnight Express open 34', 37' and 39' center-console boats sold
from 2012 to the present ("Open Center-Console Powerboats").

The Open Center-Console Powerboats share similarly designed and
installed center consoles, which can unpredictably and dangerously
detach from the boats' decks during normal and customary usage, and
result in severe harm (possibly death) to persons situated on these
boats, as well as property damage, the Plaintiffs allege.

On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs were towing their Midnight
Express 34' open powerboat ("Powerboat") behind a large yacht on a
calm and clear day in the Bahamas when the crew of the yacht looked
astern at the Powerboat, and noticed the center console had become
detached from the deck and fallen backwards, causing extensive
damage to the Powerboat ("Incident").

Luckily, the Plaintiffs say, nobody was on board the Powerboat at
the time of the Incident.  Had any person been sitting at the helm
station, as would be the case when the Powerboat was under
operation, he or she would have been severely injured when the
console's hardtop came crashing down, they assert.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc L. Newman, Esq.
          Seth D. Gould, Esq.
          Paige M. Szymanski, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com
                  sdg@millerlawpc.com
                  pms@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          James R. Dunn, Esq.
          JAMES R. DUNN, P.A.
          Courthouse Square Building
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 402
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 684-3535
          E-mail: James@AttorneyJamesDunn.com


MIDWEST GAMING: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
country's second largest retail pharmacy chain and Illinois'
busiest casino have each been hit with class actions under an
Illinois biometrics privacy law, accusing the companies of
illegally tracking their customers' movements using video
technology.

On Oct. 15, lawyers with the firm of Werman Salas P.C., of Chicago,
and of Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP, of New York, filed suit in Cook
County Circuit Court against Midwest Gaming & Entertainment LLC,
the owners of Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. The named plaintiff in
that putative class action was identified as Leon Martin.

That was followed on Oct. 16 by a class action in Cook County court
against Walgreens. Attorneys with the firm of McGuire Law P.C.
brought that lawsuit on behalf of named plaintiff
Peter Bonahoom.

The lawsuits against both companies said they had violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The law, on the books
since 2008, had been intended to prevent the unwitting collection
and disclosure of individuals' so-called biometric identifiers,
such as fingerprints, facial geometry and retinal scans, among
others. The law had been inspired by a prominent data breach more
than a decade ago, which placed a large number of people at
heightened risk of identity theft.

The lawsuit against Rivers Casino targeted the casino's use of
facial recognition technology in its video surveillance system to
track the movements of people within the casino. The lawsuit said
the technology creates a digital record, unique to each person,
using each person's facial geometry. When paired with information
from the casino's customer rewards program, the facial recognition
system can create a way for the casino to identify people as they
move about the gaming floor and elsewhere in the casino.

According to the lawsuit, which cited the most recent annual report
from the Illinois Gaming Board, the casino drew in nearly 3 million
visitors in 2018 alone, collecting gross revenues of more than $441
million, fourfold more than any other Illinois casino. The casino
welcomed more than 8,100 guests per day in 2018, the complaint
said.

The complaint seeks to sue on behalf of everyone who was a member
of Rivers Casino's rewards program since October 2014. The
complaint estimates the class of plaintiffs "includes hundreds and
likely thousands of members."

According to the complaint, the casino did not obtain written
authorization from casino patrons before scanning and storing their
facial geometry, nor did it provide the notices allegedly required
by the Illinois BIPA law.

The lawsuit filed against Walgreens levels similar accusations.

However, in that case, the lawsuit targets Walgreens' deployment of
so-called digital cooler doors. The doors, which the company began
testing in January, according to a report published in the Wall
Street Journal, use a system of sensors and cameras to scan and
record customers' actions and choices at the coolers in which it
displays its assortment of chilled beverages, ice creams and other
refrigerated or frozen food and drinks.

The technology then allows Walgreens to target customers with
advertisements and coupon offers, displayed on the cooler doors, as
they browse the stock.

According to the lawsuit, these digital cooler doors have been
displayed at Walgreens stores in Chicago and elsewhere in
Illinois.

The lawsuit asserts Walgreens did not obtain authorization from
customers before scanning their faces, and then allegedly shared
that information with "third parties." The complaint does not
identify those "third parties."

The lawsuit would seek to include anyone "whose biometrics were
captured, collected, stored, used, transmitted, or disseminated" by
Walgreens in Illinois using the digital cooler doors.

The complaint estimated the class could include "thousands of
members."

The lawsuits seek damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, which
could be defined under the law as each time a person's facial
geometry was scanned, meaning potential damages could quickly mount
into the millions of dollars.

The lawsuits come in the wake of recent lawsuits filed against home
improvement retailers Home Depot and Lowes, accusing those
retailers of violating the BIPA law by recording customers' facial
geometry as part of anti-shoplifting video technology allegedly
used at those stores.

A rising tide of class actions under the BIPA law have also
targeted a host of businesses, from tech titans like Facebook and
Google, to health care providers and factories in Illinois who use
fingerprint scanners to track employees' work hours, purportedly to
reduce workplace fraud.

The lawsuits particularly surged this year in response to an
Illinois Supreme Court ruling earlier in 2019, which found
plaintiffs don't need to prove their identities were stolen or
placed at risk, or otherwise suffered some other actual harm from
the collection of their fingerprints, facial geometry and other
biometric identifiers to sue. [GN]


MYRIAD GENETICS: Zhang Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Myriad Genetics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MYGN) between September 2, 2016 and August 13, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 26, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the case go:
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=myriad-genetics-inc&id=2034
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GeneSight lacked
evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their
current form, including their purported benefits; (2) the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight
and questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (3)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (4) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl – and thereby, Foresight – caused the Company to incur
the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded
carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually
did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue (5) as a result, Myriad's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  

Contact:

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




NAT'L ASSOCIATION: Misinterprets Consent Decree Says Justice Dept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the U.S.
Justice Department has stepped into a court fight against the
Chicago-based National Association of Realtors, asserting the
realtors association has incorrectly claimed the Justice Department
and a federal judge have approved association rules concerning home
listings and broker pay, which have been targeted in an antitrust
suit.

A suit was lodged March 6 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, centering on the Multiple Listing Services
(MLS). The MLS are regional databases of properties on the market.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) requires brokers who
belong to the NAR to list properties on an MLS, according to the
suit.

The NAR's MLS rules allegedly compel the seller's broker to offer
compensation to the buyer's broker, even though the buyer's broker
is working solely on behalf of the buyer, the suit said. Further,
compensation must be offered to every buyer's broker, regardless of
their experience, the services they furnished and their
arrangements with the buyer, the lawsuit said.

Competition among brokers and buyers has been "restrained,"
plaintiffs alleged, possibly costing consumers $30 billion per
year. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to bar the alleged practice and
damages to be determined at trial.

Named plaintiffs include Christopher Moehrl, Michael Cole, Steve
Darnell, Valerie Nager, Jack Ramey, Daniel Umpa, Jane Ruh and
Sawbill Strategic Inc. They sold their real estate in several
states.

The NAR is a defendant. Also named as defendants are what the suit
says are the four top real estate brokers in the nation: Realogy
Holdings, of Madison, N.J.; HomeServices of America, of
Minneapolis; RE/MAX, of Denver; and Keller Williams Realty, of
Austin, Texas.

The NAR has argued its MLS system was "explicitly permitted by the
Department of Justice in a consent decree," which was approved by
Chicago Federal District Judge Matthew Kennelly.

In a recent brief filed in federal court, the Justice Department
said the NAR is wrong.

The department and the NAR entered into a consent decree in 2008,
which prohibited the NAR from barring or impeding brokers from
using virtual office websites, as opposed to brick-and-mortar
offices. The decree came about because the NAR had rules that
allegedly thwarted the effectiveness of websites operated by
brokers, the department said.

However, nothing in the case addressed the allegation made in the
MLS class action, the Justice Department said in a recent brief
filed in federal court.

"The consent decree resolved the United States' antitrust claims
against NAR for its exclusionary policies targeting brokers using
innovative platforms. In that case the United States did not
examine the rest of NAR's policies, including those at issue here,
and therefore those policies simply were not subjected to antitrust
scrutiny. Importantly, those other policies were in no sense
analyzed and found consistent with antitrust laws. NAR attempts to
give the decree much broader significance, but it does so through
an imprecise reading of the decree," the Justice Department
argued.

The department added that Judge Kennelly may have approved the
decree, but the decree did not concern the MLS rules in question,
so the judge was not, in turn, approving those rules.

U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood is presiding over the class action.
A status hearing is Dec. 12.

Plaintiffs have been represented by the following firms: Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, of Chicago; Handley, Farah & Anderson, of
Washington, D.C.; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, of Chicago; Teske,
Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, of Minneapolis; Susman Godfrey LLP, of
Houston; Wright, Marsh & Levy, of Las Vegas; Wexler Wallace LLP, of
Chicago; Gustafson Gluek PLLC, of Minneapolis; and Justice Catalyst
Law, of Brooklyn.

Defendants have been represented by attorney Jack Bierig and others
at the firms of Schiff Hardin LLP, of Chicago; Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, of Philadelphia;  Barnes & Thornburg, of Indianapolis;
Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee; Holland & Knight, of Tampa, Fla.; and
Jones Day, of Chicago. [GN]


NATIONAL FUNDING: Flo-Tech Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
FLO-TECH MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities v. NATIONAL FUNDING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07765 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought for claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Defendant transmitted (or caused to be transmitted) an
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to the Plaintiff's facsimile
number. The Subject Facsimile was sent by the Defendant without the
Plaintiff's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or
otherwise, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation, located in Addison,
Illinois.

The Defendant offers loans and leases to small businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 581-5456
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


NATIONAL PACKAGING: Sued by Guzman for Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Libna Guzman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. National Packaging Services, Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-01722-NJ (E.D. Wis., Nov. 22, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to seek redress for the Defendant's
failure to pay to them overtime pay required by the FLSA and
Wisconsin law.

During the past two years Ms. Guzman, like all other hourly
employees at NPS' Cudahy facility, frequently worked schedules that
would require her to work 48 hours during a week, so that she
frequently received overtime pay. During workweeks that she
received shift differential pay, or earned a production bonus, or
formed a portion of the time period for which she received an
attendance bonus for her good attendance during the time period,
Ms. Guzman still received overtime pay equal to no more than 1 .5
times her base hourly wage rate, says the complaint.

NPS, thus, applied to her, just like it applied to each of its
hourly employees at its Green Bay and Cudahy facilities, its
uniform policy of excluding shift differential pay, production
bonuses, and attendance bonuses when computing their regular rate
for overtime pay, Ms. Guzman contends.

Libna Guzman first worked as a Machine Operator Helper, and then as
a Machine Operator at the Defendant's facility located at Cudahy,
Wisconsin.

NPS is a Wisconsin corporation operating numerous facilities
located in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, specifically in Green
Bay and Cudahy, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          Joe Sexauer, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Phone: 414-271-4500
          Fax: 414-271-6308
          Email: yh@previant.com
                 jms@previant.com


NCAA: Fitzgerald Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Fitzgerald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-04650-JMS-MJD
(S.D. Ind., Nov. 22, 2019), seeks to obtain redress for injuries
sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the
health and safety of generations of American student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other American
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them,
the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former American football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries, says the complaint. As
such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to
vindicate those players' rights and to hold the NCAA accountable.

