CAR_Public/191202.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 240

                            Headlines

ABOUT YOU SITTING: Underpays Caregivers, Barnes-Dillon Alleges
ALAMAND MANAGEMENT: Torres Suit Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
AMERICAN HUTS: Ward Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Shift Managers
ASHLEY STEWART: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSEMBLERS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Diaz Says

AUTOPARTSPROS LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Alvarez Says
AUTOZONERS LLC: Galindo Seeks OT Wages for Non-Exempt Managers
AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Faces Franchi Shareholder Suit in Delaware
BARCLAYS BANK: Abboud Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
BB&C ENTERPRISES: Christensen Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

BLOOOM INC: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Tosses Robocall Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Action Waiver Provisions Enforceable
CITICORP CREDIT: Dorosz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Kester Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit

CKE RESTAURANTS: Dominguez Files ADA Class Suit in New York
COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Beh Suit Says
COREPOWER YOGA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CUTLERY AND MORE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELTA DENTAL: Tooth Town Sues Over Dental Insurance Conspiracy

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Dunn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EPHESUS CORP: Anastacio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FACTORYOUTLETSTORE: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Breach
FAIRLIFE LLC: Abowd Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
FOREST LABORATORIES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $750MM

FOREST LABS: Allergan to Book $750MM Charge Following Settlement
FRONTLINE ASSET: Kleinman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
GENERAL PLASTICS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in North FLSA Suit
GHANA: Class Action Mulled Over Government's Bauxite Mining Plan
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Serious Concerns Raised Over Bail Plan

KAPU MAKU: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LTF CLUB: Turner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LUCKY BRAND: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARRIOTT INT'L: Siskinds LLP Appointed as Class Lead Counsel
MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto Suit Over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2909: Henderson v. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
MDL 2909: Ngai vs. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
MDL 2909: Olivo vs. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
MERAKEY USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Kyem Says
METLIFE INC: Sued by Atkins for Not Paying Retirees' Pension

MICHIGAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Exclusion of De La Fuente in Ballot
MULDER FIRE: Ybarra Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Hourly Workers
MY CEVICHE CORAL: Carniglia Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
NATUREBOX INC: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in NY
NEWCOMERSTOWN VILLAGE, OH: Eagleson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay

NHK SPRING: Brock Sues Over Suspension Assembly Price-fixing
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Camphor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lehmann Appeals Decision in Khanna Suit
ORIGINAL RAY'S: Basurto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
OTTAWA: Must Pay $1.12MM Legal Fees for Reddock Segregation Suit

PARETEUM CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Bedon Sues Over Violations of BIPA, IMWL & FLSA
PERSONAL CAPITAL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation
PERSONAL INSURANCE: Ont. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
POTTERY BARN: Ferguson Files Class Suit in N.D. Oklahoma

PRETIUM PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Claims
PROJECT RENEWAL: Underpays Residential Aides, Prince Suit Claims
QURATE RETAIL: Castro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
R. L. VALLEE: Settles Fuel Price-Fixing Class Action
ROSICKI ROSICKI: Kohn Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

SANOFI: Expected to Face Massive Numbers of Zantac Lawsuits
SCHMOLZ+BICKENBACH USA: Solomon Sues Over Biometrics Collection
SEALED AIR: Faces UA Local 13 Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SINO FOREST: Poyry Loses Bid to End Singapore Litigation
SNR CONTRACTORS: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Salazar Claims

SOULCYCLE INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUMMIT BROKERAGE: Tayoun Securities Suit Removed to M.D. Pa.
TOPKAPI II: Cicekci Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
TRANSCANADA USA: Harbaum Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
TRAXXAS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRIANGLE CORP: LifeWise Appeals E.D.N.C. Order to Fourth Circuit
USABLE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hayes Claims
WASHINGTON, DC: Sued Over St. Elizabeth's Hospital Water Outage
WE COMPANY: Faces Sojka Securities Suit in California Super. Ct.
WEALTHFRONT CORP: Breaches ADA, Guglielmo Suit Says


                            *********

ABOUT YOU SITTING: Underpays Caregivers, Barnes-Dillon Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BARNES-DILLON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABOUT YOU SITTING SERVICE, LLC;
ROBERT CONLEY; and ANDREA RICHARDSON, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-13702 (E.D. La., Nov. 18, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as caregiver.

About You Sitting Service, LLC provides, home health care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Barrett Beasley, Esq.
           SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
           1901 Texas Street
           Natchitoches, LA 71457
           Telephone: (318) 352-5999
           Facsimile: (318) 352-5998
           E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

                - and -

           Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
           Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
           BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN, PLLC
           5555 San Felipe Street, Suite 900
           Houston, TX 77056
           Telephone: (713) 425-7100
           Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
           Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                   kmcgregor@bchlaw.com


ALAMAND MANAGEMENT: Torres Suit Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL TORRES, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMAND MANAGEMENT
CORP., and ANDREW EDELMAN, individually, and ELVIN NICK,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10244 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4,
2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance worker in
Manhattan from February 2012 to July 18, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
the Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the
NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work,
and the Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of 40 hours for each
week or virtually each week, yet the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff at any rate of pay, much less at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or one and
one-half times the minimum wage rate, when greater, for any hours
that he worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff a flat bi-weekly salary
that was intended to and operated by law to cover only the first 40
hours that he worked in a two-week period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HUTS: Ward Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Shift Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANISSA WARD, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated shift managers, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HUTS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-313 (E.D.
Tenn., Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff and class members were employed by the Defendant as
shift managers at its Pizza Hut restaurants.

The Defendant established wage and hour policies, including
overtime rates of pay for Plaintiff and putative class members, the
lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has and continues to
employ a uniform payment structure for its shift managers that
violates the FLSA's overtime policies in that it has required the
Plaintiff and putative class members to prepare and submit
"end-of-day" reports and, wait until such report are "run", after
clocking out of the Defendant's centralized time keeping system.

American Huts, Inc. is a Pizza Hut franchisee. It owns and operates
Pizza Hut restaurants in Tennessee and other states in the
Southeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASHLEY STEWART: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Stewart, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ashley Stewart, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10813 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019).

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

Ashley Stewart is an American plus size women's clothing company
and lifestyle brand, which was founded in 1991.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



ASSEMBLERS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Diaz, Scott Bryan, Gilxavier Pagan and Chance Mills, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ASSEMBLERS, INC., and MICHAEL GIACCONE, Case No. 4:19-cv-00844-JM
(E.D. Ark., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought against the Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee as
a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs proper
minimum wage and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs and other assemblers regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had
a practice of not paying the Plaintiffs and other assemblers a
lawful minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 in one week or
one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiffs have worked several
jobs for which they were not paid at all, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as assemblers.

The Defendants own and operate a display and equipment assembly
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTOPARTSPROS LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Alvarez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOPARTSPROS, LLC; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00039872-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., Nov. 18, 2019), arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as driver.

Autopartspros, LLC, was founded in 1999. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of motor vehicle
supplies, accessories, tools, and equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com


AUTOZONERS LLC: Galindo Seeks OT Wages for Non-Exempt Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATHALIE GALINDO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company; AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada Corporation; AUTOZONE
WEST, LLC, Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-580500 (Cal. Super.,
Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid wages
earned and due to the Plaintiff pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the unpaid wages include unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, and meal and rest period premiums.  The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and all other "aggrieved
employees" who worked as nonexempt managers for the Defendants.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in
discharging their duties, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failed to maintain required records.

AutoZone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories. Founded in 1979, AutoZone has over 6,000
stores across the United States, Mexico, and Brazil. The company is
based in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Maniel@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com


AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Faces Franchi Shareholder Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AYTU BIOSCIENCE, INC., JOSH DISBROW, STEVEN BOYD, GARY
CANTRELL, CARL DOCKERY, JOHN DONOFRIO, JR., MICHAEL MACALUSO, and
KETAN MEHTA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02204-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 26, 2019),
stems from the Defendants' dissemination of a materially incomplete
proxy statement filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 21, 2019.

The Proxy Statement recommends that the stockholders of Aytu
BioScience, Inc. vote on: (a) A proposal to approve, in accordance
with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5635(d), the convertibility of the
Company's Series F convertible preferred stock, par value $0.0001
per share, and (ii) the exercisability of certain warrants (the
"PIPE Warrants"), in each case, issued in a private placement
offering that closed October 16, 2019 (the "Nasdaq Rule 5635(d)
Proposal"); and (b) A proposal to approve, in accordance with
Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 5635(a)(2) and 5635(d), the convertibility
of the Company's Series G convertible preferred stock, par value
$0.0001 per share issued to Cerecor Inc. ("Cerecor"), pursuant to
that certain Asset Purchase Agreement between the Company and
Cerecor dated October 10, 2019, pursuant to which Company acquired
from Cerecor the assets and business operations of Cerecor
associated with certain of Cerecor's prescription products (the
"Products Business") and assumed certain liabilities associated
with the Products Business (the "Conversion Proposal").

If Aytu's stockholders vote to approve the Nasdaq Rule 5635(d)
Proposal, the Company's largest stockholder, Armistice Capital,
LLC, will own approximately 36.2% of the outstanding shares of
Aytu's common stock. Moreover, if the Company's stockholders vote
to approve the Conversion Proposal, Armistice will own, directly
and indirectly through its interest in Cerecor Inc., approximately
46% of the outstanding shares of Company common stock. As a result,
Armistice would "be in a position to exercise significant influence
over any vote of the Company's stockholders and may also have
greater influence over the Company in other matters." Notably,
Individual Defendant Steven Boyd, a member of Aytu's Board of
Directors, is the Chief Investment Officer and founder of Armistice
and a director of Cerecor.

The Proxy Statement omits material information, which renders the
Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Among other things, the Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement
fails to disclose the financial projections and analyses that the
Individual Defendants considered and relied upon in coming to their
decision to approve the Purchase Agreement and Asset Purchase
Agreement, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Aytu common stock.

Aytu is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on commercializing novel products that address significant patient
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          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: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 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


BARCLAYS BANK: Abboud Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE; and PREMIER UNION
TRUST, LLC, d/b/a SECOND CHOICE HORIZON, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02152-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Barclays Bank Delaware offers credit cards. The Company provides
credit cards for travel, entertainment, retail, and business
purposes, as well as co-branded cards from different companies and
institutions. Barclays Bank Delaware operates in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared T. Green, Esq.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 888-0600
          Facsimile: (302) 888-0606
          E-mail: jtgreen@svglaw.com

               - and -

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


BB&C ENTERPRISES: Christensen Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Morris Christensen, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. BB&C ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA, Case
No. 7:19-cv-00792-GEC (W.D. Va., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and other persons employed by
the Defendant.

The Defendant's reimbursement policy does not reimburse delivery
drivers for even their ongoing out-of-pocket expenses, much less
other costs they incur to own and operate their vehicle, the
Plaintiff says. Thus, the Defendant uniformly fail to reimburse the
delivery drivers at any reasonable approximation of the cost of
owning and operating their vehicles for the Defendant's benefit,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver at
its Dominos Pizza store.

The Defendant owns and operates numerous Dominos Pizza franchise
stores, including stores within this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: 301-587-9373
          Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


BLOOOM INC: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blooom Inc. The case
is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blooom Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10842 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2019).

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

Blooom, often stylized as "blooom", is an online Registered
Investment Adviser that manages individual participant accounts in
employer sponsored retirement plans such as 401, 403, or TSP.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Tosses Robocall Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Massachusetts federal judge on Oct. 23 shot
down a Texas man's bid to certify two proposed classes in a case
that accuses Boston Scientific of calling people with automated
invitations to sales events, saying the suit hinged too heavily on
individualized questions. [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Action Waiver Provisions Enforceable
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Stevens, Esq., Jonathan A. Braunstein, Esq., and Mark
Casciari, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that reversing course and overruling previous precedent, the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit now holds that ERISA plan
mandatory arbitration and class action waiver provisions are
enforceable, and can require individualized arbitration of claims
for breach of fiduciary duties.

In Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp., No. 18-15281, 934 F.3d 1107 and
2019 WL 3939644 (Aug. 20, 2019), the Ninth Circuit reversed course,
overruled precedent, and enforced an arbitration provision in an
ERISA 401(k) plan that mandated individual, and not class,
arbitration of ERISA Sec. 502(a)(2) and (3) claims.

In Dorman, a 401(k) participant brought suit on behalf of a
putative class of plan participants and beneficiaries, alleging
that the fiduciaries had breached their fiduciary duties by
investing assets in the funds affiliated with the defendant.
However, nine months prior to the named plaintiff's termination of
employment and nearly a year before his account withdrawal, the
plan was amended to expressly include an arbitration provision
binding the plan to arbitration, and forbidding class actions.

The defendant moved to compel arbitration. The district court
denied the motion on multiple grounds, ruling that ERISA claims
cannot be subject to mandatory arbitration; the arbitration
provision was added after the named plaintiff's participation in
the plan began; and the plaintiff's claims were brought on "behalf
of the plan," rather than as an individual, and thus could not be
subject to the plan's arbitration clause.

Thirty-five years ago, in Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d
747 (9th Cir. 1984), the Ninth Circuit had held that ERISA claims
were not subject to arbitration. Amaro reasoned that an arbitral
forum may "lack the competence of courts to interpret and apply
statutes as Congress intended." In Dorman, however, the Ninth
Circuit recognized that later Supreme Court cases, including
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228
(2013), had held that arbitrators were competent to interpret and
apply federal statutes. Thus, Dorman expressly overruled Amaro.

In an unpublished companion opinion, the Ninth Circuit addressed
and reversed other holdings by the Dorman district court. Although
the Ninth Circuit had recently held, in Munro v. Univ. of S. Cal.,
896 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2018), that Section 502(a)(2) claims belong
to the plan, rather than the individual (see our discussion of that
case here), the critical difference in Dorman was that the plan had
been amended to include an arbitration provision binding the plan.
Thus, the Ninth Circuit found, the plan "expressly agreed" that all
ERISA claims should be arbitrated. The Ninth Circuit also held,
citing LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 48 (2008),
that although a § 502(a)(2) claim may belong to the plan, losses
are inherently individualized in the context of a defined
contribution plan such as the one at issue. The Ninth Circuit
reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to
compel arbitration.

The Dorman plaintiff recently filed a petition for en banc review,
so it remains to be seen whether the latest Dorman decisions will
stand.

The Ninth Circuit has been the most hostile to arbitration, so
Dorman (unless vacated) is a monumental change that could be the
start of trend favoring ERISA plan arbitration. As we have noted
here and here, arbitration in lieu of court litigation has pros and
cons that need to be considered carefully before mandating
arbitration and a class action waiver in ERISA plans, even though
the court most hostile to forced arbitration now seems to allow it.
[GN]


CITICORP CREDIT: Dorosz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Dorosz, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC. (USA), Case
No. 5:19-cv-01381 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendant. The
Defendant failed to accurately record all of the time worked by the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated and failed to properly
compensate them for all hours worked. As a result, the Defendant
failed to accurately record all of the time worked off-the-clock by
the Plaintiff and failed to properly compensate all of the off the
clock hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative, particularly a Fraud Operations Specialist 3, in
the Defendant's call center facility in San Antonio, Texas.

The Defendant owns and operates a credit services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Kester Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David A. Kester filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit styled David Kester v. CitiMortgage Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00365-DLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Kester
filed a putative class action on behalf of foreclosed homeowners
for statutory damages under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") Section
33-420(A), which penalizes persons claiming an interest or lien in
real property for recording a document "knowing or having reason to
know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material
misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid . . . "  The
statute imposes a penalty of $5,000 for each document.

The appellate case is captioned as David Kester v. CitiMortgage
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-17109, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on December 23, 2019;

   -- Appellant David A. Kester's opening brief is due on
      January 30, 2020;

   -- Appellees CR Title Services, Inc., CitiMortgage Inc. and
      Does' answering brief is due on March 2, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID A. KESTER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          David Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

Defendants-Appellees CITIMORTGAGE INC. and CR TITLE SERVICES, INC.,
are represented by:

          Lucia Nale, Esq.
          Thomas V. Panoff, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 701-7074
          E-mail: lnale@mayerbrown.com
                  tpanoff@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          One Renaissance Square
          Two North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 229-5200
          E-mail: lauren.stine@quarles.com


CKE RESTAURANTS: Dominguez Files ADA Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CKE Restaurants
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on
behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CKE
Restaurants Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10816
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019).

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

CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of the Carl's
Jr., Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito fast food restaurant
brands. The company's headquarters are located in Franklin,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


COMMUNITY CARE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Beh Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON, BRIANA KINCANNON and KIMBERLY BALKUM,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC., ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN,
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER, INC., and JAMES WATSON, Case No.
1:19-cv-01417 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages,
reimbursements for expenses and other payments owed to the
Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to properly pay the
Plaintiffs and other Personal Care Assistants ("PCAs") and/or Home
Health Aides ("HHAs") employed by one or more Defendants.

Community Care Companions, Inc. ("CCC") is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York.  CCC's principal place of business is located in
Smithtown, New York.  CCC has owned and operated franchised home
care businesses and employed individuals as PCAs or HHAs in those
businesses.

Interim Healthcare of Rochester, Inc. ("IHR") is a domestic
business organized and existing under the laws of the state of New
York with places of business in Rochester, New York, and in
Buffalo, New York. IHR has owned and operated home care businesses
and employed individuals as PCAs or HHAs in those businesses.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian Hayes, Esq.
          CREIGHTON, JOHNSEN & GIROUX
          1103 Delaware Avenue
          Buffalo, NY 14209
          Telephone: (716) 854-0007
          E-mail: ihayes@cpjglaborlaw.com

               - and -

          James Reif, Esq.
          GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP
          817 Broadway, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-7727
          E-mail: jreif@grmny.com


COREPOWER YOGA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CorePower Yoga, LLC.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CorePower Yoga, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10817 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019).

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

CorePower Yoga is the largest privately held chain of yoga studios
in the United States. The company is based in Denver,
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CUTLERY AND MORE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cutlery And More,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cutlery And More,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10843 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2019).

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

Cutlery and More specializes in the top brands of kitchen knives,
chef's knives and cookware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELTA DENTAL: Tooth Town Sues Over Dental Insurance Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 50 Delta Dental State
Insurers by Tooth Town Pediatric Dentistry. The case involves Delta
Dental's violation of the federal antitrust laws in the market for
dental insurance across the United States.

According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony
power through its artificial territorial division of that market
among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:

   (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers
       when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market
       Allocation Conspiracy");

   (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
       Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
       who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
       insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and

   (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
       (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.

The Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved
through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully
lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two
further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy.

The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of
Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they
will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the
providers offer to Delta Dental insureds.

These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy:
Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of
Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the
Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they
derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta
Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta
Dental" plans.

Tooth Town Pediatric Dentistry is a dental services provider and a
Michigan professional limited liability company.

Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.

The case is styled as The Tooth Town Pediatric Dentistry, PLLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.;
Delta Dental Plans Association; Delta Dental Insurance Company
Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta
Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of
Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental of Delaware;
Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental of Florida;
Delta Dental Insurance Company -- Georgia; Hawaii Dental Service;
Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of
Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental
of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance Company -- Louisiana; Delta
Dental of Maryland, Inc.; Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta
Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental
Insurance Company -- Mississipp1; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta
Dental Insurance Company -- Montana; Delta Dental of Nebraska;
Delta Dental Insurance Company -- Nevada; Delta Dental of New
Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota; Northeast
Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta Dental of
Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon; Delta
Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta Dental
of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta Dental of
South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental Insurance
Company -- Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company -- Utah; Delta
Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental of
West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of
Wyoming, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07279 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 4,
2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. London, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland ME, 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com
                  equinby@preti.com


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Dunn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merle Dunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP., Case No.
7:19-cv-00277 (W. Tex., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours each week. However, he contends, these workers never
received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the
FLSA, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other workers
like him as exempt and paid them a salary with no overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Enterprise as a Safety Specialist from
March 2015 until March 2019.

Enterprise is a "leading North American provider of midstream
energy services to producers and consumers of natural gas, NGLs,
crude oil, refined products, and petrochemicals."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


EPHESUS CORP: Anastacio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL ARMENTA ANASTACIO, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated v. EPHESUS CORP., doing business as SEVEN HILLS
MEDITERRANEAN GRILL, and YONCA E. ERDIK, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-09745 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Anastacio was an employee of Ephesus Corp. beginning in
November 2018 and ending on October 13, 2019.

Ephesus Corp., is a domestic business entity organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York, doing business as Seven
Hills Mediterranean Grill, located at 158 West 72nd Street, in New
York City.  Yonca E. Erdik is an owner, shareholder, officer,
director, supervisor, and/or managing agent of Ephesus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


FACTORYOUTLETSTORE: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Factoryoutletstore
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Factoryoutletstore
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10846 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2019).

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

Factoryoutletstore LLC retails consumer electronics products. The
Company offers electric and gas refrigerators, stoves, personal
care, fitness devices, and other household appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAIRLIFE LLC: Abowd Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Chelsea Abowd, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fairlife, LLC, Mike
McCloskey, and Sue McCloskey, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04009
(Filed Sept. 24, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov 4,
2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07145 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Robert M. Dow, Jr.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and each of the class
members suffered an injury caused by the Defendants' false,
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and/or misleading practices relating
to the sale and marketing of their milk products. The Plaintiff
seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all
purchasers of the Defendant's Milk Products, for Defendants' fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of
various state consumer protection laws.

Fairlife manufactures, advertises, sells, and markets various milk
products nationwide, including in Indiana. Fairlife's principal
source of milk is its dairy plant at Fair Oaks Farms, located in
Fair Oaks, Indiana. Fairlife is owned by Select Milk Producers Inc.
and the Coca-Cola Company and is distributed by Coca-Cola
Refreshments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan R. Frasher, Esq.
          THE FRASHER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3209 W. Smith Valley Road, Suite 253
          Greenwood, IN 46142
          Telephone: (317) 218-4501
          E-mail: rfrasher@frasherlaw.com


FOREST LABORATORIES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $750MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc on Oct. 28 disclosed that its subsidiaries, Forest
Laboratories LLC, Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Laboratories
Holdings Ltd. (collectively "Forest"), have reached a resolution
with a plaintiff class of direct purchasers of Namenda, concluding
the previously disclosed direct purchaser class action litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The settlement makes no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the
company and resolves the litigation that was scheduled to go to
trial in October 2019.  