Terrence Fitzgerald is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Massachusetts.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Greensboro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: 713.554.9099
          Fax: 713.554.9098
          Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.589.6370
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          Email: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: 415.212.9300
          Fax: 415.373.9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEW YORK, NY: Transit Authority Sued for Inadequate Notice of Fines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a group of commuters claiming the New York City
Transit Authority violated their rights by issuing default
judgments for alleged violations and sometimes seizing tax returns
without adequate notice has asked a federal court to grant it class
status. [GN]






NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
D.M. Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class
action lawsuit can proceed against aerospace giant Northrop
Grumman, after a federal judge ruled in favor of former employees
arguing that they and others were entitled to severance pay that
they never received.

U.S. District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Illinois approved the class for the first
count of the claim, for benefits due and clarification of rights
under the severance plan.

The suit was filed by former employees Alan Carlson and Peter
DeLuca, who were among a group of employees laid off in 2013 from
Northrop Grumman subsidiary Northrop Grumman Technical Services
Inc. The employees say that under Northrop Grumman's severance
plan, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, they
were entitled to continued benefits and severance pay they never
received.

According to the complaint, layoffs were typically accompanied by a
memo explaining to the laid-off employee the severance benefits to
which they were entitled. This memo was typically viewed as a
perfunctory part of the layoff process and had no bearing on
whether employees actually received benefits. In 2012, the
plaintiffs say, the company changed its policy so that only
employees who received a memo would receive severance pay. The
decision of whom would receive pay was left to front-line
supervisors. Regardless of whether employees received the memo,
however, they continued to receive medical, dental and vision
benefits as part of their severance.

The plaintiffs argued that because the verbiage of the plan did not
change, the company had no right to change its policy, making the
memo a necessary component of the severance package. They asked the
court to certify a class of all people who worked more than 20
hours a week for Northrop Grumman and were laid off in 2012 or
later without receiving a memo notifying them of their eligibility
for severance benefits.

The plaintiffs allege Northrop Grumman interpreted the severance
plan inconsistently by providing benefits regardless of whether an
employee received the memo but paying out cash severance only to
those who received the memo. They also took issue with the fact
that the memo was not a condition of receiving severance until
2012.

Northrop Grumman argued that some people did not receive a cash
severance for reasons that had nothing to do with the memo, such as
failure to return a separation agreement. To address this concern,
Wood recommended the class definition be altered to specify that
the class incorporates people who did not receive a cash severance
because they did not receive the memo.

The court did not certify the class for the second count of the
claim, that employees were deprived of their plan rights to limit
the company's costs. The plaintiffs argued that they were denied
their severance pay because they qualified for a large amount of
pay, but Wood found this claim may not satisfy the typicality or
numerosity requirements for a class action.

In their third claim, the plaintiffs sought class-wide reformation
of the plan to remedy Northrop Grumman's change to the way it
administered the plan. The court found this also did not satisfy
the typicality requirement for a class action, since the class as
defined includes people who were not yet employed by Northrop
Grumman when the change to benefit administration took place.

Although Wood did not certify the class for the second and third
counts of the claim, she left the door open for the plaintiffs to
revise the class definition or claims and file a new motion.

Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Michael Bartolic and
Rebecca Kay Bryant, of Chicago, and Robert J. Barton and Vincent
Cheng, of Block & Leviton LLP, of Washington, D.C.

Northrop Grumman has been defended by attorneys from the firm of
Mayer Brown LLP, of Chicago. [GN]


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings,
Inc. (OLLI) between June 6, 2019 and August 28, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 18, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=ollies-bargain-outlet-holdings-inc&id=2028
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose: (1) the Company suffered a
supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at
new stores; (2) as a result, the Company lacked sufficient
inventory to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as a
result, the Company's comparable store sales were likely to
decrease quarter-over-quarter; and (4) as a result, Ollie's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

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

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.

Contact:

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



OSTERMAN PROPANE: Delivery Driver's Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that delivery
drivers can proceed as a class in their lawsuit alleging a propane
company made them do some work-related duties during their lunch
breaks, a Massachusetts federal court ruled.

Osterman Propane LLC operates 11 branches across Massachusetts.
Daniel Walker and Robert Piskadlo sought to represent over 100
propane delivery drivers in a class action alleging that Osterman
underpaid them for meal breaks in violation of the Massachusetts
Wage Act.

The drivers claimed that Osterman didn't pay them for meal breaks
even though they weren't fully relieved of work duties during that
time. [GN]




PG&E CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:
PCG).  Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG)

Class Period: December 11, 2018 to October 11, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019

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

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

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

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

The complaint, filed on October 25, 2019, alleges that throughout
the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PG&E's
purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and
procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for which they
were ostensibly designed; (ii) as a result, PG&E was unprepared for
the rolling power cuts the Company implemented to minimize wildfire
risk; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the PG&E class action go to:
https://bespc.com/pcg

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



PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Parties' Accord for Class Cert. Gets Ct. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., approves the parties' Stipulation
to Conditionally Certify Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and Proposed Notice Procedures in the lawsuit titled
CALLUM SAVAKUS-MALONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PIRAMAL CRITICAL CARE, INC., MASIS STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 5:18-cv-05063-JFL (E.D.
Pa.).

The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is dismissed
as moot.

All parties agree that the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification is moot in light of their stipulation to conditional
certification.[CC]


PROGENICS: Johnson Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ERIC J. ENDE, BRADLEY
L. CAMPBELL, DAVID W. MIMS, KAREN JEAN FERRANTE, ANN L. MACDOUGALL,
GERARD BER and HEINZ MAUSLI, Case No. 1:19-cv-02183-UNA (D. Del.,
Nov. 22, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the other
public holders of the common stock of Progenics against the Company
and the members of its board of directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
proposed merger between Progenics and Lantheus Holdings, Inc.

On October 1, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.2502 of a share of Lantheus common
stock for each share of Progenics stock they own. Upon completion
of the merger, Progenics shareholders will own approximately 35%
and Lantheus shareholders will own approximately 65% of the common
stock outstanding.

On November 12, 2019, in order to convince Progenics shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of the Exchange Act, Mr. Johnson alleges.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Mr. Johnson asserts, the
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially
incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
the Defendants in recommending that Progenics shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Progenics' financial advisor,
Jefferies LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.

Mr. Johnson avers that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these
reasons, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Progenics common stock.

Progenics is an oncology company focused on the development and
commercialization of targeted medicines and artificial intelligence
to find, fight and follow cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 482-3182
          Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL: Muhammad Sues Over Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
RASUL MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07244 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 2, 2019), arises
from the Defendant's failure to make its Web site accessible by
blind and visually-impaired individuals.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant's failure to
make its Web site available in a manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs, thus, deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby,
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among these Americans
that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was meant to
redress.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.1 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately 260,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of Illinois.

"Being unable to access Web site puts individuals at a great
disadvantage in today's society, which is driven by a dynamic
electronic marketplace and unprecedented access to information."
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Statement of Eve L. Hill before the Senate
Comm. On Health, Educ., Labor & Pensions, at 3 (May 14, 2013).

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA, under
42 U.S.C. section 12102(1)-(2), and the regulations implementing
the ADA set forth at 28 CFR section 36.101 et seq.

The Plaintiff requires screen-reading software to read Web site
content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200,
the lawsuit says.

Providence Financial provides holistic financial, estate, and tax
planning education and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Kramer, Esq.
          KRAMER INJURY LAW LLC
          225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1012
          Facsimile: (312) 626-2408
          E-mail: Joe@rjklawyer.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Maryville Takes Part in Opioid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Jones, writing for The Daily Times, reports that Maryville
legal representation has officially signed a contract making it
part of a class-action lawsuit against giant opioid producers and
manufacturers, this just before attorneys general for four southern
states announced a push for $48 billion in payouts to thousands of
governmental entities.

Though Blount County legal representation was the first local
entity to sign on to the lawsuit, Maryville followed months later
after deciding the same firm representing the county would be most
beneficial for the city as well.

Alcoa's attorney Stephanie Coleman told The Daily Times after an
Oct. 8 board of commissioners meeting the city was also considering
entering into the suit and was aware of the route Maryville and the
county were already taking.

Melanie Davis, attorney for Maryville, said in a phone interview
that City Manager Greg McClain had approved the legal action and
Davis signed a contract on Oct. 17.

The contract makes Maryville one of many plaintiffs represented by
Alabama firm Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas, & Bowling P.C. Bundling
those plaintiffs together saves the many governmental entities who
have suffered as a result of the opioid epidemic from having to
file individually and manage the subsequent costs.

"The contract provides that we're not going to be out any money,"
Davis said. "They're going to advance all of the costs . . .
there's no way we're going to lose money."

There are 20 major drug companies on the case which was set for
trial in Cleveland, Ohio, in October. Counties in Ohio received
payouts totaling $250 million on Oct. 21 after a settlement from
McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen and Teva
Pharmaceutical.

Davis said that the city's suit is against several companies
including Purdue Pharma and is potentially more lucrative than
other, more popular options.

"We just think ultimately the recovery is going this other route,"
she said, noting that the bundle Maryville and Blount have joined
is not part of a suit Tennessee's attorney general wants to
pursue.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery and four other attorneys
general from North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas responded to
the multi-million dollar Ohio settlement in an
Oct. 21 phone press conference, saying it was an important step
forward. They then proposed their own $48 billion settlement
against two opioid producers and five distributors.

Slatery said the state's suit is not only seeking settlement money,
but looking to change the companies' practices through injunctions
as well.

"Part of the problem is that we really haven't known what's going
on," Slatery said during the conference. "This set of injunctive
terms basically outlines, this is what you must do, and it's
separate from what . . . we want them to pay."

But while the state's representation may want big pharma to mend
its ways, small governmental entities just want to recoup the
resources and cost of having to manage the opioid epidemic.

Coleman and Davis have said discretion for how to spend the funds
may be up to the city governments and local law enforcement leaders
say the money can be used to make up for the hours and money spent
dealing with things like overdoses.

Davis said she along with the other entities represented by the
Alabama firm are now playing a waiting game.

But settlement may come sooner than expected.

"It does seem to be moving kind of fast," Davis said, remarking on
the Oct. 21 settlement and the subsequent $48 billion proposal. But
she's being cautious as she represents Maryville's stake in the
game. She received a 'giant' box of documents regarding the
settlement Slatery is working on, but said she will wait for legal
advice from the Alabama firm on what to do with it.

"I don't know what they're going to tell me to do as far as that
other lawsuit," Davis said. "I don't want to make it look like
we're trying to take out of too many pots. I just want to take out
of the right number of pots."