Under the settlement agreements, Forest will pay a total of $750
million to the direct purchaser class, subject to finalization of
the settlement agreement and court approval.  

In June 2014, Forest became a wholly owned subsidiary of Actavis
plc which thereafter changed its corporate name to Allergan.

The company will take a pre-tax GAAP charge of $750 million to its
third quarter 2019 earnings.

                         About Allergan

Allergan plc (AGN), headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, is a global
pharmaceutical leader focused on developing, manufacturing and
commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical
and regenerative medicine products for patients around the world.
Allergan markets a portfolio of leading brands and best-in-class
products primarily focused on four key therapeutic areas including
medical aesthetics, eye care, central nervous system and
gastroenterology.  As part of its approach to delivering innovation
for better patient care, Allergan has built one of the broadest
pharmaceutical and device research and development pipelines in the
industry.

With colleagues and commercial operations located in approximately
100 countries, Allergan is committed to working with physicians,
healthcare providers and patients to deliver innovative and
meaningful treatments that help people around the world live
longer, healthier lives every day.  For more information, visit
Allergan's website at www.Allergan.com. [GN]


FOREST LABS: Allergan to Book $750MM Charge Following Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Botox maker Allergan Plc said on Oct. 28 it expects to book a
pre-tax charge of $750 million in the third quarter after its
Forest subsidiaries settled an antitrust class action suit brought
by direct purchasers of Namenda, a treatment for dementia
associated with Alzheimer's disease. Forest will pay that sum to
settle the suit, which was scheduled to go to trial in October.
Forest became a wholly owned unit of Actavis Plc in June 2014,
after which Actavis changed its name to Allergan. [GN]


FRONTLINE ASSET: Kleinman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Abraham Kleinman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06597 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
21, 2019).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies provides third-party collection services
and first-party business process outsourcing services for many
different types of accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL PLASTICS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in North FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff McDonald North filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled McDonald North v. Gen Plastics and Composites, L.P.,
Case Nos. 4:17-CV-2610 and 4:17-CV-3653, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for their failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

General Plastics and Composites, LP, is a manufacturer of
engineered components and turnkey products including composites,
elastomers and metal for oilfield service companies worldwide.

The appellate case is captioned as McDonald North v. Gen Plastics
and Composites, L.P., Case No. 19-20732, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MCDONALD NORTH, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Achmed Defreitas, Esq.
          THE DEFREITAS FIRM
          2800 Post Oak Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (832) 794-6792
          Facsimile: (281) 784-3777
          E-mail: a.defreitas@lawyer.com

Defendant-Appellee GENERAL PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, L.P., is
represented by:

          Teresa Slowen Valderrama, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, L.L.P.
          910 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 292-0150
          E-mail: tvalderrama@fisherphillips.com


GHANA: Class Action Mulled Over Government's Bauxite Mining Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Knott, writing for Washington Post, the world-renowned
forest reserve in Ghana, called the Atewa, is the source of three
major rivers that provide water to 5 million people. It is also
home to an estimated 165 million tons of bauxite, a sedimentary
rock used to create aluminum products such as aircraft parts,
kitchen utensils and beer cans.

Ghana's leaders want to mine the bauxite, which they see as the
country's ticket to economic growth, thanks to a big-name partner
-- China. Campaigners and water experts say the environmental cost
is too high: Mining would taint the water, they claim.

"When you take the mountain off, you change the hydrology and
ecology," said Ronald Abrahams, a chief officer of the Water
Resources Commission, the government agency tasked with managing
the use of Ghana's water resources. "It will not be the same. It
will change everything, and we won't have a source of a river which
is so reliable and has served this nation for ages."

Ghana is looking to mine bauxite to uphold what it calls a barter
deal with China's Sinohydro Corp. Limited. Sinohydro delivers $2
billion worth of infrastructure projects across the country, which
Ghana would pay back with proceeds from the sale of the refined
bauxite. (The Ghanaian government's plans include building a
refinery to process the raw bauxite.)

China is the top buyer of minerals and rocks from Africa, pouring
tens of billions of dollars into mining across the continent over
the past decade -- an investment that has fueled the country's
reign as the world's largest aluminum producer.

The Asian powerhouse is also Africa's biggest funder of
infrastructure projects. It has pledged reams of cash for roads,
bridges, power plants and oil refineries.

These buyer and funder identities often intersect as China offers
big-ticket loans in exchange for access to lucrative resources in
Ghana, Guinea, the Congo and beyond. But analysts say the
high-profile deals, touted by both Chinese and African officials as
a shared path to prosperity, rarely lift the continent's poorest
residents and can harm the environment.

Neither the Chinese government, through its embassy in the Ghanaian
capital, Accra, nor Sinohydro, which is a state-owned corporation,
responded to requests for comment.

Much is unknown about the government's mining plans in the Atewa, a
90-square-mile tract of mountainous forestland. The three major
rivers that originate there -- the Densu, Birim and Ayensu --
provide drinking water to three regions of Ghana, including to the
1 million people in Accra.

Bauxite typically is found in the topsoil and extracted through
strip mining, which requires removing layers of soil and rock to
access the minerals below. Elsewhere, bauxite mining has had
devastating consequences. A 2018 Human Rights Watch report on
bauxite mining in Guinea found that the country's dozens of
open-pit operations had destroyed farmlands, damaged water sources,
and coated homes and crops in dust.

Environmental campaigners warn that if mining in the Atewa begins,
runoff from the operations would contaminate the three rivers and
smaller streams and would pollute surrounding areas with bauxite
dust. Ultimately, they fear the evergreen forest — with its
waterfalls and rare butterflies, frogs and monkeys — will
disappear.

Their worries were reinforced in March when the U.S. Forest Service
visited the Atewa to provide technical consultation to Ghana's
government. Its report said mining could lead to a "potential
significant and permanent impact" on the forest reserve and its
importance as a water source.

"If the forest is gone, it means the rainfall pattern will change,
and that means our livelihoods will change," said Emmanuel Tabi, a
local assembly representative for the area. His constituents live
near the forest and rely on it for water for use at home and on
their farms.

The U.S. report also pointed to what campaigners and those living
in the communities surrounding the forest have complained of — a
lack of transparency in the plans and how the impacts will be
addressed.

Abrahams, of the Water Resources Commission, said government
representatives reassured him they were listening to concerns about
the environmental impact at a workshop on bauxite mining and
aluminum development in October. He hoped this meant the plans
would be dropped.

But in public comments, Ghana's leaders seem resolute on mining the
forest.

Lands and Natural Resources Minister Kwaku Asomah-Cheremeh said in
September that pilot exercises had shown the forest and water
bodies would not be destroyed.

He was echoing comments made by Ghanaian President Nana Addo Dankwa
Akufo-Addo, who dismissed claims that mining in the Atewa would
threaten the creatures of the forest.

"I am satisfied by what I have been told and what has been
demonstrated to me that it is possible for us to get that red mud
out without disturbing the wildlife that there is in the Atewa
mountains," he said at a sustainable development conference in
May.

The government agency responsible for carrying out the plans, the
Ghana Integrated Aluminum Development Corporation, did not comment
for this story despite multiple requests.

A robust opposition to the plan has formed. Ghanaian environmental
activists and organizations walked for six days from Atewa to Accra
in March 2018, carrying water from the forest. They have erected
billboards and placed a notice in Ghana's national newspaper in an
attempt to dissuade mining companies from bidding for bauxite
mining concessions. A collection of Ghanaian civil society
organizations is now considering filing a class-action suit to
protect the forest from mining.

Kyebi, a community bordering the forest reserve, figured
prominently in the last big fight over mining, in 2017. Ghana has
long been known for its gold mining, but illegal small-scale mining
so polluted bodies of water throughout Ghana that experts warned
the country may have to import its water by 2020. A nationwide
campaign followed, along with a temporary ban on all small mining
operations.

One of the most outspoken critics of illegal mines? Akufo-Addo, the
president.

Some residents of nearby towns say a mine would bring jobs to the
area, and with jobs would come workers buying goods and services,
like 41-year-old Ama Gifty Asare's roadside breakfast food in the
town of Odumase.

"I don't have a problem with it, for employment's sake," Asare
said. "I will get to trade more."

Many others say they don't like the plans.

"Five million people use that water. It passed from village to
village and town to town," said Mohammed Awudu, a 52-year-old
farmer whose house in Kyebi is a short walk from one of the rivers
flowing from the Atewa. "Most in the community can't say anything
about it. Most of us don't like it, but we can't say anything
because we don't have power."

An environmental group called A Rocha Ghana has been leading the
fight against the government's plans, working to amplify voices
like Awudu's.

On the lawn of the organization's outpost in Kyebi is a
reddish-brown boulder of bauxite, a reminder of what campaigners
want the government to keep in the ground. A poster of Akufo-Addo
lines one of the walls inside the office, his face next to a quote
from his 2017 inauguration speech:

"We should all recognize the danger we face by the alarming
degradation of our environment and work to protect our water
bodies, our forests, our lands, and the oceans." [GN]


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Serious Concerns Raised Over Bail Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that
District Attorney Kim Ogg has voiced serious concerns with Harris
County consent decree that will govern how pretrial release works
in misdemeanor cases, but she ultimately passed up a scheduled
opportunity to address the federal judge at a final hearing on the
civil rights case on Oct. 28 attended by more than 100
stakeholders.

The hearing, attended by six misdemeanor judges, three
commissioners court members and the sheriff and many community
members, wrapped in about three hours, with the judge saying she
would consider the input from the parties and about a dozen
speakers and issue an order promptly.

Rather than take up her slot at the podium, Ogg submitted a
statement to the court notifying Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H.
Rosenthal of "the current, on-the-ground, operational reality" of
how personal recognizance bonds function.

"Simply put, people are not showing up to court," she said in the
statement. "If past is prologue, the proposed (consent decree) will
either cement this trend or exacerbate it further."

In a courtroom hallway during a break, Ogg said that while she
supports bond reform and opposes wealth-based pretrial detention,
she feels the settlement goes too far, and consequently puts the
public safety at risk prioritizing personal liberty.

"In practice, we're seeing repeat offenders being released on PR
bonds repeatedly," she said. "That's dangerous to the public and
that's what the public is concerned about."

She said she hoped the judge would allow for more dialogue before
signing off on the deal, but admitted that she didn't think that
outcome seemed likely.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack and a representative of
Attorney General Ken Paxton's office also addressed the judge,
expressing concerns with the deal.

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who oversees all pretrial releases at the
third largest jail in the country testified that he thought the
bail deal would provide fundamental guarantees of justice enshrined
in American law and advised that scary scenarios involving
particular cases should not be the foundation of a bail system.

"I don't think it's effective for us to develop public policy on
outliers," Gonzalez said. "We have to rely on research and facts."

In a typical class action, a fairness hearing is an opportunity for
members of the class to express concerns with a settlement. The
hearing on Oct. 28 was unique in that most people who spoke were
not parties in the lawsuit.

Rosenthal ruled in 2017, and an appeals court upheld her finding,
that the old bail system discriminated against poor defendants with
rapid-fire bail determinations made by hearing officers who didn't
take the time to assess each defendant's ability to pay bond. In
essence, the judge found that for years Harris County had been
running a system of wealth-based detention for misdemeanors. People
who could afford cash bail could go home to their families, resume
their jobs and await trial at home. Those who couldn't experienced
a cascading series of negative consequences, beginning in many
cases when they took a guilty plea to get out of jail more quickly.
[GN]


KAPU MAKU: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kapu Maku LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kapu Maku LLC
doing business as: Populum LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06599
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2019).

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

Kapu Maku, which also operates under the name Populum, is located
in Tempe, Arizona that offers premium hemp CBD oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


LTF CLUB: Turner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTF Club Management
CO, LLC. The case is styled as Samuel Turner, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. LTF Club Management CO,
LLC, Life Time Fitness, Inc., Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00269609-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
21, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other employment".

LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. operates as a health and fitness
club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.


LUCKY BRAND: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Brand
Dungarees, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on
behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lucky
Brand Dungarees, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10814 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 21, 2019).

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

Lucky Brand Jeans is an American denim company founded in Vernon,
California in 1990 by Gene Montesano and Barry Perlman. Lucky also
produces other apparel, including activewear, outerwear, T-shirts,
and professional attire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Siskinds LLP Appointed as Class Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Sajjad Nematollahi, Esq. -- sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com -- and
Stefani Cuberovic, Esq. -- stefani.cuberovic@siskinds.com –- of
Siskinds LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in a recent
carriage decision, Winder v Marriott, 2019 ONSC 5766 ("Winder"),
Siskinds LLP was appointed as Class Counsel of a national class
proceeding out of Ontario against Marriott International, Inc.,
Luxury Hotels International of Canada, ULC, and Starwood Canada ULC
on behalf of all Canadian residents whose personal information was
accessed by unauthorized parties in or as a result of a major data
breach disclosed by Marriott on November 30, 2018. This data breach
compromised the privacy and personal information of approximately
500 million Marriott customers worldwide.

The Winder decision resolves carriage only with respect to four
Ontario class proceedings. Outside of Ontario, there are several
ongoing and overlapping class actions in other provinces with
respect to the same defendants and subject-matter, including in
British Columbia where carriage is contested.

Traditional Legal Principles Respecting Carriage
In Winder, the Court was tasked with granting carriage of the
Ontario claims to either Siskinds or a consortium of Canadian law
firms. In making this determination, Justice Perell addressed
several overarching legal principles:

   * Civil procedure policy and section 138 of the Courts of
Justice Act direct that as far as possible, the overlapping or
multiplicity of legal proceedings must be avoided. In other words,
there should not be two or more class actions proceeding with
respect to the same subject-matter, causes of action, and class
members;

   * Where class proceedings overlap, the purpose of a carriage
motion is to determine which one action should be selected to
proceed. In light of the prime objectives of class proceedings
including access to justice, behaviour modification, and judicial
economy, the court will grant carriage to the proposed class
counsel whose action is more or most likely to advance the best
interests of the class; and

In determining carriage, the court will consider a non-exhaustive
list of 17 factors to determine which action should proceed. These
factors established by the jurisprudence concern the qualifications
of the proposed representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and
the quality of each proposed litigation plan.

The Court's Carriage Determination and Progressive Direction
Regarding the Multiplicity of Class Actions

The Winder Court considered the above traditional carriage factors,
but also went further and provided guidance with respect to the
management of overlapping class actions across Canada.
Specifically, the Court considered possible outcomes that could
flow from the granting of carriage in Ontario, including the
streamlining of overlapping national class actions into one or two
jurisdictions.

In this consideration, Justice Perell placed significant emphasis
on the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada
Civil Law Section ("ULC") in its Report of the Uniform Law
Conference of Canada's Committee on the National Class and Related
Interjurisdictional Issues: Background, Analysis and
Recommendations, which identifies best practices for the
coordination of multijurisdictional class actions. This approach
has been adopted by statute in Alberta, and British Columbia. The
Law Commission of Ontario recently recommended that this approach
also be formally adopted in Ontario.

Siskinds and the consortium of Canadian law firms proposed
differing approaches to the case management of overlapping actions
across Canada:

   * The consortium brought overlapping class actions in British
Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, but did not make clear
whether it intended to prosecute one or more class actions
simultaneously, or whether its intention was to prosecute one class
action in one jurisdiction while informally "parking" or "pausing"
its other class actions;

   * Conversely, Siskinds was committed to prosecuting a national
class action out of Ontario, and was prepared to employ the ULC
provisions addressing competing multi-jurisdictional class actions
in order to co-ordinate with counsel in the other actions across
the country.

Bearing in mind the ULC approach alongside the traditional carriage
factors, Justice Perell noted that in the context of this case, the
courts, rather than class counsel, should make the determination of
how to manage the overlapping actions. Based on the record before
him, His Honour found that there was a reasonably strong case that
Ontario was the singular forum conveniens for a national class
action. Accordingly, the Court granted Siskinds carriage of the
Ontario claims, and the actions of the consortium were stayed.

The "tipping point" in granting carriage to Siskinds was Siskinds'
litigation plan respecting the interrelationship of class actions
in more than one jurisdiction. Siskinds' approach allowed for the
possibility that, ultimately, the overlapping claims across the
country could be distilled into one or two class proceedings
involving one to three law firms at the most. Conversely, the
consortium arrangement did not provide an efficient solution to the
problem of multiplicity. The Court noted that pursuant to this
arrangement, up to nine law firms could be involved in case
managing and resolving the overlapping actions. Therefore, the
consortium's approach presented problems for courts across the
country including, among others: (i) inefficiency, (ii) duplication
of fact-finding, legal analysis, and creating an evidentiary
record, (vi) the possibility of inconsistent outcomes across the
country, and (vii) wasted judicial resources.

Ultimately, the Court suggested that the parties consider
procedural steps following the granting of carriage to resolve the
multiplicity of proceedings across Canada. Such steps include that:
(a) the defendants should bring simultaneous forum conveniens
motions, and/or (b) Siskinds should bring motions to settle actions
in provinces that have adopted the ULC legislation.

Significance

The Winder decision signifies the Court's desire to bring greater
harmonization, communication, and co-operation to overlapping
multijurisdictional class proceedings in Canada. Specifically, the
Court's reasons provide guidance with respect to the case
management of overlapping class proceedings, and open the door to
different possibilities, including procedural steps, that parties
can consider in order to streamline or resolve multiplicity
following the granting of carriage. Moreover, in cases where a
consortium arrangement does not offer a solution to the problem of
multiplicity, the carriage motion is a mechanism that can
potentially be employed to reduce problems associated with
overlapping proceedings. [GN]


MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto Suit Over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN N. SMITH, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12589 (Filed
Sept. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 22,
2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07235-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Irene M.
Smith's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Enochs, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: Jenochs@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com


MDL 2909: Henderson v. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Henry Henderson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11953 (Filed Sept.
22, 2019),  was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 4, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07146 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-cv-03924.

The Henderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2909 in re:
FAIRLIFE MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019.

These MDL actions share factual questions arising from allegations
of animal cruelty at a farm in northern Indiana that provides milk
used in fairlife's milk products. The Plaintiffs in each action
allege that they purchased fairlife milk products based on the
Defendants' marketing and labeling, which emphasized fairlife's
humane treatment of its dairy cows. The Plaintiffs in each action
assert similar claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation
of state consumer protection laws, and they seek to represent
overlapping national and state classes of purchasers of Fairlife
milk.

In its Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

Defendant Fairlife, LLC is represented by:

          Brendan Edward Ryan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N. Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-3620
          E-mail: brendan.ryan@kirkland.com


MDL 2909: Ngai vs. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as KEVIN NGAI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRLIFE,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07141 (Filed
Sept. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 4, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07146 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-cv-07141.

The Ngai case is being consolidated with MDL 2909 in re: FAIRLIFE
MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019.

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations of
animal cruelty at a farm in northern Indiana that provides milk
used in fairlife's milk products. The Plaintiffs in each action
allege that they purchased fairlife milk products based on the
Defendants' marketing and labeling, which emphasized Fairlife's
humane treatment of its dairy cows. The Plaintiffs in each action
assert similar claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation
of state consumer protection laws, and they seek to represent
overlapping national and state classes of purchasers of Fairlife
milk.

In its Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helene Chan Andrews, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEB
          360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (212) 254-4800
          E-mail: candrews@klwtlaw.com

Defendant Fairlife, LLC, is represented by:

          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N. Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-3620
          E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com


MDL 2909: Olivo vs. Coca-Cola Over Fairlife Milk Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as  MARLENY OLIVO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRLIFE,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08302 (Filed
Sept. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 4, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07144 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-cv-07141.

The Olivo case is being consolidated with MDL 2909 in re: FAIRLIFE
MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019.

These actions share factual questions arising from allegations of
animal cruelty at a farm in northern Indiana that provides milk
used in fairlife's milk products. The Plaintiffs in each action
allege that they purchased fairlife milk products based on the
Defendants' marketing and labeling, which emphasized Fairlife's
humane treatment of its dairy cows. The Plaintiffs in each action
assert similar claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation
of state consumer protection laws, and they seek to represent
overlapping national and state classes of purchasers of Fairlife
milk.

In its Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUOI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@farugilaw.com
                  jnassir@farugilaw.com


MERAKEY USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Kyem Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Kyem, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MERAKEY USA, MERAKEY CHILDEREN'S SERVICES, Case No.
2:19-cv-05577-WB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was
not properly compensated. The Plaintiff was not paid an overtime
premium at 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of
Behavioral Specialist Consultant.

Defendant Merakey USA, is a non-profit corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          Edmund C. Celiesus, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-273-1054
          Facsimile: 215-525-0210
          Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                 mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                 ec@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


METLIFE INC: Sued by Atkins for Not Paying Retirees' Pension
------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY ATKINS; and GERALDINE ATKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE, INC.;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02004-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Nov. 18,
2019), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, MetLife, Inc. has admitted that over
the course of 25 years, it failed to locate more than 13,500
beneficiaries and released to itself over $500 million in annuity
benefit reserves. Instead of meeting their obligations under the
group annuity contracts ("GACs"), the Defendants abandoned their
responsibilities and failed to keep track of beneficiaries, failed
to maintain current contact information for them, and failed to
timely notify and pay beneficiaries when they became entitled to
their benefits, the Plaintiffs assert.

When the Defendants did attempt to contact beneficiaries, their
attempts were half-hearted, and when those attempts predictably
failed, the Defendants deemed beneficiaries to be "deceased" and
took for itself the reserves set aside to pay their benefits, the
Plaintiffs contend. By releasing the funds held in reserve to
itself, MetLife, Inc. exercised dominion and control over the
benefits due to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class and
benefitted by reducing its future pension benefit liabilities and
increasing its retained earnings.

In admitting that it failed to pay these annuity benefits, MetLife
revealed additional details about its protocols and procedures
regarding the payment of benefits to retirees--which apparently
involved nothing more than sending two generic form letters to the
annuitant's last known address, one letter when the annuitant
turned 65, and a second letter as the annuitant approached age 70
1/2. If an annuitant did not respond after these two perfunctory
attempts at contact, the Company assumed the annuitant had died.
Instead of attempting to locate and contact the annuitant's
designated beneficiaries or escheat the unclaimed benefits to the
state as the Company was required to do under unclaimed property
laws, MetLife released the annuitant's benefit amount from the
reserves to itself, decreasing the Company's liabilities and
increasing its assets.