The question of what pots to take out of is a significant one for
many public entities now jumping on the pharma suit wagon.
Currently, with so many moving parts still in play, lawyers are
still unsure on exactly which suit will result in the most money.
[GN]


PURE DEBT: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Discovery Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that "If I've said it
once I've said it a hundred times, class discovery in TCPA cases
often determines the course and outcome of the case. There is
generally no need, for instance, for a Defendant to produce class
merits discovery -- information regarding the merits of an
individual TCPA class member's case -- prior to the certification
stage. Nor is there any need for the identity of class members
pre-certification. Yet Defendants often are forced to produce this
information either due to a failure to strike an improper class
definition, or due to the assertion of unsupported boilerplate
objection. And when faced with the prospect of producing such
expensive, invasive and expansive information -- including huge
amounts of sensitive consumer or financial data -- Defendants are
often forced into a position of settling a case they would
otherwise desire to fight. "

"While I have reported on disastrous TCPA discovery orders many
times in the past, I am pleased to report on a positive outcome.
In Boehm v. Pure Debt Solutions Corp., Case No.:
8:19-cv-00117-LSC-CRZ, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177676 (D. Ne. Oct.
11, 2019) the Court bifurcated discovery to allow discovery to
proceed solely as to the claims of the named Plaintiff. If this
request is properly made this relief is commonly granted in TCPA
class actions where a clear merits defense exists as to the claims
of the named class representative. (Indeed, I earned an order of
this sort way back in 2013 and have had numerous similar results
since.) "

"But the Court was also concerned about data preservation issues
and, as such, ordered the Plaintiff to serve a preservation order
to the major cellular carriers to preserve their regular business
records concerning all calls from the Defendant's out pulse
numbers. That way Plaintiff could be assured that no data would go
missing and the claims of class members would not be prejudiced by
the bifurcation.  The Court was clear that although the data would
be preserved there would be no need to produce the data at this
time.

"The bifurcation coupled with preservation approach taken by the
Court in Boehm makes perfect sense -- the data is identified and
preserved (assuring the Plaintiff will have access to the data when
it is actually needed in the litigation) but the expense of
compilation and production is not undertaken until that need
arises. When one considers the call of Rule 26 to assure that
discovery is proportionate to the needs of the case it is clear
that TCPA class actions should rarely merit the production of the
massive amounts of consumer data class counsel often seek. The
production is simply needless pre-certification and risks data
breaches and violations of privacy inimical to the
consumer-protection purposes of the TCPA. "

Keep Boehm in mind folks. [GN]


QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded
Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD).  Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 6, 2020
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quad-graphics-inc-loss-form?wire=3&prid=4272


Quad/Graphics, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or
misleading statements during the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was
underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest
its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to
decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible
while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its
quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Quad/Graphics, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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



RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-resideo-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it has filed a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of Resideo
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:REZI) common stock during the period
between October 29, 2018 and October 22, 2019 (the "Class Period").
This action was filed in the District of Minnesota and is captioned
St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Resideo
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-02863.

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

The Resideo class action lawsuit charges Resideo and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Resideo purports to be a global provider of products, software,
solutions, and technologies that help homeowners stay connected and
in control of their comfort, security, and energy use. The Company
also provides home heating, ventilation and air conditioning
controls and security solutions and is a distributor of security
and low-voltage electronic products. The Company was formed through
a spin-off from Honeywell International Inc. on October 29, 2018.
That same day, Resideo stock began trading on the NYSE under the
ticker symbol "REZI," opening at $28.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Resideo's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the negative
operational effects of the spin-off were more substantial and
persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the Company's
product sales, supply chain, and gross margins, putting Resideo's
fiscal 2019 financial forecasts at risk, and that, as a
consequence, the Company's financial guidance lacked a reasonable
basis and the Company was not on track to make its fiscal 2019
guidance as defendants had claimed. As a result of defendants'
material misrepresentations and omissions, Resideo stock traded at
artificially inflated prices of more than $26 per share during the
Class Period.

Then, on October 22, 2019, Resideo issued its preliminary financial
results for the third quarter of 2019, announcing that it had
missed revenue and earnings targets and was lowering its recently
reaffirmed revenue outlook for fiscal 2019 by $80 million. Also on
October 22, 2019, the Company announced that the Company's CFO
would be leaving as of November 6, 2019. Following these
disclosures, Resideo's stock price declined more than 40%, from a
close of $15.23 per share on October 22, 2019 to a close of $9.50
per share on October 23, 2019.

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

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

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

Contact:

         Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]



RIVERS CASINO: Faces Class Actions Over BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
FindBiometrics reports that a pair of class action lawsuits have
recently been filed in Illinois against Rivers Casino in De Plaines
and retail giant Wallgreens, with plaintiffs claiming state laws
were broken when their facial biometric geometry was recorded
without their consent.

The lawsuits claim that plaintiffs' rights were violated under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008 (BIPA), which
requires written authorization and notices to be posted when an
individual's biometric identifiers are to be recorded. A biometric
identifier in these cases would be facial geometry, fingerprints,
and retinal scans.

The use of biometric facial recognition technology in casinos for
security has been adopted around the globe in recent years but this
isn't the only use for it. Konami Gaming announced a new loyalty
program that would use biometric facial scans of players to record
their facial geometry as a way of tracking and rewarding their play
instead of the tradition card-based loyalty programs many casinos
currently offer.

In the Wallgreens case, the lawsuit stems from the retailers' use
of digital cooler doors, which the company began testing in January
of this year. The doors use biometric sensors and cameras to record
a customers' choices when purchasing chilled beverages, ice creams
and other refrigerated drinks from the coolers. The data obtained
is then used to target customers with advertisements and discount
offers that are displayed on the cooler doors as they browse the
stock.

Similar to the Rivers Casino case, the lawsuit against Wallgreens
states they did not seek the consent of the customers to record
their biometric identifiers upon entering the store.

There has been a surge in lawsuits under the BIPA law -- which
stems from a prominent data breach more than a decade ago that
placed a large number of people at heightened risk of identity
theft -- with home improvement retailers Home Depot and Lowes also
seeing actions against them regarding the use of biometric scans
implemented in an anti-shoplifting initiative earlier this year.

The lawsuits have been bolstered by an Illinois Supreme Court
ruling in January where it was established that plaintiffs aren't
required to provide proof of their identities being stolen or
placed at risk by the defendants if they were obtained in violation
of the BIPA law. [GN]


RTR ENVIRONMENTAL: Lister Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward B. Lister, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. RTR ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, Case No.
5:19-cv-01092-D (W.D. Okla., Nov. 22, 2019), is seeking
compensation for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs,
attorney's fees and other legal and equitable relief provided by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, an adult African American male, who resides in
Oklahoma County, also asserts a claim for race discrimination in
employment.

When the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a week, the Company
paid him for the hours in excess of 40 under the title of
"commission." The "commission" was actually the Plaintiff's hourly
rate of pay times the hours over 40, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant never paid him the
required time and a half for the hours in excess of 40 hours per
week. The Defendant recorded the hours of work of the Plaintiff and
the members of the proposed class, knew they were working more than
40 hours per week, knew that each was entitled to overtime pay, and
deliberately created a scheme to avoid payment of overtime, the
Plaintiff asserts.

RTR Environmental, LLC, a business entity doing business in
Cleveland County, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Hammons, Esq.
          HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
          Email: amber@hammonslaw.com


SCOTT FARMS: 2 Classes of Migrant Workers Certified in Mondragon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Louise W. Flanagan grants the parties' joint motion
for class action certification in the lawsuit entitled RICARDO
MONDRAGON, EUSTORGIO ESPINOBARROS FELICIANO, JUAN CONTRERAS,
CUTBERTO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ GONZALEZ, RENATO ROMERO
ACUNA, JOSE TAPIA, ANASTACIO LOPEZ SOLIS, and ABDON QUIRASCO
SIXTECO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons v. SCOTT FARMS, INC., ALICE H. SCOTT, LINWOOD H. SCOTT,
JR., LINWOOD H. SCOTT III, DEWEY R. SCOTT, JFT HARVESTING INC.,
JUAN F. TORRES OASIS HARVESTING, INC., and RAMIRO B. TORRES, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00356-FL (E.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on May 15, 2018,
alleging claims for relief under four legal theories.  In the Third
Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Espinobarros Feliciano, Contreras,
Romero Acuna and Quirasco Sixteco (collectively "FLSA plaintiffs")
assert an Fair Labor Standards Act collective action seeking
payment of back wages and liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) based upon the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
the FLSA plaintiffs and the members of the collective action that
they sought to represent the overtime rate required by Section
207(a) of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs also alleged two separate class actions under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), and an additional class
action claim under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act ("AWPA").

The Plaintiffs and Defendants have negotiated a settlement
agreement in this action, which includes relief on a class wide
basis for the Plaintiffs' claims under the AWPA and NCWHA for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Adverse Effect Wage Rate
("AEWR"), and relief for a collective action of similarly situated
employees for the Plaintiffs' overtime claims under the FLSA.

For settlement purposes only, the Defendants consent to and join in
the Joint Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
("Joint Motion") pursuant to the Settlement Agreement reached
between the parties, which is the result of compromise to resolve
the disputes between them and does not constitute an admission of
any liability to any party.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties
define the two classes as:

   (1) AWPA Class:

       All non-H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (as
       the terms "migrant agricultural worker" and "seasonal
       agricultural worker" are defined in 29 U.S.C. Sections
       1802(8) and 1802(10) and 29 C.F.R. Sections 500.20(p) and
       500.20(r)) who were employed by one or more of the
       Defendants to perform any job task listed in the H-2A
       clearance order or any job task actually performed by any
       H-2A worker at Scott Farms from September 15, 2014 through
       August 14, 2019; and

   (2) NCWHA #1 Class:

       All non-H-2A farmworkers who were employed by one or more
       of the Defendants when, during the time period covered by
       an H-2A clearance order for work to be performed at Scott
       Farms, they performed any job task listed in the H-2A
       clearance order or any job task actually performed by any
       H-2A worker at Scott Farms from July 17, 2015 to
       August 14, 2019.[CC]


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of SmileDirectClub, Inc.
("SmileDirectClub" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SDC) between September
8, 2019, and October 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan seeks to recover damages for SmileDirectClub
investors under the Securities Act of 1933.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 2, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that administrative personnel,
rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's
customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under
applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of
dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was
overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive
marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) 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.

On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by
dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub,
alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%,
to close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The price stock continued to decline over the
next two trading sessions by $2.74, or over 17%, to close at $12.94
per share on September 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from the $23 per
share IPO price.

If you purchased SmileDirectClub securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/smiledirectclubincorporated-sdc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-195/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact:

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




SOUTHLAKE, TX: Faces Watson Suit in Texas Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of
Southlake. The case is captioned as James H. Watson, Petitioner, v.
City of Southlake, Respondent, Case No. 19-0993 (Tex. Sup., Nov. 4,
2019).

Southlake is a city located predominantly in Tarrant County with
minor areas extending into Denton County in the U.S. state of
Texas.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Russell J. Bowman, Esq.
          Scott A. Stewart, Esq.
          BOWMAN & STELLA
          800 W Airport Fwy., Suite 860
          Irving, TX 75062-6287

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wayne K. Olson, Esq.
          George A. Staples Jr., Esq.
          MARGOLIN, WINER & EVENS LLP


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Guzman Sues Over Passes to Skip Airport Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CINTYA LARIOS GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62725-BB (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 1, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's
unlawful practice of selling passes that purport to allow its
customers to skip airport security, when the Defendant often has no
intent or ability to provide such a service.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offers its customers the
opportunity to pay for the ability to "skip" the normal airport
security line. A customer can do this by purchasing Spirit's
"Shortcut Security" option for $6-$8 at designated airports in the
United States. According to its description, Spirit's Shortcut
Security option is supposed to be a separate line distinct from the
general security line, which is faster for Spirit customers that
pay the fee.

The ability to bypass the busy security line at Los Angeles Airport
("LAX") has immense value, and almost all travelers, who have been
to LAX know what a benefit said service would be, the Plaintiff
asserts. As such, thousands of Defendant's customers would happily
pay $8 to skip the security line at LAX.

However, the Plaintiff contends, Spirit is able to offer this
service at such an inexpensive rate because the service is
illusory. In fact, there generally is no way to skip the normal
airport security line apart from having a TSA "Precheck"
designation. Most airports in the United States do not allow
airlines to conduct security themselves or to contract for a
shorter security line available for only one airline carrier's
customers.

Spirit's Shortcut Security agreement is distinct from the airline
ticket sale known as the Contract of Carriage and is sold to the
customer during the check-in process, which is generally much
shorter and provides far less opportunity to review any selections
made.

Indeed, a quick google search reveals that most, if not all, of the
airports at which Spirit offers their "Shortcut Security" pass do
not actually offer a "Shortcut Security" line. Even though Spirit
knows that it cannot provide any "Shortcut Security" service, it
continues to offer and sell it to consumers, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's conduct in selling its
"Shortcut Security" service is unlawful, deceptive, unfair and an
ongoing violation of the rights of its customers. Further, the
Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased such a
service from the Defendant had they known that it had no way to
fulfill what they contracted to purchase.

The Plaintiff seeks injunction requiring the Defendant to stop
advertising and selling its "Shortcut Security" passes and to
comply with Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and
common laws, as well as an award of actual and compensatory damages
to the Class, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Virginia.

Spirit Airlines is a budget airline that forgoes many of the
comforts and amenities that other airlines provide in order to sell
flights at a lower rate than many of its competitors. To make up
for its lower fares, Spirit charges its passengers extra fees for
almost every convenience incident to the flight itself.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Healy, Esq.
          DUDLEY, SELLERS, HEALY, HEATH, & DESMOND, PLLC
          Sun Trust Financial Center
          3522 Thomasville Road, Suite 301
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: 850.222.5400
          Facsimile: 850.222.7339
          E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


SPOTIFY USA: People Aren't Getting Paid After $43.5M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that back
in 2017, Digital Music News broke the story that Spotify had agreed
to settle Ferrick, et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., a massive copyright
infringement lawsuit with independent songwriters and publishers.
The out-of-court settlement allowed Spotify to close its case,
avoid any claim of legal liability, and move on with its
multi-billion-dollar public offering.

The settlement was officially signed by a federal judge in 2018.
Now that the money is due in 2019, however, nobody seems to be
getting paid.

According to information shared with DMN, the class action payout
process is now riddled with problems. Those include flat-out
non-responses, major errors in matching ISRCs with actual
recordings, and other logistical problems. Jeff Price, founder of
Audiam, part of SOCAN, told us that initial requests to match data
and make claims were not receiving responses. Even worse, the
assigned claims administrator, a company named Epiq, seemed largely
unaware that the claims process was underway.

Don't blame Spotify, however.  Once the matter was officially
resolved, Spotify deposited $43.5 million into an interest-bearing
escrow account, then walked away.  The rest was out of their
hands.

So, who's hands is the matter with now, exactly?

Interestingly, the plaintiff's lawyers in Ferrick v. Spotify
received more than $13 million in fees after the settlement.
Subsequently, the court appointed Gradstein & Marzano, P.C. and
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as 'Class Counsel' to oversee the
distribution process. Those same attorneys don't seem to be
coordinating any of the details, however.

Price told us neither were responding to inquiries or taking any
noticeable interest in the distribution process. The claims seemed
to going into a black hole.

The non-responses and frustrations forced Jeff Price to directly
email presiding judge Alison Nathan on October 18th.

"We are having problems with the administrator hindering our
ability to complete our submission as a member of the class and
were hoping you could help," Price wrote.

"It is ten days since submission and we still have received no
verification that (1) our file was received, (2) that the file was
valid (3) communication in regards to when to expect the return
file back (i.e. if it takes more than 6 weeks we miss the Dec 11th,
deadline)."

Price told us that the letter was mailed as a total last resort,
after receiving zero response from the attorneys involved in the
case.

"Please note, I am contacting you as a last resort," the letter to
judge Nathan continued.  "Prior to contacting you, I contacted all
Plaintiff attorneys and all Defense attorneys about these issues
via email. I also emailed the provided email listed on the
settlement website (no response), called the phone number listed on
the settlement website (a voice-mail recording that did not deal
address these issues), and contacted the Administrator (a company
called Epiq) directly via phone at three of their different office
locations (they stated they did not know anything about the Spotify
Track-IDs and had no one for me to speak with)."

Price told DMN that since firing off that letter, he's been able to
actually get responses.  "The plaintiff's attorney responded to
what I wrote," he said.  But he's only been able to match about 10%
of the ISRCs in question.

Still, some improvements are taking place.  "New policies and
procedures now seem to be in place with guaranteed response times,
email confirmations and the December 11th deadline being more
clearly defined as the deadline a class member must at least submit
for Spotify Track IDs and not have to turn in the completed data,"
Price later emailed.

So the s—t show continues--though people might now be getting
responses and even some money.  Let's see.

For those trying to make a claim for mechanical royalties owed
between December 28, 2012 and June 29, 2017, you have until
December 11th to make a claim.  The place to start is here--good
luck, my friend.  [GN]




STRESS FREE: Haydel Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trent Haydel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STRESS FREE HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-24873-JLK (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

As part of its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, the Plaintiff asserts. The
Defendant's telemarketing consists of placing prerecorded calls and
sending automated text messages to consumers soliciting them to
purchase its goods and/or services.

The Defendant caused thousands of pre-recorded messages and text
messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of the state of
Texas.

The Defendant is a health insurance broker that claims to connect
individuals to "verified licensed insurance experts."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 786.496.4469
          Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

               - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


TANDY LEATHER: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. (NASDAQ: TLF) in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Tandy from March 7, 2018 and August 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tandy investors
under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleged that on August 13, 2019, after the market
closed, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee was
investigating "certain aspects of the Company's methods of
valuation and expensing of costs of inventory and related issues
regarding the Company's business and operations."  On this news,
the Company's share price fell $0.55 per share, or over 10%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.90 per share on
August 15, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on August 15, 2019, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that it was unable to timely file the Company's quarterly
report for the period ended June 30, 2019 due to the Audit
Committee's investigation.  On this news, the Company's share price
fell $0.40 per share, or over 8%, to close at $4.50 per share on
August 16, 2019, thereby injuring investors further.

On October 18, 2019, the Company revealed that certain financial
statements should no longer be relied upon, citing "misstatements
primarily relating to the Company's methods of valuation and
expensing of costs of inventory and related issues."  It also
disclosed that its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Tina
Castillo, had resigned from her positions.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain costs of inventory had been improperly
valued and expensed; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results for certain periods were misstated; (3) that the Company
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (4)
that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting; and (5) 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the January 6, 2020
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]



TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group
(NYSE: TME) from December 12, 2018 through August 26, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 25, 2019
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by
the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tencent Music
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tencent Music class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact:

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



THIRD COAST MIDSTREAM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Third Coast Midstream f/k/a
American Midstream Partners, LP.  Stockholders have until the
deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Third Coast Midstream f/k/a American Midstream Partners, LP

Class Period: All former owners of American Midstream stock who
sold their stock, and were damaged thereby.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 9, 2019

American Midstream is a growth-oriented master limited partnership
formed to own, operate, develop, and acquire a diversified
portfolio of midstream energy assets.  At all relevant times,
American Midstream's general partner was American Midstream GP, LLC
(the "General Partner").  The General Partner was solely
responsible for supporting and conducting the business operations
of American Midstream.

The complaint, filed on October 10, 2019, alleges that ArcLight
Capital Partners, LLC ("ArcLight") was the Company's majority
stockholder and had control over the General Partner.  Therefore,
ArcLight ensured that the majority of American Midstream's Board of
Directors were all affiliated with ArcLight, and had the ability to
control the Company's quarterly distribution.

On July 27, 2018, American Midstream declared a 75 percent
reduction in the Company's quarterly common stock distribution.  As
a result of this reduction, American Midstream's stock price
declined over 42 percent, falling precipitously from $11.55 to
$6.60 on July 27, 2018.

Then, on December 31, 2018, American Midstream reported that
because of an amendment to its credit facility agreement, it did
not expect to make any distributions to its stock holders in the
upcoming fourth quarter of 2018, and would continue to withhold
said distributions until its consolidated total leverage ratio was
reduced.  On this news, American Midstream's stock declined $1.30,
or 30 percent, closing at a price of $3.03 per share on December
31, 2018.

On March 18, 2019, American Midstream publicly disclosed it had
entered into a merger agreement with a subsidiary of ArcLight
pursuant to which American Midstream stockholders would receive
$4.50 per share.  On July 23, 2019, American Midstream announced
the closing of the merger.

Therefore, as a result of the distribution cuts put in place by
virtue of ArcLight's control over the Company, American Midstream
minority stockholders received approximately 60 percent less
consideration for their shares than the common stock price
immediately prior to the distribution cut on July 27, 2018.

If you were a former owner of American Midstream stock and sold
your shares at a loss, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon.

For more information on the American Midstream class action go to:
https://bespc.com/americanmidstream

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


TJX COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Adequate Seating, Weems Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN WEEMS, an individual v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV42395
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Labor Code
and Private Attorney General Act of 2004.

Mr. Weems also seeks to recover penalties for the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, on behalf of himself and other
similarly aggrieved employees under PAGA as a result of the
Defendant's systematic violation of the law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants uniformly failed to
provide adequate seating, as required under California's Industrial
Welfare Commission, for employees working at their California
retail store locations.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt worker at the
Defendants' "Marshall's" store located in Stevenson Ranch,
California.

The Defendants are corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware and Virginia, doing business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
          Saima Ali, Esq.
          EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 382-2222
          Facsimile: (213) 382-2230


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Arizona Can't Intervene in Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Pappas, Esq. -- gpappas@carltonfields.com -- and Michael G.
Zilber, Esq. -- mzilber@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in
an article for The National Law Review, report that the Sixth
Circuit recently held that Arizona lacked standing to intervene in,
and object to, a nationwide class settlement at the settlement
fairness hearing. The underlying case involved Tristar Products'
defective pressure cookers. The district court had certified three
state classes for trial--Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado--but
after the first day of trial, the parties entered into a nationwide
class settlement. The settlement allowed class members to receive a
purchase coupon for a different Tristar product and a warranty
extension so long as they watched a safety video. The district
court valued the coupons and extensions at $1,020,985, while
approving an award of attorneys' fees of $1,980,382.59.

At the settlement fairness hearing, Arizona, via its attorney
general, appeared and argued that the settlement was unfair to the
class, believing that a higher proportion of the funds should have
gone to the class members rather than to class counsel. Before the
court issued its opinion and order on the settlement, Arizona
attempted to intervene. The district court rejected Arizona's
motion for lack of Article III standing.

On appeal, Arizona argued that it had standing (1) under the
doctrine of parens patriae, (2) under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), and (3) because it had a participatory interest as a
"repeat player." First, Arizona argued that it satisfied parens
patriae because it acted on behalf of its citizens and had
attempted to address unfair settlements through legislation. The
Sixth Circuit rejected Arizona's argument because two of Arizona's
three legislation examples arose out of the Arizona Supreme Court,
not the legislative branch. Further, Arizona's third example,
Arizona's consumer fraud statute, did not apply because Arizona
"specifically disclaimed any objection to the proposed settlement
on the grounds of fraud or collusion." Thus, Arizona could not make
objections indistinguishable from individual Arizonans' objections,
which merely made Arizona a nominal party without quasi-sovereign
interests, as required by parens patriae.