After admitting its failure and initiating "voluntary" efforts to
locate and pay beneficiaries, MetLife continues to mislead these
vulnerable victims, the Plaintiffs aver. For example, despite
pledging to pay interest on back benefits to the annuitants MetLife
failed to locate over the course of 25 years, the Company continues
to try and minimize their recovery by sending settlement forms that
fail to acknowledge that the annuity payments are late and that
interest is owed.

MetLife, Inc. provides individual insurance, employee benefits, and
financial services with operations throughout the United States and
the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The
Company's products include life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking, and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Aldrich, Esq.
          ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
          7866 West Sahara Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 853-5490
          Facsimile: (702) 227-1975
          E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com
                  norenstein@bermantabacco.com


MICHIGAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Exclusion of De La Fuente in Ballot
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of State
of the Michigan Department of State, Case No. 2:19-cv-13515-DPH-EAS
(D. Mich., Nov. 26, 2019), challenges the Secretary of State's
failure to include candidate Roque De La Fuente on the Republican
primary ballot because she did not consider Spanish-speaking media
as an indicator of support.

Ms. Benson also did not consider Internet-based media, says the
complaint. The failure to consider Spanish-speaking and
Internet-based media creates a barrier for Hispanic and Latino
voters to get their candidates on the ballot in violation of their
civil rights, their elective franchise, and the Voting Rights Act,
the Plaintiff argues.

Mr. Gonzalez is a United States citizen, a resident of Detroit,
Michigan, and is of Hispanic and/or Latino ethnicity.

Jocelyn Benson is the Secretary of State of the Michigan Department
of State and is sued in her official capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William P. Tedards, Jr., Esq.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 797-9135
          Email: BT@tedards.net

               - and -

          Alicia I. Dearn, Esq.
          231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 850 #56306
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 526-0040
          Email: notices@bellatrixlaw.com


MULDER FIRE: Ybarra Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Hourly Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL YBARRA, JEFFREY WOJDACZ, and TONEY CASIAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS v. MULDER
FIRE PROTECTION, INC., and EDWARD MULDER, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
5:19-cv-01302 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks recovery of monetary
damages for unpaid overtime hours worked by the Plaintiffs and the
class members under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as an hourly
employees. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants unlawfully
refrained from paying the Plaintiffs a lawful overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MY CEVICHE CORAL: Carniglia Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carniglia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MY CEVICHE CORAL GABLES LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, a/k/a 27 ENTREPRENEURS MIRACE MILE LLC, and ROGER DUARTE,
individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-24890-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 26,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for
the Defendants. However, the Defendants have failed to pay time and
one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff and
the other similarly situated salaried "Assistant General Managers,"
"General Managers, and other restaurant employees for all of their
actual overtime hours worked during multiple work weeks within the
3 year statute of limitations period between November 2016 and the
present, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in the job title of
"Assistant General Manager".

The Defendants owned and operated restaurants doing business as "MY
CEVICHE" at six locations throughout Miami-Dade County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 901-1379
          Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


NATUREBOX INC: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naturebox, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Naturebox, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10847 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2019).

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

NatureBox manufactures and distributes healthy, organic foods. The
Company markets its products which contain no high fructose corn
syrup, trans fats, artificial sweeteners, partially hydrogenated
oils, artificial flavors, or colors to health food outlets
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWCOMERSTOWN VILLAGE, OH: Eagleson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Eagleson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. VILLAGE OF NEWCOMERSTOWN, Case No. 5:19-cv-02787-JRA
(N.D. Ohio, Nov. 26, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant maintains a policy of requiring the Plaintiff and
other employees to take compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
wages. However, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff and other
employees subject to this policy with compensatory time off at a
rate less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment
worked, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant's failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and other employees has resulted in unpaid
overtime to the Plaintiff and others, in violation of the FLSA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
police officer.

The Defendant has operated and controlled the Newcomerstown Police
Department.[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.
          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


NHK SPRING: Brock Sues Over Suspension Assembly Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
ARI BROCK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring
(Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.,
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Hong Kong)
Co., Ltd.; TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology Public
Co. Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., Hutchinson Technology Inc.,
Headway Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-06887 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
22, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws
relating to their manufacture and sale of Hard Disk Drive
Suspension Assemblies.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sell HDD Suspension
Assemblies throughout and into the United States.  Hard Disk Drive
Suspension Assemblies ("HDD Suspension Assemblies") are components
of hard disk drives, which are used to store information
electronically and are incorporated into computers or sold as
stand-alone electronic storage devices.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators, agreed, combined, and
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids
and allocate the market and customers in the United States for HDD
Suspension Assemblies, the Plaintiff alleges.  He adds that the
Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in a combination
and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the
automotive parts industry by agreeing to allocate the supply of,
rig bids for, and fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, HDD
Suspension Assemblies sold to hard disk drive manufacturers and
others in the United States.

NHK Spring Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Yokohama, Japan. NHK Spring Co.,
Ltd.--directly or through its affiliates, which it wholly owned or
controlled--manufactured, marketed and/or sold HDD suspension
assemblies that were sold and purchased throughout the United
States, including in this District, during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
                  mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com


NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Camphor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Camphor, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY, INC., a California
not-for-profit corporation, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS, INC., JOHN
F. KENNEDY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-02269-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendants from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited,
prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to consumers without their
consent, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for
all persons injured by their conduct.

Leads for the Defendants' online education programs are generated
from centralized telephone numbers. These lead generators call
consumer without consent and if they can get a live consumer on the
phone, they transfer the call to a screener who screens the lead.
Without first obtaining the consumer's consent to receive
pre-recorded calls, the lead generator transmits the lead to the
Defendants, who immediately make a pre-recorded and/or autodialed
call to the consumer, in violation of the TCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Baltimore, Maryland resident.

NUS is a private nonprofit network of online and brick-and-mortar
schools for higher educational learning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Amanda F. Benedict, Esq,
          LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA F. BENEDICT
          7710 Hazard Center Dr., Suite E-104
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (760) 822-1911
          Fax: (760) 452-7560
          Email: amanda@amandabenedict.com


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lehmann Appeals Decision in Khanna Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. and George Lehmann
filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion & Order dated
September 20, 2019, and judgment dated September 23, 2019, entered
in the lawsuit titled GEORGE LEHMANN and INSURED BENEFIT PLANS,
INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., JASON SLAKTER, SAM
BACKENROTH, and IRACH TARAPOREWALA, Case No. 18-cv-1284, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 18, 2019, Judge
Loretta A. Preska granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)
and 12(b)(6).

On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna commenced this
action in the District Court against the Company and several
current and former officers, alleging that they violated federal
securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the Lead Plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the
class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The
Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to
maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Lead Plaintiffs assert claims of securities fraud under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  They also allege
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Their claims stem
from their purchase of Ohr common stock.

In 2009, the Company purchased the rights to Squalamine, a drug
developed by a company called Genaera and derived from the liver of
the dogfish shark.  After purchasing Squalamine, the Company began
developing the drug to be delivered through an eye drop, as opposed
to Genaera's intravenous delivery method.  The Company's first
testing in humans was its phase II clinical trial in 2012 called
the "IMPACT Trial."  Prior to the results of the IMPACT Trial, the
Defendants allegedly misrepresented Squalamine by saying it
produced beneficial effects and significant improvement in best
corrected visual acuity.

The appellate case is captioned as Khanna, et al. v. Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3486, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants George Lehmann and Insured Benefit Plans,
Inc., are represented by:

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., Jason Slakter, Sam
Backenroth and Irach Taraporewala are represented by:

          Aurora Cassirer, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6249
          E-mail: aurora.cassirer@troutman.com


ORIGINAL RAY'S: Basurto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRILO CANDIDO BASURTO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ORIGINAL RAY'S INC. (D/B/A THE ORIGINAL RAY'S
PIZZA RESTAURANT), RIANA INC. (D/B/A THE ORIGINAL RAY'S PIZZA
RESTAURANT), ROSOLINO MANGANO , and TONY MANGANO, Case No.
1:19-cv-09748 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, and who was
employed as a delivery worker.  He alleges that, at all relevant
periods, he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 462
Columbus Ave., in New York City, under the name "The Original Ray's
Pizza Restaurant."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


OTTAWA: Must Pay $1.12MM Legal Fees for Reddock Segregation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
federal government has been ordered to pay $1.12 million in legal
fees for a segregation class action in a judgment critical of
Ottawa's arguments for paying less.

In awarding the costs to representative plaintiff Jullian Reddock,
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell rejected the government's
contention that the requested fees were unreasonable or excessive.

"If anything, it is the pot calling the kettle black for the
federal government to submit that class counsel over-lawyered the
case," Perell said.

The fee award comes in a class action involving the placement of
inmates in administrative solitary confinement. Lawyers from
McCarthy Tetrault and Koskie Minsky were involved.

Reddock launched the action in March 2017. He said he had sometimes
spent days without leaving his cell and that he binged on an
anti-anxiety drug.

In August, Perell awarded the thousands of class members $20
million in damages, with the right of individual complainants to
push for higher amounts depending on their circumstances.

"The Correctional Service operated administrative segregation in a
way that unnecessarily caused harm to the inmates," Perell said.

Reddock requested $1.24 million to cover the legal costs of his
successful fight. The government, however, claimed the fees were
"disproportionate and excessive."

In its submissions, Ottawa argued a substantial cut was warranted
because the Reddock lawyers from McCarthy Tetrault were also
involved in a separate segregation class action against the
government. That lawsuit, with Christopher Brazeau as one of the
representative plaintiffs, involved mentally ill inmates placed in
administrative segregation.

The lawyers' decision to separate the lawsuits was "duplicative"
and the litigation approach "unreasonable," the government
maintained.

Perell, however, rejected the arguments, noting among other things
that the government did not say what costs would have been
reasonable or how much it spent on its own lawyers.

"When an unsuccessful party does not file a bill of costs but
alleges over-lawyering, courts are very skeptical about the
allegations," Perell said.

It would appear, the judge said, that Ottawa spent at least as
much, if not more, on lawyers than did the plaintiff.

The two class actions, Perell said, were substantively different
and Ottawa's claim to the contrary was unjustified. Nor could it be
said that pressing them as a single suit would have been more
efficient, he said.

"The federal government was quite happy to take ironical and
inconsistent approaches in advancing its defences and playing one
case off against the other," Perell said. "It takes irony and
hypocrisy for the federal government to say there were efficiencies
to be achieved."

Perell did reduce Reddock's requested fees by $113,000 for a sliver
of counsel overlap he found in the two cases.

Administrative segregation involves isolating inmates for safety
reasons where authorities believe there is no reasonable
alternative. Prisoners spend almost their entire day in small cells
without meaningful human contact or programming.

Critics argue the practice can cause severe psychological harm and
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, facts that Perell -- and
other courts -- have accepted. Ottawa has said legislation that
takes effect Nov. 30 will alleviate the problem. [GN]


PARETEUM CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors and whistleblowers nationwide, on Oct. 28 informed
investors that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Pareteum
Corporation and certain of its officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. Class members interested in serving as
lead plaintiff are required to move for appointment by December 23,
2019 and are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn
more.