Next, Arizona argued that CAFA's legislative history provided that
CAFA's requirement that citizen class members notify their state
attorneys general of class settlement terms gave Arizona's attorney
general standing to intervene in the litigation. The court rejected
this argument, holding that CAFA's plain text -- which prevented
the act from expanding the authority of state officials --
foreclosed Arizona's argument.

Finally, Arizona argued that it had standing because it
"participated regularly in class action settlement proceedings to
protect Arizona consumers and ensure statutory compliance." Again,
the court rejected this argument, holding that it solely
established that Arizona had a "mere interest in the problem" of
unfair class settlements and the only concrete harm Arizona
experienced was "an outcome that is contrary to its own policy
views."

By dismissing Arizona's appeal for lack of standing, the Sixth
Circuit did not determine the merits of Arizona's original
objection to the fairness of the settlement. Yet, while this case
did not address the substance behind the class settlement, this
blog has discussed the heightened scrutiny that courts apply to
coupon class settlements here and here, and the type of fairness
analysis that might have occurred if Arizona had standing here.

Chapman v. Tristar Prods., Inc., Nos. 18-3847/3866 (6th Cir. Oct.
10, 2019). [GN]


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Bradley Arrant Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Goodman, Esq. -- jgoodman@bradley.com -- and J. Thomas
Richie, Esq. -- trichie@bradley.com -- of Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, in an article for Lexology, writes: "Does a state,
whose citizens are among the absent class members in a class action
settlement, have Article III standing to challenge the supposed
unfairness of the settlement? In Chapman v. Tristar Products, Inc.,
the Sixth Circuit said no.

The Trial Court's Decision
Chapman involved a product liability class action against the
manufacturer of allegedly defective lids for pressure cookers,
which may have exposed users to possible injury. Some of the
plaintiffs' class claims were dismissed, but others survived. The
trial court certified three state classes (none of which included
Arizona residents), and the case proceeded to trial.

During trial, the parties agreed to a settlement of the case on a
global basis with a nationwide class (which did include Arizona
residents). The settlement entitled class members to receive a
coupon for purchase of a different Tristar product and a warranty
extension, provided they watched a safety video; the trial court
valued this relief at approximately $1 million. The defendant
agreed not to oppose a request for attorneys' fees and expenses
(not to exceed $2.5 million) by class counsel; the trial court
ultimately approved an award of just under $2 million.

At the fairness hearing, the State of Arizona appeared as an
amicus, arguing that the proposed settlement was unfair to the
plaintiff class. Arizona did not argue that the settlement
compensation was unfair or unreasonable in total, but instead that
the division of the settlement proceeds resulted in too much being
paid to class counsel and too little to class members. When the
trial court indicated its willingness to approve the settlement
(with some modifications), Arizona sought to intervene under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24, and alternatively requested that the court recognize
it as an objector to the settlement (in either case to preserve a
right to appeal). The trial court denied both requests, holding
that Arizona lacked Article III standing, and the state appealed.

The Sixth Circuit's Decision
A unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit dismissed Arizona's appeal
for lack of jurisdiction, upholding the trial court's finding that
the state lacked Article III standing. Arizona's asserted three
bases for standing: (1) that it had standing under the parens
patriae doctrine to assert the rights of its individual citizens;
(2) that CAFA conferred standing on it; and (3) that it possessed a
"participatory interest" in class action settlement proceedings
sufficient to quicken standing. The appeal court rejected all
three.

Under the parens patriae doctrine, a state must assert an injury to
a "quasi-sovereign interest" in order to have standing, which
necessitates an interest apart from the interest of "particular
private parties." The appeals court concluded that Arizona's
objections to the settlement were indistinguishable from the
objections individual Arizonans might raise and did not implicate
any "quasi-sovereign interests" of the state.

As to CAFA, the Sixth Circuit held that while the statute does
require parties to notify state attorneys general of proposed
settlements and requires a period of at least 90 days after such
notice before any final approval of a settlement, nothing in CAFA
grants a state any right to intervene. The appeals court noted that
while portions of CAFA's legislative history might support
Arizona's position, the statute itself explicitly declines to
"expand the authority of … Federal or State officials." Thus,
said the court, it would not "resort to legislative history to
cloud a statutory text that is clear."

Arizona's final argument, that its regular participation in class
action settlement proceedings on behalf of its citizens created a
right to intervene, fared no better. Even if such an interest
qualified as a "substantial legal interest" for purposes of
intervention, said the court, the state nonetheless failed to show
an injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing. Arizona's
interest in participating made it no more than a "concerned
bystander" to the proceedings; the state's disagreement with the
settlement on policy grounds resulted in no concrete or
particularized harm that would support standing.

Takeaways
   * The outcome in Tristar accords with generally accepted
standing principles. Arizona's arguments on parens patriae standing
were, as a matter of optics, likely weakened by the fact that no
Arizona consumer objected to the settlement, as well as the state's
acknowledgement that it had no interest in representing Arizona
consumers in the litigation apart from its efforts to have the
settlement disapproved. And other courts, for example the district
courts in the Deepwater Horizon and Budeprion XL litigations, have
similarly concluded that CAFA does not give Article III standing
for state officials. (This is not to suggest that CAFA's mandatory
notice provisions to federal and state authorities need not be
followed; failure to do so can still be fatal to settlement
approval.)

   * Tristar does not, however, imply that state and federal
regulators will lose enthusiasm for objecting to coupon-based
consumer class settlements going forward; they doubtless will
continue to scrutinize such settlements closely. Still, Tristar
affords some comfort that regulators will have a difficult time
taking on the status and rights of parties in objecting to private
class action settlements (such as the potential right to engage in
discovery and motion practice, and the right to appeal).

   * The case displays some of the potential perils of a
coupon-based settlement, which here attracted challenges from not
just Arizona, but 17 other attorneys general and the U.S.
Department of Justice. The coupon component of the Tristar
settlement required class members to apply separately for the
coupons and then use them within 90 days. And the coupons offered
only a discount and an extended warranty on the purchase of
additional Tristar products. The coupons were not transferable,
could not be converted to cash through a secondary market, and (at
least according to the DOJ in its appellate brief) less than
one-half of one percent of class members even requested a coupon. A
review of the district court's approval order seems more focused on
weaknesses in the class' claims at trial than value of the
settlement for the class.

   * Even though the Sixth Circuit did not reach the issue given
its jurisdictional ruling, we note a developing circuit split on
how class counsel fees may be calculated in a coupon-based class
settlement. The Ninth Circuit has held that only § 1712(a) of CAFA
applies to such settlements, that attorney's fees must be
determined as a percentage of the value of the coupons redeemed by
the class, and that a lodestar method of calculation is
unavailable. The Seventh and Eighth Circuits, conversely, have held
that § 1712 is permissive and allows for use of the lodestar
method, and that only when the court uses the percentage-of-fund
method must that fund be calculated based on the value of the
coupons actually received. [GN]


TROPHY NUT: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Coleman Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Coleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TROPHY NUT CO., Case No. 3:19-cv-00374-TMR (N.D. Ohio,
Nov. 22, 2019), is brought to challenge the Defendant's policies
and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to
remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts he regularly worked over 40 hours in a
workweek but was not paid for all of the time spent on donning and
doffing time, the time spent washing their hands at the designated
hand-washing stations, and associated travel.  As a result of this
failure, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for all
of the hours her worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is non-exempt employee of the Defendant.

The Defendant is an Ohio corporation that is located in Tipp City,
Ohio. The Company engages in the processing and packaging of
nuts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Cianci Suit Over Decline in IPO Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CIANCI and JOHNNY RAMEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others, Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC;
DARA KHOSROWSHAHI; NELSON CHAI; GLEN GARRETT CAMP; MATT COHLER;
RYAN GRAVES; ARIANNA HUFFINGTON; TRAVIS KALANICK; WAN LING
MARTELLO; H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN; JOHN THAIN; DAVID TRUJILLO;
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; ALLEN & a COMPANY LLC; RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC; SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC.; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES
AMERICA, INC.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY. LLC;
LOAP-CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C.;
ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; BTIG, LLC; CANACCORD GENUITY LLC;
CASTLEOAK; SECURITIES, L.P.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; EVERCORE GROUP
L.L.C.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.; MISCHLER
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.; RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, ENC.; WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.; THE WILLIAMS
GROUP CAPITAL, L.P.; and TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-580480 (Cal. Super.), seeks recovery for the damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with Uber's May 2019 initial public offering, pursuant
to Sections 4, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against Uber, certain members of Uber's senior management and its
Board of Directors.

According to its Registration Statement, the Company's mission is
to ignite opportunity by setting the world in motion and
purportedly has revolutionized personal mobility with Ridesharing
and leveraging its platform to redefine the massive meal delivery
and logistics industries.

On April 11, 2019, the Company filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 relating to a proposed initial public offering of shares
of its common stock. On April 26, 2019, Uber filed an amended
registration statement, which became effective on May 9, 2019.
On May 13, 2019, Uber filed with the SEC a prospectus pursuant to
rule 424(b)(4 and with the Registration Statement offering 180
million shares of its common stock to the investing public at
$45.00 per share.

In violation of the Securities Act, the Defendants negligently
issued untrue statements of material facts in, and omitted to state
material facts required to be stated from, the Registration
Statement filed by the Company with the SEC and presented to the
investing public in support of the Offering, along with oral
communications made in connection with the issuance of the
Registration Statement.

As a result of the materially misleading Registration Statement,
the Company's share price was inflated at the time of the Offering,
through which Uber raised approximately $8 billion in net proceeds,
the Plaintiffs assert.

Uber's Offering Documents touted the Company's purported "margin
advantage" for growth opportunities, such as increasing ridesharing
and Uber Eats category penetration in existing markets and
expanding into new markets, as well as increasing monthly active
platform consumers (MAPCs) and trips per MAPC.

However, unbeknownst to investors, the Plaintiffs contend, such
representations were materially false and misleading and/or failed
to disclose, inter alia, that, at the time of the IPO: Uber was
rapidly increasing subsidies for customer rides and meals in a bid
for market share; and at the same time, cutting (or planning to
cut) costs in key areas that undermined Uber's central growth
opportunities.

As the truth has emerged, Uber's stock price has plummeted, trading
as low as $28.3 per share, a decline of over 37% from the IPO price
of $45 per share, the lawsuit says.

Uber is purportedly a multinational technology company providing
mobile ridesharing via a variety of modes of transportation,
including cars, bicycles, and scooters, as well food delivery
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Scott-Holleman, Esq.
          Marion C. Passmore, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          101 California Street, Suite 2710
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 365-7149
          E-mail: hollenan@bespc.com
                  passmore@bespc.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA) in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Under Amour from
August 3, 2016 to November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Under Armour investors
under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleged Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Under Armour shifted
sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier, including to
keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue
growth; (2) the Company had been under investigation by and
cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the January 6, 2020
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.
[GN]




UNDER ARMOUR: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA) (NYSE: UAA) between August 3, 2016
and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Under Armour during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Under
Armour, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone
at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Under
Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier,
including to keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20%
net revenue growth; (2) the Company had been under investigation by
and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result
of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the
Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on November 3, 2019, the Wall Street
Journal reported on U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and
Exchange Commission investigations into Under Armour's accounting
practices and related disclosures. The investigations are examining
whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to
appear healthier. After years of at least 20% year-over-year
revenue growth, Under Armour missed its sales targets in the final
quarter of 2016 and has been struggling with weak sales and
restructuring ever since. That same day, the Company confirmed to
the Wall Street Journal that it had been cooperating with the U.S.
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission since
July 2017.