The class action complaint, which was filed in the Southern
District of New York and captioned Vargo v. Pareteum Corporation,
et. al., No. 1:19-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y.), alleges that Defendants
improperly recognized revenue in the company's financial statements
dating back to the 1st quarter of 2018.  The truth was revealed on
October 21, 2019, when the company announced after market's closed
that it would restate its financials based on a conclusion that the
company improperly recorded revenues in 2018 and the first two
quarters of 2019. Investors were also warned to no longer rely on
the company's previously issued financial results. In the next full
day of trading, Pareteum's stock price dropped almost 60% to close
at $0.30 per share

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pareteum securities and have
questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant
to this matter, you are encouraged to contact attorney Mark Delaney
at (617) 398-5600, by email at mdelaney@blockesq.com, or by
visiting https://shareholder.law/pareteum.

Block & Leviton LLP -- https://blockesq.com -- was recently ranked
4th among securities litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in
2017. The firm represents many of the nation's largest
institutional investors and numerous individual investors in
securities litigation throughout the country. Indeed, its lawyers
have recovered billions of dollars for its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:

BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
Mark Delaney
(617) 398-5600 phone
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
mark@blockesq.com
[GN]


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Bedon Sues Over Violations of BIPA, IMWL & FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER BEDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-06949 (N.D.
Ill., Oct. 22, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who previously worked as an hourly employee for the
Defendant at its facility in Downers Grove, Illinois, brings the
case under BIPA on behalf of all persons in Illinois, who had their
biometric identifiers and biometric information improperly
collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained by the
Defendant.  He also alleges that the Defendant violated the IMWL
and the FLSA by failing to pay him and its other hourly employees
for all hours worked, including overtime wages.

PFI is a commercial bakery with its headquarters in Connecticut and
manufacturing plants in Illinois and Pennsylvania.  PFI conducts
substantial business operations throughout the state of
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          James D. Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                  bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  jrogers@msiegellaw.com


PERSONAL CAPITAL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Personal Capital
Corporation. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Personal
Capital Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10848 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 22, 2019).

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

Personal Capital is an online financial advisor and personal wealth
management company headquartered in Redwood Shores, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERSONAL INSURANCE: Ont. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been certified on consent against The
Personal Insurance Company, and the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has approved a settlement of that proceeding. The
plaintiff, Mr. Haikola, alleged that Personal Insurance failed to
comply with an implied term of its contractual obligations to its
insureds, when Personal Insurance accessed its insureds' credit
scores as part of its claims management process when its insureds
made claims under their automobile insurance policies.

The Class is "All persons who: (1) were insured by The Personal
Insurance Company under a valid automobile insurance policy between
January 2012 and May 2019 ; (2) made an automobile insurance claim
under that policy with The Personal during that time; and (3)
consented to the collection and/or use of their credit score by The
Personal or its agents as part of the fraud prevention and
detection needs of The Personal's claims management process."

Personal Insurance has paid $2,200,000 to settle the class action,
without making any admission or findings of liability or
wrongdoing.  The Court has approved payment from this amount to
Class Counsel for legal fees and disbursements totaling
$585,000, and payment of an honourarium of $15,000 to Mr. Haikola.
The balance, after deduction of the costs of claims administration,
will be paid pro-rata to the members of the Class who either
automatically qualify for a payment or who submit a valid claim
form before the claim deadline of February 7, 2020.  There are
approximately 8,525 class members, meaning that if every Class
member receives a payment, then each would receive approximately
$150.  Under the settlement, the defendants will receive a
comprehensive release.

Every Class member who continues to be insured by The Personal will
automatically receive payment and will not need to complete a claim
form, unless they wish to receive their portion of the settlement
by direct deposit.  Any Class member who is no longer insured by
The Personal will have to submit a claim form by the claim deadline
to participate in the settlement.

Any Class member who does not wish to be bound by the results of
this action and the settlement must "opt out" of the action by no
later than December 6, 2019.  Opt out forms will be available from
the claims administrator's website:
https://www.classaction2.com/personalprivacy.html

Notice of this action will be sent directly to all identified Class
members at their last known address. Anyone who does not receive a
notice and believes that they are a Class member should contact the
claims administrator, to obtain a claim form.

Details of the settlement are available at the claims
administrator's website:
https://www.classaction2.com/personalprivacy.html
or at Class Counsel's website: http://personalprivacyclassaction.ca


A settlement is a compromise of disputed claims in order to achieve
an early full and final resolution of the action.  The defendants
denied any liability or wrongdoing, and if the settlement had not
been approved, they would have defended the action, and challenged
the certification of the class action.

                    About Waddell Phillips PC

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation is a boutique law firm,
specializing in plaintiff-side class actions.  The principals of
the firm have helped victims in a wide range of class actions,
including product liability, consumer protection, privacy breaches,
institutional abuse, franchise disputes, and securities
misrepresentations. [GN]


POTTERY BARN: Ferguson Files Class Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pottery Barn, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as James Ferguson, Patrick Ferguson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pottery Barn, Inc., Williams-Sonoma, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00633-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Nov. 21,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Federal Trade Commission
Act.

Pottery Barn is a United States-based upscale home furnishing store
chain with retail stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E Smolen, Esq.
          Lauren Grace Lambright, Esq.
          Smolen and Roytman
          701 S CINCINNATI AVE
          TULSA, OK 74119
          Phone: (918) 585-2667
          Fax: (918) 585-2669
          Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com
                 laurenlambright@ssrok.com


PRETIUM PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Moreno, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRETIUM PACKAGING, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2019-01114297-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Nov. 26,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code
violations and unfair business practices stemming from their
failure to pay employees proper wages, to provide meal periods, to
authorize and permit rest periods, to timely pay final wages, and
to furnish accurate wage statements.

The Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of: failing to pay employees the proper wages for all
overtime hours worked; failing to provide employees with timely and
duty-free meal periods, failing to maintain accurate records of all
meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional
hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred;
failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and
duty-free rest periods, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay
for each workday a rest period violation occurred; and failing to
provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements
containing all the information required by the California Labor
Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint.

Carlos Moreno worked for the Defendants as a Warehouse Associate
from April 2017 to the present.

The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Orange County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com


PROJECT RENEWAL: Underpays Residential Aides, Prince Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUASHAWN PRINCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT RENEWAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
160708/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks damages and other
legal and equitable relief against the Defendant for its violations
of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a residential aide
from March 12, 2019, through September 23, 2019. The Plaintiff was
a covered, non-exempt employee of the Defendant.

The claims of Plaintiff are typical to the claims of the Class
because they are all current or former employees of the Defendant,
who sustained damages, including underpayment of wages as a result
of its common compensation policies and practices, the lawsuit
says.

Project Renewal is a New York City nonprofit organization that
helps homeless and low-income men and women, who often have a drug
addiction, mental illness or both, by providing everything they
need to reclaim their lives with renewed health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742-1977
          E-mail: mark@bglawny.com


QURATE RETAIL: Castro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled as Esteban Castro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. QURATE RETAIL, INC., a Delaware
corporation QURATE RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
QVC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 1932035, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 26,
2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02265 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts eight causes of action against the Defendants
for: (1) "Wage Statement Violations;" (2) "Failure to Pay All
Wages"; (3) "Irregular Pay Periods"; (4) "Violation of Labor Code";
(5) "Reporting Pay Times"; (6) "Meal and Rest Break Violations";
(7) "Waiting Time Penalties"; and (8) "Unfair Business Practices
Act."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street., Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          Email: thix@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Daniel Whang, Esq.
          Lara A. Grines, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
                 lgrines@seyfarth.com


R. L. VALLEE: Settles Fuel Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Samantha Oller, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that four
Vermont fuel distributors have agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit that alleges they engaged in price fixing.

In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against four companies --
R.L. Vallee Inc., owner of the Maplefields chain; SB Collins Inc.,
owner of Jolley c-stores; Champlain Farms/Wesco Inc.; and Champlain
Oil Co., operator of Jiffy Mart stores, which was acquired in 2018
by Global Partners.

According to the law firms of Bailey Glasser LLP and The Burlington
Law Practice PLLC, which brought the class-action lawsuit, the
defendants matched up their wholesale fuel prices, which in turn
caused retail fuel prices in Chittenden and nearby counties in the
northwest part of the state to rise at the stations the
distributors owned and those they supplied. At the time the lawsuit
was filed, the four companies controlled about 64% of the retail
gas stations in Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle counties and
dominated the wholesale market, according to the plaintiffs. The
lawsuit alleged the improper profit earned by these companies could
have exceeded $100 million from 2005 to 2015.

In November 2015, the distributors filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence
supporting the price fixing allegations.

But this October, the distributors agreed to a proposed settlement
with no admission of wrongdoing, according to Vermont news site
Seven Days. The agreement, which was filed in Vermont Superior
Court and still needs to be approved by a judge, would have the
companies pay $1.5 million to gasoline consumers in northwestern
Vermont. Any customers who owned a car, bought gas from one of the
four companies and lived in Chittenden, Franklin or Grand Isle
counties between April 2012 and June 2015 are eligible to submit a
claim. The law firms that brought the original suit could receive
up to $500,000 of the settlement sum.

The proposed settlement would also require the distributors to
follow written antitrust policies and provide antitrust training to
employees who handle petroleum product pricing.

In the agreement, the distributors "maintain that they have acted
completely independently of each other, are competitors in the sale
of gasoline, have not conspired in any way, have set gas prices
fairly based on existing market forces and did not violate any
laws."

Rodolphe "Skip" Vallee, CEO of R.L. Vallee, Saint Albans, Vt., said
in a written statement provided to Seven Days that the allegations
were "misguided" and "outrageous."

"As we have said all along, we steadfastly, adamantly and
completely deny the allegations in the complaint," Vallee said.
"After four years of litigation, involving the production of
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of thousands
of emails and access to hundreds of witnesses of our company and
others, there is not a single company email, document or witness
documenting or testifying to price fixing. There is no proof
because it simply did not happen." [GN]


ROSICKI ROSICKI: Kohn Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosicki, Rosicki &
Associates, P.C., et al. The case is styled as David Kohn, Rochelle
Kohn, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiffs v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Eric
P. Debarba, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06594-LDH-JO (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019).

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

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates P.C.'s line of business includes
providing full service legal advice.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SANOFI: Expected to Face Massive Numbers of Zantac Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers are
predicting massive numbers of lawsuits over Zantac, which drug
maker Sanofi recently recalled after the FDA discovered the
heartburn medication contained an ingredient that could cause
cancer. Amanda Bronstad reports that so far, about a dozen
lawsuits, both consumer class actions and individual personal
cases, allege that Sanofi and other drug companies knew but failed
to disclose that active ingredient ranitidine metabolizes into
unsafe levels of a possible carcinogen. [GN]


SCHMOLZ+BICKENBACH USA: Solomon Sues Over Biometrics Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHMOLZ+BICKENBACH USA, INC.; and ADP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH13361 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 18, 2019),
alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants unlawfully collect,
store, and use their employees' biometric data in violation of the
BIPA.

Prior to taking his biometric data, the Plaintiff asserts, the
Defendants did not inform him in writing that his biometrics were
being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any
policy specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion,
or dissemination of biometrics.

Schmolz+Bickenbach USA, Inc. through its subsidiaries,
manufactures, processes, and distributes long steel products. The
Company produces high-grade steels, bright and special steels, as
well as stainless, acid and heat-resistant steels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jeffrey Friedman, Esq.
           Arijana Keserovic, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY FRIEDMAN, P.C.
           225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2200
           Chicago, IL 60606
           Telephone: (312) 357-1431


SEALED AIR: Faces UA Local 13 Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
UA LOCAL 13 & EMPLOYERS GROUP - INSURANCE FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. SEALED
AIR CORPORATION, JEROME A. PERIBERE, EDWARD L. DOHENY IL, CAROL P.
LOWE and WILLIAM G. STIEHL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10161
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019), is brought as a securities class action
on behalf of all purchasers of Sealed Air common stock between
November 5, 2014, and August 6, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff asserts it purchased Sealed Air common stock during
the Class Period and suffered damages. The Defendants ran the
Company as hands-on managers overseeing Sealed Air's operations and
finances and made materially false and misleading statements.

On February 22, 2016, Sealed Air filed its annual report on Form
10-K for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2015, which was
signed by defendants Stiehl, Peribere, and Lowe and contained
signed certifications by Defendants Peribere and Lowe stating that
the statements contained therein were accurate and not materially
misleading.

In subsequent quarterly earnings releases and Forms 10-Q and 10-K,
Sealed Air continued to represent that its deductions and
accounting treatment of the Settlement were proper and that the
Company's financial results, which had been certified by the
Individual Defendants, had been fairly and accurately represented
in these financial filings in all material respects.

In addition, in each Sealed Air Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filed
during the Class Period, the Defendants claimed that the financial
statements contained therein were prepared in conformance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of
America. Sealed Air also continued to cite E&Y's purported
"independence" in recommending that shareholders vote to approve
the auditing firm, which shareholders did in every year from 2015
to 2019.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading when made
because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and financial
condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by the
Defendants:

   (a) that Sealed Air had hired its auditor, E&Y, pursuant to a
       conflicted and improper process and in order to help
       facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in accounting
       fraud;

   (b) that Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49 billion in connection
       with the Settlement was indefensible and done for the
       improper purpose of artificially inflating the Company's
       financial results;

   (c) that Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings,
       cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period;

   (d) that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, Sealed Air's Class
       Period financial statements were materially false and
       misleading and not prepared 1n conformance with GAAP; and

   (e) that, as a result of Sealed Air's statements regarding its
       financial results, business, and prospects were materially
       misleading.

On August 12, 2019, Sealed Air announced that it had replaced E&Y
as the Company's auditor, stating in an SEC filing that "the
pendency of the SEC investigation, along with the Committee's
dissatisfaction with information it learned about the process by
which EY was selected as auditor, caused the Company to make this
change now to allow for an orderly transition for the audit of the
Company's fiscal 2019 consolidated financial statements and to
minimize the risk of disruption that could arise in the event of an
unplanned change in independent auditors at an undetermined time in
the future."

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
plaintiff and the Class purchased Sealed Air common stock at
artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses and
were damaged thereby, the lawsuit says.

Sealed Air specializes in providing packing solutions in the food,
e-Commerce, electronics, and industrial markets. Two of the
Company's most iconic brands include Bubble Wrap packaging and
Cryovac shrink wrap products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rerdlaw.com
                  bcochran@regrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Asher, Esq.
          Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & PATTON, P.C.
          1000 Maccabees Center
          25800 Northwestern Highway
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: 248 746-0700
          Facsimile: 248/746-2760
          E-mail: masher@swappc.com
                  jkelly@swappc.com


SINO FOREST: Poyry Loses Bid to End Singapore Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Thoburn, Esq. -- JThoburn@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that for some time,
the ongoing litigation involving Sino Forest Corporation has
illustrated how convoluted and complex class actions can be.  Most
recently, the Ontario Superior Court, in Trustees of the Labourers'
Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino Forest, has
rejected an attempt on the part of Sino Forest's former management
consulting firm to put an end to related litigation in Singapore.

Sino Forest was a forest plantation operator which was publicly
traded on the TSX. From 2003 to 2011, Sino Forest retained Poyry to
prepare valuations of Sino Forest's various forest assets relied
upon during three prospectus offerings. In June 2011, a report was
published alleging that Sino Forest committed a fraud by claiming
to own forestry assets that it did not own. Later that year, a
class proceeding was commenced in Ontario by Sino Forest's
noteholders and shareholders, and a parallel action was brought in
Quebec. A management consulting company engaged by Sino Forest,
Poyry, was one of the many defendants in the actions.

In 2012, Poyry entered into a Settlement Agreement and as the
'first settlor', agreed to various documentary disclosure and
overall cooperation to assist the Class Members in their pursuit
against the non-settling defendants. The Settlement Agreement also
contained a release provision and a bar order provision, which
effectively precluded any future claims against Poyry.

Later that year, Sino Forest obtained creditor protection, and a
stay of proceedings. The stay was subsequently lifted to allow for
the approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Approval
Order also contained bar order language similar to the Settlement
Agreement, and essentially barred "any and all manner of claims
that Settlement Class members had against Poyry . . . or its
affiliates".

Thereafter, under the creditor protection plan, Sino Forest and its
subsidiaries were released from all class action claims and a
Litigation Trust was established. The protection plan was explicit
that the "claims transferred to the Litigation Trust were Sino
Forest's independent causes of action against third parties; not
claims for contribution or indemnity that Sino Forest might have in
the class actions".

Subsequently, the Litigation Trustee commenced four proceedings
against Poyry, including ones in Ontario and Singapore. Poyry
brought an unsuccessful motion to enforce the bar order in the
Ontario action. As a result, that claim was allowed to proceed
until the Litigation Trustee and Poyry entered into a Standstill
Agreement. Pursuant to the Standstill Agreement, the parties agreed
to litigate the Singapore action first, and stayed or tolled the
other proceedings until the outcome of the Singapore action.

Motion before the Ontario Superior Court

On its motion before the Ontario Superior Court, Poyry argued that
the "release and bar order provisions of the Poyry Settlement
Agreement cover the Litigation Trust's action against Poyry in
Singapore". It should also be noted that Poyry relied on these
alleged breaches of the Poyry Settlement Agreement in its Defence
to the Singapore action. In sum, "Poyry is asking [the] court in
Ontario to bless or condemn its defences in the Singapore Action
and provide an opinion for the Singapore Court". Conversely, the
crux of the Litigation Trust's opposition to the motion is that of
forum non conveniens, or rather that Singapore is the appropriate
jurisdiction in the circumstances.

In the result, the Ontario Court accepted the forum non conveniens
argument advanced by the Litigation Trust. In coming to this
conclusion, the Court likened the motion to one brought under Rule
21.03(c) of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, which states the
Court may dismiss an action on the grounds that "another proceeding
is pending in Ontario or another jurisdiction between the same
parties in respect of the same subject matter".

While the Court found that it had jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the motion, the Court elected to dismiss the motion under
Rule 21.03(c). Further, the Court held that its decision was also
consistent with the plain reading of the Standstill Agreement,
which is similar to an "exclusive jurisdiction clause". In the end,
the Ontario Court held that "it is not appropriate for this court
to decide how another court, the Singapore Court, should interpret,
apply, and enforce what is for the Singapore Court a foreign
judgment". As a result, at least for the time-being, the Sino
Forest litigation saga will continue, with a further chapter to be
written in Singapore. [GN]


SNR CONTRACTORS: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Salazar Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SALAZAR, LIDIA ELIZABETH OJEDA DE SALAZAR, and WILBER
ALEXANDER MENJIVAR, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and all who have filed or will file consent to
suit forms in the case, Plaintiffs v. SNR CONTRACTORS & ASSOCIATES,
INC., and SALOME NAVARRO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03128 (D.
Colo., Nov. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to
properly pay all wages due and owing, and unlawfully avoid and
evade employer obligations and costs.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs are or have been employed by the Defendants as
"non-exempt" employees and/or are or have been misclassified as
independent contractors. They performed painting, cleaning, and
related services.

SNR, a construction contractor, performs painting, drywall
installation (hanging, framing, finishing/taping), remodeling,
cleaning, and other services in the Denver Metro Area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Turner, Esq.
          THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM, P.C.
          600 Grant Street, Suite 825
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333-7751
          Facsimile: (303) 333-7758
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Ryon, Esq.
          David Maher, Esq.
          KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.
          201 North Charles Street, 10th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-1010
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8001
          E-mail: ryon @kahnsmith.com
                  maher@kahnsmith.com

               - and -

          David Seligman, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1410 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 248-8426
          Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
          E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Jason McGaughy, Esq.
          7234 Parkway Drive
          Hanover, MD 21076
          Telephone: (410) 564-5928
          E-mail: jmcgaughy@1upat.org


SOULCYCLE INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoulCycle Inc. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SoulCycle Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10815 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019).

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

SoulCycle is a New York City-based fitness company that offers
indoor cycling workout classes in 15 U.S. states and 2 Canadian
provinces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


SUMMIT BROKERAGE: Tayoun Securities Suit Removed to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Brokerage Services removes the case captioned KELLY TAYOUN,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CHRISTOPHER SCALESE AND THE FORTUNE FINANCIAL GROUP, SUMMIT
BROKERAGE SERVICES, G.F. INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, AND KAESTRA
INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC F/K/A NFP SECURITIES, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-5699 (Sept. 25, 2019), from the Court of Common Pleas,
Lackawanna County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 4, 2019.

The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01907-MEM to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff invokes statutory and tort-based
claims in connection with securities transactions executed in "an
IRA account and general securities account."

The Plaintiff seeks to impute liability to "the Defendant member
firms" pursuant to, among other things, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Jones, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER B. JONES, P.C.
          406 Jefferson Ave.
          Scranton, PA 18510

Defendant Summit Brokerage Services is represented by:

          Joel M. Wertman, Esq.
          Douglas G. Fogle, Esq.
          WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG LLP
          1528 Walnut Street, Suite 1502
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 433-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 433-1501
          E-mail: Wertman.Jia@wssllp.com
                  Fogle.Dia@wssllp.com

Defendant Kestra Investment Services, LLC f/k/a/ NFP Securities, is
represented by:

          Samuel Cohen, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Defendants Christopher Scalese and The Fortune Financial Group are
represented by:

          Brian Carlis, Esq.
          Douglas Fogle, Esq.
          93 Lenox Dr., Building 2
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648


TOPKAPI II: Cicekci Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erdem Cicekci, Erdal Cicekci, and Yavuz Sahbaz, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. TOPKAPI II,
INC. and NEJDET APCIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-20786 (D.N.J., Nov. 26,
2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law to recover from the Defendants: the
minimum wage, unpaid overtime, sick leave, penalties for required
notices, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, interest, and
costs.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked over 40 hours per week but
the Defendants never paid them at the required overtime premium
rate. Although the Plaintiffs had earned sick leave, the Defendants
never paid them for the sick leave hours earned. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying either the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rate or the
New Jersey State minimum wage and overtime rate to the Plaintiffs,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees.

Topkapi was and is doing business as Samdan Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          Zafer A. Akin, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 825-1400
          Email: rob@akinlaws.com
                 zafer@akinlaws.com


TRANSCANADA USA: Harbaum Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Harbaum, individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
TRANSCANADA USA SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00844 (W. Tex.,
Nov. 26, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week; but these workers never received overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
receiving overtime as required by the FLSA, these workers received
a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for TransCanada as an Inspector.