On this news, shares of Under Armour's Class A and Class C shares
each fell over 18%, closing at $17.14 and $15.44 per share,
respectively, on November 4, 2019, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Contact:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel: (888) 969-4242
              (516) 683-3516
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com
         E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com
                 sdr@rl-legal.com
[GN]



UNILEVER: Faces Antiperspirant False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nelson, writing for PharmaIntelligence, reports that compared
with regular Degree MotionSense Dry Spray Antiperspirant, Unilever
deceptively advertised UltraClear Black + White contains no special
added technology to reduce staining; it simply has less aluminum
chlorohydrate, the active ingredient that causes the very problem
the product purportedly solves, says a plaintiff seeking nationwide
class certification in Missouri's Eastern District. [GN]


UNITED COMMUNITY: Halper Sadeh Files Shareholder Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against United
Community Financial Corp. (UCFC) in connection with the proposed
sale of United Community to First Defiance Financial Corp. ("First
Defiance"). The lawsuit seeks damages and/or equitable relief on
behalf of United Community shareholders under the federal
securities laws.

If you are a United Community shareholder and would like to join
the action or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
United Community Merger or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper,
free of charge, at (212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
registration statement recommending that United Community
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed sale of United Community
to First Defiance. According to the complaint, the registration
statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (1) United Community's, First Defiance's, and the
combined company's financial projections; (2) the analyses
performed by United Community's financial advisor; and (3) the
sales process leading up to the proposed sale of United Community
to First Defiance.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 6, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you would like to join the action or discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/united-community-financial-corp-ucfc-first-defiance-merger-stock/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Contact:

         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         Halper Sadeh LLP
         Tel: (212) 763-0060
         Website: https://www.halpersadeh.com
         E-mail: sadeh@halpersadeh.com
                 zhalper@halpersadeh.com
[GN]



UNITED STAFFING: Gonzales Sues Over Scheme Against Filipino RNs
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLYNNIS GONZALES, KRIZIA JENNIFER FRANCISCO, BOPEEP G. JACAR, and
LEA C. FORMELOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITED STAFFING REGISTRY, INC. d/b/a United
Home Care and BENJAMIN H. SANTOS, Case No. 1:19-cv-06616 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 22, 2019), is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and other remedies for violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and for breach of contract under
New York law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' standard employment
contracts contain draconian penalties designed to keep Filipino
nurses working for the Defendants, including: (a) a $90,000
indenture that the nurse must either pay or work off before she
will be permitted to stop working; (b) a non-compete penalty that
purports to prohibit the nurse from working in the healthcare field
anywhere in the United States for a period of three years if she
fails to pay or work off the $90,000 indenture; and (c) an express,
written threat in the contracts that the Defendants will report the
nurse to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and have her
deported if she stops working before she pays or works off the
$90,000.00 indenture.

While the Defendants characterize the $90,000 indenture as
"liquidated damages," there is in fact no basis for this claim, the
Plaintiffs contend. To the contrary, the Defendants pay nothing
towards the recruitment, visa applications, or training of the
nurses. Indeed, the Defendants not only require the nurses to pay
all of these costs, but also charge them $100.00 each time the
Defendants' staff speaks to the nurses on the telephone, $150.00
for each letter sent by FedEx, and $320.00 each for a cursory
medical examination by Defendant Benjamin Santos's wife.

Once the Filipino nurses begin working in the United States, the
Defendants refuse to pay them the prevailing wages required by
their employment contracts, the Plaintiffs allege. To keep the
nurses from leaving, the Defendants threaten the nurses with
serious harm, including threats to enforce the draconian penalties
in the employment contract and have the nurses deported, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Registered Nurses licensed to practice in the
State of New York and employees of the Defendants and are citizens
of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Defendants are foreign labor recruiters, who have recruited
more than 100 nurses from the Philippines to work for the
Defendants in this District under contracts of indentured
servitude.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J.P. Howley, Esq.
          Leandro B. Lachica, Esq.
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: (212) 601-2728


UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Veterans' Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yale Law School reports that on November 7, 2019, a federal judge
denied the Secretary of the Navy's request to dismiss a nationwide
class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan
Navy and Marine Corps veterans. These veterans, who unfairly
received less-than-Honorable discharges, have symptoms of
service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic
brain injury, or other mental health conditions. In addition to
denying the government's motion, Senior Judge Charles S. Haight,
Jr. of the District of Connecticut ordered the case to proceed to
discovery. He also directed the Navy to reconsider the requests to
upgrade to Honorable the discharge characterizations of plaintiff
Tyson Manker and of John Doe, a member of organizational plaintiff
National Veterans Council for Legal Redress (NVCLR).

The plaintiffs in this case are represented jointly by the Yale Law
School Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP.

In March 2018, Manker, a veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and
NVCLR filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of former
Marines and sailors with less-than-Honorable ("bad paper")
discharges. The lawsuit seeks to ensure the fair treatment of
veterans when they apply to have their service characterizations
changed.

"Today's ruling, in time for Veterans Day, reaffirms the rule of
law and brings us one step closer to getting justice for every
veteran who was unfairly dismissed from the military with
post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and
military sexual trauma, and denied their honorable discharge," said
Manker.

The government advanced multiple arguments that, as the Court
summarized, "seem to relate exclusively to the individual
circumstances of Tyson Manker and John Doe." But Judge Haight
rejected these contentions, emphasizing that in fact thousands of
veterans would likely be affected by the litigation: "Manker and
Doe play important roles in this opera, but there are other
soloists, a chorus, and a full orchestra — a fair analogy, given
that the Court has certified a class of Navy and Marine Corps
veterans…"

"As many as one-third of the more than two million men and women
who have served since September 11, 2001, suffer from PTSD or other
mental health conditions in relation to their service. Many of
these veterans obtain less-than-Honorable discharges, often for
minor infractions related to their mental health," said Garry Monk,
Executive Director of NVCLR. "Veterans with 'bad paper' are often
cut off from the very benefits that would allow them to
successfully transition back to civilian life, and instead suffer a
lifetime of stigma, barriers to employment, and ineligibility for
crucial state and federal benefits."

"When veterans seek to correct these unjust discharges, the Navy
denies the vast majority of their applications, contrary to statute
and to Department of Defense policies designed to provide relief to
veterans with service-related PTSD and other conditions," said
Samantha Peltz '20, a law student intern in the Yale Veterans Legal
Services Clinic. "Despite its claims of improved compliance with
Defense policies, over the past two years, the Navy has granted
less than 20% of discharge upgrades for applicants with mental
health claims. The Court's decision today is another step towards
justice for veterans who served their country and came home only to
face daunting hurdles in seeking care for the wounds of war."

The Veterans Legal Services Clinic, part of the Jerome N. Frank
Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, represents veterans
and veterans organizations in national litigation and regulatory
and legislative reform efforts. [GN]



UNITED STATES: Mulangu Moves to Certify Class of FOIA Requesters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DEBORAH MULANGU, et al. v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02682-RBW
(D.D.C.), moves for certification of this class under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

    "all persons who from September 9, 2013 to December 31, 2017,
     made a FOIA request for their assessment, but were not
     provided with reasonably segregable portions thereof."

Certification of the proposed class will advance the broad remedial
purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, the Plaintiffs assert.
The Plaintiffs, who are asylum applicant-requesters, contend that
they deserve to be provided a portion of their assessments.

The lawsuit arises from DHS's refusal to release portion of any
assessment to any FOIA requester and/or asylum applicant.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Cleveland, Esq.
          CATHOLIC CHARITIES
          924 G Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 772-4345
          Facsimile: (202) 386-7032
          E-mail: 1949.david@gmail.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Holly A. Brady denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned OPAL MILLMAN, ERIC POWELL,
and LAURY POWELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., LEAR CORPORATIONS EEDS AND
INTERIORS, as successor to United Technologies Automotive, Inc.,
ANDREWS DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D. WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as
successor to Preferred Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00312-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.).

Judge Brady also denied as moot the Defendants' Motions to Exclude
the Expert Opinions of Dr. Vasiliki Keramida.

Andrews is a small town located in Huntington County, Indiana.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants owned and/or operated two
businesses that contaminated essentially the entire town, including
the soil, groundwater, and utility lines, with petroleum and
volatile chlorinated compounds.

The Plaintiffs proposed the class be defined as:

     All persons who have owned, rented, or resided at property
     within the Class Area at any time between 1983 and July 18,
     2016.

The Class Area is defined as the area impacted by the
contamination, as set forth in Dr. Keramida's second affidavit.
The Plaintiffs have retained Dr. Vasiliki Keramida as their expert
in this case.

The Motion sought to "certify a class as to liability-only issues
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23."

The Court concludes that certification of the Plaintiffs' proposed
issues is not appropriate.  The Plaintiffs submitted several issues
for certification of a liability-only issue class, including (1)
each Defendant's role in creating the contamination emanating from
the UTA Facility, including their historical operations, disposal
practices, and chemical usage; (2) each Defendant's role in
creating the contamination emanating from the Gas Station,
including their historical operations, disposal practices, chemical
usage, and history of underground storage tank maintenance,
repairs, and leaks; (3) whether it was foreseeable to the
Defendants that their handling, disposal, and/or leaking of
chemicals could cause an off-site plume of Contamination; and (4)
whether Contamination emanating from the UTA Facility has reached
the soil, groundwater, and/or utility lines beneath the homes and
properties within the Class Area.

In her Opinion and Order, Judge Brady opines that the Plaintiffs'
proposed class fails the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3),
among other failures.  The Plaintiffs have pled several legal
theories in this case, including trespass, nuisance, negligence,
claims, negligent infliction of emotional distress and claim for
punitive damages.

"However, those legal theories are not universally applicable to
all proposed class members," Judge Brady says.  Even if the Court
were to overlook the Rule 23(a) shortcomings, it would still
conclude that certification was inappropriate, Judge Brady
adds.[CC]


UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Face Class Action Over "Free Refill" Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Robicelli, writing for The Takeout, says "we've covered
many lawsuits here on The Takeout. Some have serious merit, like
the one about the lack of accessibility for disabled people at fast
food drive-thrus. There are the ones that are surprising, but still
legitimate, like the case of Huge Ass Beer v. Giant Ass Beer. There
are the petty ones, like the New Jersey couple suing Taco Bell over
a $2.19 price discrepancy. And then there's the flat out frivolous,
like when Red Bull was forced to pay $850,000 to a group of
Canadians who were upset the product didn't literally give them
wings. The lawsuit we are about to discuss may seem petty, it may
seem frivolous, but, after serious research into the matter, this
writer believes that plaintiff Luis Arnaud might be actually be an
American hero."

On July 29 of this year, Arnaud was visiting Universal Studios in
Orlando, Florida, and purchased a $16.99 Coca-Cola Freestyle
Souvenir Cup, which came with the promise of unlimited refills. The
next day he reactivated the cup for and additional $8.99, bringing
his pretax two-day soda expenses to $25.98. It was on this second
day of his soda spree that he discovered the horrifying truth: the
"unlimited" refills weren't so unlimited after all. After pouring
and chugging a drink, Arnaud attempted to refill his cup at a
nearby Coca-Cola Freestyle machine, only to be denied.