TransCanada is one of "the leading energy infrastructure companies
in North America, focusing on pipeline and power generation
opportunities".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          James S. Nelson, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 346-2889
          Fax: (304) 346-2895

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


TRAXXAS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traxxas, L.P. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Traxxas, L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10850 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2019).

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

Traxxas is a radio control model manufacturer based in McKinney,
Texas. Traxxas offers electric and nitro powered radio-controlled
cars, off-road and on-road vehicles, boats and drones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIANGLE CORP: LifeWise Appeals E.D.N.C. Order to Fourth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lifewise Family Financial Security, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled LifeWise Family Financial
Security, Inc., et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

The appellate case is captioned as LifeWise Family Financial
Security, Inc., et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 19-2162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the
consolidated cases involving violations of federal securities laws
captioned as IN RE TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Consolidated Civil Action
No. 5:18-CV-10-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court found that the Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient,
particularized facts to plausibly show the Defendants' statements
regarding the quality of Defendant Triangle's investments were
false.  The Court also found that the complaint fails to plead with
sufficient specificity facts that show the Defendants believed
their origination process was inadequate when making
contemporaneous statements about originating its 2014 and 2015
investments.  Thus, the Defendants cannot be said to have made a
material false statement or omission as to its origination process
in 2014 and 2015.

Moreover, the District Court found that Plaintiff LifeWise has
failed to plausibly show that Defendant Triangle made a false
statement or omission regarding Defendant Tucker's role in the
final selection of investments by Defendant Triangle's investment
committee in 2014 and 2015.

Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint
without prejudice for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiff LifeWise
is allowed to file a motion to amend, together with proposed second
consolidated amended complaint correcting the deficiencies.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 2, 2019; and
   -- Response Brief is due on January 2, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LIFEWISE FAMILY FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., is
represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Peter Currier Harrar, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
                  harrar@whafh.com

Plaintiff GARY W. HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Plaintiff YUN CHENG is represented by:

          Samuel Ranchor Harris, III, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          7960 Sumter Ridge Lane
          Raleigh, NC 27617
          Telephone: (336) 500-1834

Defendants-Appellees TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, E. ASHTON POOLE,
STEVEN C. LILLY and GARLAND S. TUCKER, III, are represented by:

          Chelsea J. Corey, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          300 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 503-2575
          E-mail: ccorey@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-4003
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          E-mail: idahan@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Warren Pope, Esq.
          Bethany Marie Rezek, Esq.
          Michael Robert Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4897
          E-mail: wpope@kslaw.com
                  brezek@kslaw.com
                  mrsmith@kslaw.com


USABLE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hayes Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USABLE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00845-JM (E.D.
Ark., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought against the Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and others
overtime compensation for all hours that they worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours in a workweek.
The Defendant did not adjust Plaintiff's regular rate of pay to
account for the bonus when calculating the Plaintiff's overtime
premium, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Claims Specialist from April 2017 until August 2019.

The Defendant is an insurance company registered to do business in
the State of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WASHINGTON, DC: Sued Over St. Elizabeth's Hospital Water Outage
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFRO reports that St. Elizabeth's Hospital reported its water clean
and clear of bacteria in the late evening of October 23. The
psychiatric hospital expected water service to resume the same
night.

However, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law
firm of Arnold & Porter LLP, have filed a federal class action
lawsuit against Barbara Bazron, Director of the D.C. Department of
Behavioral Health; Mark Chastang, CEO of St. Elizabeths Hospital;
and the District of Columbia.

An October 23 joint press release described conditions in the
hospital during the water outage as "horrifying."

"I can't overstate how egregious the conditions are at the
hospital," said Margaret Hart, Counsel at the Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, via the same press
release. "A hospital without water cannot really function as a
hospital. I visited the facility and had the opportunity to speak
with several of the patients. They are living in appalling
unsanitary conditions and are anxious about the situation. They
said they are just sitting around, stuck in their units all day
without access to treatment or group therapy. These patients have
been deprived of the very services Saint Elizabeths is supposed to
provide, intensive mental health treatment, and the District's
response has put the patients' mental and physical health at risk.
The lack of attention from the District's leaders is shameful."

Plaintiffs state in the complaint that essential medical and
humanitarian services were cut or curtailed during the water
crisis. The patients lost access to podiatry, dentistry, Narcotics
anonymous meetings and a space that provided exercise, music and
art therapy and classes was closed, the complaint says.

"The District subjected some of its most vulnerable residents to
appalling conditions, depriving them of basic human needs and
jeopardizing their health, safety, and recovery," said Monica
Hopkins, Executive Director, ACLU of the District of Columbia, in
the release. "The patients at St. Elizabeths, like so many with
mental health needs, have been out-of-sight and out-of-mind for too
long. The hospital should be providing psychiatric care and
treatment, but is instead risking patients' mental and physical
health with a wait-and-see game. It is now critical for the court
to intervene to ensure this kind of thing never happens again."

The complaint goes to say that as many as two dozen patients had to
share the same toilet, leading to increasing unsanitary and
distressing conditions on the hospital grounds. When St.
Elizabeth's later provided portable toilet and shower facilities,
these were found to be non-compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Water availability and temperature could not be
relied upon, leading to further unsanitary conditions, the
complaint says.

When water supplies reached their limit, patients were given
buckets of soapy water and washcloth with which to bathe, the
complaint says.

""We are deeply concerned that Mayor Bowser has not publicly
commented on the dire situation that St. Elizabeths' patients are
experiencing. There has not been a consistent, or effective,
strategy for remediation of the water problem that will guarantee
that this problem will not recur," says John Freedman, partner at
Arnold & Porter, in the release.

ABOUT THE WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE: Founded in 1968, The
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
works to create legal, economic and social equity through
litigation, client and public education and public policy advocacy.
While we fight discrimination against all people, we recognize the
central role that current and historic race discrimination plays in
sustaining inequity and recognize the critical importance of
identifying, exposing, combatting and dismantling the systems that
sustain racial oppression. For more information, please visit
www.washlaw.org or call 202.319.1000. Follow us on Twitter at
@WashLaw4CR.

ABOUT THE ACLU OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: With more than 14,000
local members, the ACLU of the District of Columbia fights to
protect and expand civil liberties and civil rights for people who
live, work, and visit D.C., and in matters involving federal
employees and agencies. ACLU-DC pursues its mission through legal
action, legislative advocacy, and public education.  

ABOUT ARNOLD & PORTER: With more than 1,000 lawyers practicing in
15 offices around the globe, Arnold & Porter serves clients across
40 distinct practice areas. The firm offers 100 years of renowned
regulatory expertise, sophisticated litigation and transactional
practices, and leading multidisciplinary offerings in the life
sciences and financial services industries. [GN]


WE COMPANY: Faces Sojka Securities Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE SOJKA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of THE WE COMPANY, Plaintiff v.
ADAM NEUMANN, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, RONALD FISHER, LEWIS FRANKFORT,
STEVEN LANGMAN, MARK SCHWARTZ, JOHN ZHAO, MASAYOSHI SON, SOFTBANK
GROUP CORPORATION, and DOES 1-25, Defendants and THE WE COMPANY,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. CGC-19-580474 (Cal. Super., Nov. 4,
2019), asserts claims against The We Company and its Board of
Directors and Softbank Group Corporation for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate
waste.

Defendant Adam Neumann, the founder, Chairman, CEO, and controlling
shareholder of The We Company, in concert with Softbank, are using
their control of The We Company to benefit themselves to the
detriment of the Company's minority shareholders, according to the
complaint. Neumann and Softbank are attempting to use their control
of the Company to benefit themselves to the detriment of the
Company's minority shareholders, the Plaintiff alleges. Neumann has
recently abused his control of the Company to usurp $1.7 billion in
payments to himself, which payments were approved by Softbank.
Softbank stands to benefit from the proposed transactions because
it is increasing its stake by buying up shares at depressed values
which were created by the Defendants' own wrongdoing.

At the same time, the Plaintiff contends, the value of the stock
and options held by minority shareholders has been eviscerated due
to Neumann's wrongdoing, with their stock options being underwater
and the value of their stock being driven to levels well beyond
what they paid for the stock. The Plaintiff adds that Softbank is
attempting to further benefit from its wrongdoing and that of
Neumann by trying to commence a tender offer to buy out minority
shareholders, thereby, increasing its control of the Company to
approximately 80% and giving it outright control of the Company.
The price Softbank purportedly intends to offer minority
shareholders--$19.19--is grossly unfair and represents an abuse of
control by Neumann and Softbank, and unfair treatment of minority
shareholders.

The proposed transactions are subject to entire fairness review
under California law. It is an axiomatic principle of corporate law
that a wrongdoer cannot benefit from his own wrongdoing. This
principle has heightened application in the context of a situation
such as the present case where the defendants are majority and
controlling shareholders who owe fiduciary duties to the minority
shareholders.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' actions are
substantially unfair to The We Company's minority shareholders and
have caused and will continue to cause significant damage to the
Company and its shareholders. The self-interested transactions
being proposed by Softbank and Neumann are not entirely fair to the
minority shareholders. Neumann, who ruined WeWork, is being treated
disparately, and both he and Softbank would receive unique benefits
not shared by the minority shareholders if the transactions are not
enjoined, the lawsuit says.

Neumann is getting $1.7 billion to leave the company he ran into
the ground. Among other things: (i) Neumann stands to receive much
more for his shares than the consideration being offered to
minority shareholders in the tender offer to be launched by
Softbank, which tender offer is coercive and both procedurally and
substantively unfair; (ii) in addition to payment of more money for
Neumann's stock, Softbank is proposing to pay Neumann $500 million
to pay off his personal loan from JPMorgan Chase, which was one of
the underwriters for the failed IPO and which holds a lien on
Neumann's WeWork stock; (iii) the transactions, if not enjoined,
will further substantially dilute minority shareholders who do not
accept the grossly unfair tender offer; and (iv) despite breaching
his fiduciary duties by engaging in self-dealing and mismanaging
WeWork so badly that its IPO had to be withdrawn, Neumann is being
offered a staggering $185 million "consulting fee" despite the fact
that Softbank seems to concede that Neumann ruined the Company.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants caused substantial
harm to We, ultimately forcing We to withdraw its IPO and
substantially decreasing the value of the equity awards and options
held by Plaintiff and the Class, who had worked hard to create
value at We.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for the minority shareholders and the
Company and also seeks to enjoin the proposed self-dealing
transactions with SoftBank that would reward Neumann with $1.7
billion but offer minority shareholders with nothing other than a
coercive tender offer to buy back some of their shares at depressed
and unfair prices.

The Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty caused a significant
decrease in the value of We, the Plaintiff further alleges. The
harm proved so devastating that We was forced to withdraw its IPO,
which was supposed to be the second largest IPO in 2019 after
Uber's IPO, thus, eliminating the liquidity and substantial premium
that We's minority shareholders had been promised. Moreover, due to
Neumann's self-dealing, approximately 2,000 We Company employees
stand to be laid off and lose their jobs.

The We Company offers co-working space to freelancers and small
startup companies. The We Company is a private company. It issues
stock to its employees as part of their compensation, and to
incentivize them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BORTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002


WEALTHFRONT CORP: Breaches ADA, Guglielmo Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wealthfront
Corporation. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wealthfront
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10851 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2019).

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

Wealthfront Corporation operates as an investment advisory company.
The Company provides wealth management, tax and financial planning,
investment strategies, research, and consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 ***