It turns out that the cups in question are equipped with a computer
chip that limits refills to one every ten minutes. While some may
think that six drinks an hour is reasonable, please consider that
on July 30, 2019, the temperature in Orlando was 95 degrees before
factoring in the humidity. Coca-Cola Freestyle machines dispense a
variety of sodas, of course, but they also dispense iced teas,
dehydration-fighting electrolyte drinks, and good old-fashioned
water.

According to the lawsuit which has been filed in federal court:
"[Arnaud] paid the above sum on the assumption that he was
purchasing products that would conveniently allow him to refill his
cup whenever and however many times he wanted. . . . Plaintiff had
specifically seen the 'unlimited' misrepresentation all throughout
the Universal parks. He would not have been willing to pay the sum
he paid had he known that the products did not provide unlimited
refills and were mislabeled and falsely advertised."

It may seem like a mere quibble to sue a mega-behemoth corporation
over a $25.98 soft drink bill, but when you tack it onto the price
of admission to Universal Studios ($115 per adult for one park for
one day, $110 per child), this quickly transforms from a petty
lawsuit to a case of David vs. Goliath: a working everyman who is
willing to stand up to corporate greed, an American hero who has
said enough is enough and refuses to sit down quietly when he is
denied his free refill. We are all, in some way, Luis Arnaud. May
he be victorious in his quest for justice. [GN]


US SOCCER: Women's Team Has Class Action Status in Equal-Pay Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wxyz.com reports that members of the US women's soccer team scored
one of their goals on November 8, when a federal judge allowed
their gender discrimination lawsuit to proceed as a class action.

The US Women's National Team's lawsuit against the US Soccer
Federation was filed in March in US District Court in California,
with 28 members of the team listed as plaintiffs. A trial is
currently scheduled for May 2020.

November 8's class certification decision allows for members of the
USWNT to sue the federation collectively -- including any player
who reported for national team duty over a specific period of time
cited in the lawsuit.

When contacted for reaction, a federation spokesperson said, "U.S.
Soccer does not have any specific comment."

The suit alleges US Soccer's payment practices amount to federal
discrimination by paying women less than men "for substantially
equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training,
and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal
support and development for their games; and other terms and
conditions of employment equal to the MNT."

The women had met their burden to be treated as a class, the judge
ruled.

Molly Levinson, spokeswoman for the players, called November 8's
decision an "historic step forward."

"We are so pleased that the court has recognized USSF's ongoing
discrimination against women players -- rejecting USSF's tired
arguments that women must work twice as hard and accept lesser
working conditions to get paid the same as men," she said.

The argument

In one hypothetical case cited in the lawsuit, if the women's and
men's teams both won 20 straight games in a season, the women would
make 38% what the men do.

Earlier this year, US Soccer said the reigning Women's World Cup
champions earned more than the US Men's National Team, with US
Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro releasing an open letter on
Twitter saying that from 2010 through 2018, the federation paid
$34.1 million in salary and game bonuses to the women, compared
with $26.4 million for the men.

Those figures did not include benefits, such as health care, that
the women receive. The federation said US Soccer pays USWNT
contracted players a salary to play in the National Women's Soccer
League, while the men are paid by their individual teams.

The women's and men's compensation structures are different because
they were collectively bargained.

In a July written statement, Levinson called the figures misleading
and "utterly false"

America's women have been far more successful than their male
counterparts, winning four World Cups -- the most recent last July
in France -- and four Olympic gold medals.

The USMNT said its players, too, "were not impressed" by Cordeiro's
letter. "The women's national team players deserve equal pay and
are right to pursue a legal remedy from the courts or Congress,"
the men's team said.

Sponsors have added to the pressure to resolve the equal pay fight,
with deodorant brand Secret saying in July that it planned to
contribute $529,000 to the USWNT players' association.

Nike, US Soccer's biggest partner, has also said it's a strong
advocate for pay equity. "Regarding gender equality, Nike has been
an advocate for women and girls in the US and around the world," a
spokesperson said.

Minutes after the USWNT's World Cup win on July 7, Nike ran a
60-second ad celebrating the team's victory, centering on the
concept that the USWNT's win is about more than winning a soccer
title. However, Nike has been criticized for reducing athletes' pay
during their pregnancies, a practice it said in May it would
discontinue. [GN]



VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Connelly Suit Over Defective Timing Chain
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Connelly, Josef Davis, Hans Eubanks, Evgeny Fedorov, Kin Moy,
Michael Parker, Richard Rehak, Travis Sides, Sheng Su, and Zola
Thornton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. a/k/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.,
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01487 (E.D. Va., Nov. 23, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants on behalf of all persons in the United States, who
purchased, own, owned, lease or leased a 2011 through 2015 model
year 3.0L TFSI VW or Audi vehicle containing a defective timing
chain system.

The Defendants wrongfully and intentionally concealed a defect in
the timing chain system of the Class Vehicles, which can fail at
any time, placing consumers at risk of injury and forcing the
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to incur out-of-pocket costs
to repair or replace the damaged engine parts or their entire
engine, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Timing Chain System contains a device known as a "hydraulic
chain tensioner" that is designed to keep the camshaft and
crankshaft sprockets properly engaged and synchronized by taking up
chain slack and applying a certain level of force on the tensioning
rail. The Timing Chain System fails before the end of the useful
life of the engine as the result of a defect in design, materials,
manufacturing, and/or workmanship. At a minimum, repairs will
exceed $1,200.00. In some cases, repairs can cost thousands of
dollars.

The Defendants knowingly omitted, concealed, and suppressed
material facts regarding the defective Timing Chain System and its
corresponding safety risk, and misrepresented the standard,
quality, or grade of the Class Vehicles, which directly caused harm
to the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, the Plaintiffs
assert. As a direct result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have suffered damages,
including, inter alia: (1) out-of-pocket expenses for repair or
replacement of the Timing Chain System, other engine parts, and/or
the entire engine; (2) costs for future repairs and/or
replacements; (3) sale of their vehicle at a loss; and/or (4)
diminished value of their vehicles, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants' vehicles that contain the
Time Chain System defect.

The Defendant designs, develops, manufacturers, and sells
automobile.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven T. Webster, Esq.
          Aaron S. Book, Esq.
          WEBSTER BOOK LLP
          300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone & Fax: (888) 987-9991
          Email: swebster@websterbook.com
                 abook@websterbook.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          John D. O'Neill, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          Email: kdean@motleyrice.com
                 jdoneill@motleyrice.com


W.M. FARES: Faces Class Action Over Crane Collapse
--------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class action lawsuit is
looking to recover losses sustained by businesses and residential
tenants displaced by the collapse of a construction crane in
downtown Halifax in September during post tropical storm Dorian.

A notice of action was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Oct.
18 by lawyer Ray Wagner.

The proposed representative plaintiff in the statement of claim is
Thornbloom Boutique, Ltd., which is the operator of a home decor
and furniture store on South Park Street.

The named defendants, who have not yet been served by the
plaintiff's lawyer, are Halifax-based site developers W.M. Fares
Architects Inc., and W.M. Fares and Associates Inc., Lead
Structural Formwork Ltd., of Moncton, N.B. -- the owner, operator
and installer of the crane -- and The Manitowwoc Company Inc., the
Milwaukee, Wis.-based designer of the crane.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs say they have suffered
financial and psychological harm and they say the defendants are
responsible "for the losses, injuries and damage" alleged in the
document.

They allege the defendants breached the applicable standard of care
by negligently "designing, fabricating, installing, operating,
maintaining, and using the crane." None of the allegations have
been proven in court.

The court document says the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
general and special damages as well as recovery of other costs.

"This is having a devastating impact on us," Thornbloom owners
Debbie Morgan and Elaine Shortt said in a news release sent out by
the law firm.

"We simply can't operate without customers having access to our
store. We have no choice but to recover our losses this way because
it's been going on too long, and there have been no concrete
commitments made to provide assistance to us."

In an interview, Wagner said the claim will be served to the
defendants in the coming weeks. He said he is in talks with four
other affected businesses about joining the class action. No
residential tenants have joined yet.

"This is necessary because the businesses are very concerned about
their livelihood and their ability to be able to survive through
this," Wagner said.

The crane collapsed onto a residential condominium tower under
construction on Sept. 7. An evacuation order was issued by Halifax
Regional Fire and Emergency that affected about 30 residents of the
Trillium Building on South Park Street and at least six commercial
businesses, according to the statement of claim.

The provincial government declared a localized state of emergency
at the crane site on Sept. 18. It was extended twice and remains in
place until Oct. 30.

The Transportation Department said on Oct. 18 the next phase of the
crane's removal will begin on Oct. 28 with the cutting and removing
of the main tower.

Other parts of the twisted structure were removed over the
Thanksgiving weekend. That work allowed residents from two nearby
buildings to return home.

The remaining removal work is expected to take 10 working days to
complete, weather permitting, the department said. Once that
happens the evacuation order will be lifted for the remaining
residents and business owners affected.

Site cleanup is expected to conclude in early to mid-November.
[GN]


WACKENHUT: Settles Meal, Rest Break Class Action for $43.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a California
judge has approved the payment of $43.2 million in attorneys' fees
as part of a class action settlement spanning three lawsuits and
more than 8,500 security service workers.

The workers had accused Wackenhut -- now doing business as G4S
Secure Solutions -- of not providing adequate breaks, in violation
of California labor laws. The lawsuits took fourteen years and
raised novel issues of class action litigation, Judge William F.
Highberger said Oct. 21 for the California Superior Court.

The class was represented by Rosen Marsili Rapp LLP; Weinberg,
Roger & Rosenfeld; and James Hawkins APLC. [GN]


WALMART STORES: California Judge Decertifies Pitre's FCRA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that on October 18,
2019, a California federal judge decertified a class of
approximately 6,547,400 applicants in a class action lawsuit
against Walmart that claimed the retail giant procured background
checks using disclosure forms that violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), finding the plaintiffs failed to allege an
injury sufficient enough as required under the Supreme Court ruling
in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

In the Order granting Walmart's Motion to Decertify, Judge David O.
Carter of the U.S. District Court Central District of California
remanded the case of Randy Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. -- which
questioned whether Walmart's background checks complied with the
FCRA and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA)
-- to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The Order stated Plaintiff Pitre and two Named Plaintiffs applied
for jobs and were hired by Walmart between 2014 and 2017.
Plaintiffs claimed that Walmart procured credit and background
checks about them in violation of the FCRA and ICRAA "by willfully
including extraneous information in disclosure forms, and by
inadequately informing Plaintiffs of their rights under the FCRA."

According to the complaint filed in July of 2017, Section 1681 b(b
)(2)(A)(i) of the FCRA requires that a "clear and conspicuous"
disclosure be made to consumers before a "consumer report" -- the
FCRA's term for a background check report -- is procured. Also, the
disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes must be made "in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure."

Due to Article III of the United States Constitution, courts have
developed the doctrine of Article III standing to "limit the
category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal
court," according to Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The Plaintiff must
have suffered a concrete injury in fact that is fairly traceable to
the defendant's alleged conduct and likely redressable by a
favorable decision by the court.

With regard to the Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
Judge Carter wrote: As the Supreme Court has explained, "a bare
procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm," cannot
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. A key inquiry, then, is not
merely whether a statutory right was violated, but whether that
violation actually harmed (or posed some risk of harm) to some
concrete interest.

Judge Carter -- who in January of 2019 certified a class of five
million applicants in the same case -- agreed with Walmart's
argument that Plaintiffs lacked standing under Article III,
decertified the class, and remanded the action to the state court
"to determine whether Plaintiffs have standing under California
law." A PDF version of the Order Granting the Motion to Decertify
is available here.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Spokeo v. Robins that
consumers must prove "concrete injury" in class action lawsuits for
alleged "bare" violations of a federal statute such as the FCRA.
The case involved a man who filed a lawsuit against Spokeo -- an
online "people search engine" -- claiming violations of the FCRA
after Spokeo compiled a report about him that contained inaccurate
information.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained
in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), protects
consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their credit reports, and regulates the collection,
dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer
credit information.

Improper disclosures for background checks that are not a
"standalone" document and violate the FCRA can be costly. Similar
FCRA lawsuits settled for millions of dollars include Delta Air
Lines agreeing to pay $2.3 million in January 2019, Omincare paying
a $1.3 million settlement in August 2018, a subsidiary of PepsiCo
paying $1.2 million in July 2018, and Frito-Lay Inc. paying a $2.4
million settlement in April 2018. [GN]


WRIGHT BROS: Honaker Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Scott Honaker, et al., On Behalf Of
Themselves And Those Similarly Situated v. Wright Bros. Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01528-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and approving their joint proposed form of notice.

The parties' jointly ask that the Court conditionally certify the
case, such that notice will be sent to:

     All delivery drivers employed at Domino's Pizza stores
     owned/operated by Defendants Wright Bros. Pizza, Inc. and
     Thomas Wright from November 27, 2015 to present.

The parties also ask the Court to:

   -- approve their proposed notice to be sent by regular mail
      and electronic mail in the form attached to the Motion; and

   -- enter an order requiring the Defendants, to the extent the
      information is in their possession, to provide contact
      information for the putative class, including a
      computer-readable list of names, last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment,
      and job titles within 21 days of the Court's Order.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B. Mattingly, Esq.
          DINSMORE SHOHL LLP
          255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8397
          Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
          E-mail: Michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com


[*] Class Actions Having Significant Impact on Workplace
--------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Gentle, writing for Onrec, reports that we all want to work
for an employer that recognizes and respects our rights. For the
most part, this is more or less what happens. Employers know and
respect the law. But, despite this, things can and do go wrong.

That is one reason employee-related class action lawsuits appear to
be on the increase. In 2019, there have been several examples,
including some that involve very big firms.

A recent pregnancy-related class-action lawsuit

In June 2019, Walmart agreed to pay out$14 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit that two of their workers brought against them
in Illinois. They did so to settle a case related to the firm's
pregnancy accommodation policies.

The company's practices and policies that were in place between
19th March 2013 and March 2014 lead to the women bringing their
case. During that period, the plaintiffs said that despite being
pregnant they were still being asked to regularly lift heavy
objects and climb steps. As well as carry out other tasks that are
potentially dangerous for a pregnant woman to do.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 were both used to prove the case. Laws that make it
clear that pregnant workers needs should be accommodated in the
same way those of disabled employees are.

How class actions are changing the workplace

There is no doubt that class actions are having a significant
impact on the workplace. Workers are increasingly aware that if
they work together they can prove that things are not as they
should be and get them changed.

Interestingly, sometimes the action has a knock-on effect. It ends
up helping more than just the type of employees that were involved
in the action.

The cases that female workers bought against Google over pay
equality are a good example of this. This litigation led to the
firm actively seeking to address wage inequality amongst the women
who were working for them. They also decided to look carefully at
how minority groups were being paid.

Their initial review revealed that there were indeed issues. As a
direct result of what they found Google ended up compensating
10,677 of their employees. That cost them $9.7 million. They also
set up annual reviews of this issue. In 2017, they ended up having
to compensate 228 employees. But, that only cost them $270,000.

However, when they repeated the process in 2018, it was men who
were mainly compensated. The issue seemed to be confined to a
single group of lower-level software engineers. In particular, new
hires who "received less discretionary funds than women".

So, the class actions that the women from Google started,
eventually, led to men who worked for the company being helped too.
Their action uncovered the fact that despite their best efforts,
over time, disparities in pay can still develop within the
organization.

Understandably, firms do not welcome being taken to court. But,
those who take a proactive approach to the problems highlighted do,
in the end, benefit.

As do other employers who watch what is happening and ask
themselves are we vulnerable to this type of class actions? The
more proactive firms are about creating and maintaining a fair
workplace, the easier it is to recruit and retain good people.
[GN]


[*] Cos. Failing to Protect Customer Data May Face Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmore Burger-Smidt, writing for BusinessReport, reports that
companies that fail to protect their customers' personal
information may face class action suits once the Protection of
Personal Information Act (PoPIA) comes into force in South Africa.

With the growing threat of cybercrime, companies need to ensure
they take data leaks seriously.

Cybercrime is expected to be the most disruptive economic crime to
affect organisations over the next 24 months. This is according to
a quarter of SA respondents to a 2018 PwC survey.

Another survey, by Refinitiv in 2018, found that 20 percent of 2
373 global respondents (123 from SA), had suffered loss from
cybercrime.

Data fraud and theft and cyber attacks are ranked the fourth and
fifth biggest global threats in the next decade by the World
Economic Forum.

So the threat of something happening to your customer data is real.
Criminals steal customer data to hold the company to ransom for the
return of the data, or to use the data to commit fraud or theft.

We have recently seen massive breaches of personal information.
Among the largest was in India, where the government ID database,
Aadhaar, reportedly suffered data breaches that potentially
compromised the records of 1.1 billion citizens.

And these attacks will continue as we grow increasingly dependent
on the digital interconnection of people, things and
organisations.

A consumer constituting a data subject or group of consumers are
offered the ability to institute civil action for damages against a
company failing to process personal information lawfully and in
terms of the provisions of PoPIA. Data subjects have the right to
claim civil damages irrespective of the fact that a company has
zero intent to contravene the provisions of PoPIA.

Companies could face an administrative penalty of up to R10 million
or even face criminal prosecution. This is irrespective of a civil
action for damages.

Class actions suits are relatively novel in South Africa. This does
not mean that it is not a real risk also when considering
compliance with PoPIA.

With a class action in the works for the recent listeriosis
outbreak, careful consideration should be given as to how these
actions can be beneficial in assisting victims who suffered on a
group scale and to what extent the risk on non-compliance with
PoPIA can bring about a class action against a company. The
'silicosis' case allowed damages for former mineworkers suffering
from silicosis and tuberculosis to be paid by mining companies.

Class actions may very well be deemed useful, especially in South
Africa, where the majority of the population is poor and would not
be able to afford costs associated with litigation.

What can companies do?

Businesses need to prepared for various scenarios. As such,
employee training is critical. Having a workforce enabled to
protect data could save your company a lot in the long run.

It is not necessarily at executive level where there is a lack of
awareness, but indeed at the middle management and grass roots
level of companies, where employees do not always understand the
full impact of a data breach. We see over and over again that
employees still share passwords or create simple passwords such as
Abc123.

Compliance with PoPIA, does not necessarily require the appointment
of a group of professional to analyse your company in detail.

However, a lean team of professional together with your own
employees can indeed provide the needed insight to guide compliance
efforts. Compliance is not a once off event, it is daily vigilance
by staff who know the risks and their responsibilities.

Core business processes have to be in place and an understanding of
duties and responsibilities are nonnegotiable.

Until such time that PoPIA becomes fully effective, businesses
should be paying attention to how they are going to avoid data
leaks, civil claims and possible class action suits.

Ahmore Burger-Smidt is a director at Werksmans Attorneys. [GN]


[*] In Opioid Litigation, Review of 'Negotiation' Class Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals court has agreed to review a novel class action concept
approved by a federal judge in the opioid litigation in the hopes
of reaching a global settlement.

In dual orders Nov. 8, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit granted interlocutory appeal of a Sept. 11 order by
U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio,
approving certification of a "negotiation" class of potentially
33,000 cities and counties suing opioid companies over the
epidemic.  The idea of the "negotiation" class, put forth by the
lead plaintiffs attorneys in the multidistrict litigation over
opioids, was to bring both sides closer to the settlement table.

Several of pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacies, calling the
certification order an "unauthorized expansion" of Federal Rule 23
of Civil Procedure, and six Ohio cities, petitioned the Sixth
Circuit to review what they considered several flaws in the
certification order.

The Sixth Circuit noted the novelty of the "negotiation" class idea
and the lack of opportunity to challenge the order later as reasons
to grant interlocutory review.

"The question here--whether this class-action procedure is
permitted under Rule 23--is both novel and relevant to class
litigation in general," both orders said. "Here, the district court
entered a final order to certify the class, with no indication that
it will review its decision in the future."

Lawyers for the defendants, which included Cardinal Health,
McKesson, Walmart and Walgreens, did not respond to requests for
comment, nor did Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell in
Bethesda, Maryland, who represented the Ohio cities of North
Royalton, East Cleveland, Mayfield Heights, Lyndhurst, Huron and
Wickliffe.

Plaintiffs attorneys Chris Seeger,Esq. -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com
-- of Seeger Weiss and Jayne Conroy, Esq. --
JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy, whom Polster
appointed earlier this year to serve as co-lead counsel for the
"negotiation" class, also did not respond to a request for
comment.

The class certification motion is unusual because it comes prior to
any settlement but, also, is not for pursuing litigation. In most
cases, judges certify class actions under those two circumstances,
but lead plaintiffs lawyers in the opioid multidistrict litigation
insisted that the proposal fits within the confines of the Federal
Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions.

The idea of a "negotiation" class originated in a draft 2019 law
review article by Duke University School of Law professor Francis
McGovern, who is one of three special masters in the case, and
William Rubenstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and expert on
class actions whom McGovern hired as a consultant in the settlement
discussions.

Under the plan, cities and counties with more than 2,600 lawsuits
in the multidistrict litigation, and thousands more governments
that have not filed cases yet, would have the choice to opt out of
the class, but being part of it would give them voting powers. A
settlement could go forward if 75% of the class member governments
voted for the deal.

The class excludes state attorneys general, some of whom have
brought lawsuits in state courts across the country and objected to
the idea.

The defendants, in petitioning the Sixth Circuit, raised concerns
that such a novel idea might not withstand appellate review. The
Ohio cities, which could be part of the "negotiation" class, argued
that the certification forces class members to make an unfair
choice: opt out of a settlement that hasn't happened or stay in the
class without a second opportunity to opt out once a settlement is
reached.

Both petitions got support from the District of Columbia and a
dozen states, including Delaware, Ohio and Texas, which accused
Polster of creating a "new government entity" that usurps the
interests of the states. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in an amicus
brief filed in the defendants' petition, said the order would
"distort class action practice."

In Oct. 16 responses, plaintiffs attorneys said the petitions were
premature. They challenged the standing of the Ohio cities and
insisted that the defendants, who did not have to participate in
the "negotiation" class, were not "aggrieved" by its
certification.

"It makes little sense to review the certification of a class that
may never lead to a settlement," they wrote in both petitions.

In their reply, the Ohio cities cited the law review article, in
which McGovern and Rubenstein wrote that the time to appeal
certification of a "negotiation" class should be at its
"inception."

"Respondents' position ignores the district court's words, is
untethered from the text of Rule 23(f), and contravenes the process
conceived by the creators of the class device from which
respondents seek to benefit," Goldstein wrote, for the Ohio cities.
[GN]




                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***