CAR_Public/191203.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 241

                            Headlines

AARGON AGENCY: Dafeldecker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New Jersey
ACADIA MALIBU: Gozzi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ANGMAR MEDICAL: Class of LPNs and LVNs Certified in Mayhew Suit
BEST-LINE SHADES: Valenzuela Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
BUCA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says

CALIFORNIA: FJ Seeks Remedy Over Deprivation of Early Parole
CLEAR TRADING: Flo-Tech Files Suit in Illinois
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Kaykov Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
COLUMBUS OUTLETS: Faces Fiorelli Suit Over Unlawful & Hidden Fees
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act

CORBAS MARKETING: Floe-Tech Sues Over Sending of Unsolicited Ads
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Judge Slams DeVos for Violating Court Order
CREDIT PROTECTION: Diaz Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CRST EXPEDITED: Dueker Moves to Certify Class and Two Subclasses
CVS HEALTH: Two Classes of Customers Certified in Corcoran Suit

D.B.M.E. INC: Kaufman Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
DARKTRACE, INC: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Patients Sue Over Water Crisis in Hospital
DOW CHEMICAL: Stay Bid Partly Granted in Guidry Suit Pending Appeal
DR. PEPPER: Removes BIPA Case to Northern District of Illinois

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ravitz Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
FAT BRANDS: Class Certification Sought in Vignola Securities Suit
FCA US LLC: Marksberry Files PI Suit in Kansas
FIDELITY CAPITAL: Stamps Files Suit in Wisconsin under FDCPA

FOURFOOT LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FREEDOM DEBT: Brent Fisher Sues Over Illegal and Excessive Fees
G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending
G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Spitz Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

HEADWAY TECH: Trujillo Sues over HDD Suspension Assembly Prices
HKS BUILDERS: Samaniegos Seek Damages for Violation of FLSA, NYLL
IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 1
INFOSYS LIMITED: Faces Batwara Securities Suit in E.D. New York

INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit Set for March 2
IOOF HOLDINGS: Regulator Imposes Conditions Amid Class Action
ISS FACILITY: Garcia Suit Removed to Northern District of Calif.
ITX HEALTHCARE: Kull Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dill Files PI Suit in New York

KM INDUSTRIAL: Harris FCRA/Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
L & M HS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Angus Says
LA ROSA REALTY: De La Cruz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
LANDMARK EVENT: Patel Seeks Overtime Wages for Security Officers
LGSTX SERVICES: Illegally Uses Consumer Reports, Santana Claims

LMT REAL ESTATE: Vider Seeks to Certify Classes of Tipped Workers
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Class Action in California
MDL 2804: Marino v. Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
MIDLAND CREDIT: Benavides Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas

MIDLAND FUNDING: Desances Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado
MOMENTA PHARMA: Jury Trial in NGH Class Suit Set for January 6
NATIONAL HEALTH: Rosenbloom Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Spitz Files Suit in New York Under FDCPA
NEW BEGINNINGS: Kavlakian Moves for Certification of TCPA Classes

NIKE INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, DelaCruz Says
PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Dailey Sues Over Unfair & Illegal Fees
PROMPT NURSING: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Paguirigan
PROXY PROTECTION: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Warren Police Securities Suit in N.J.

PUBLIC REPUTATION: Feagler Suit Wants to Stop Unauthorized Calls
RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Issued False Proxy Over UCB Sale, Wheby Says
RE/MAX LLC: DeClements Sues Over TCPA Violation
ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Files Suit in California
SAKS FIFTH: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says

SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SCHOLLE IPN: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
SECOND ROUND: Thaar Files Suit in Michigan under FDCPA
SHADE STORE 989: Norman Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
SKECHERS USA: Cavalier Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit

SP PLUS: Ignores Credit & Debit Card Truncation Rules, Orsi Says
ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, AR: Jones Seeks Overtime Pay FLSA and AMWA
STAUD INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TATE & KIRLIN: Maul Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bolden Files RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia
TOWN SPORTS: Diaz Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL & NYMWA
TRULIA LLC: Kim Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Moore Seeks OT Wages for Security Guards
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Dr. Heaps' Sexual Abuses

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Continues to Defend Wolther Class Suit
VERISHOP INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Lyons Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
WHITESTONE REIT: Clark Class Action Dismissed
XPO LAST MILE: Green Sues Over Deductions From Drivers' Wages

YANKEE CANDLE CO: Delecruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ZARA USA: Sosa Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
ZEPHYRHILLS DONUTS: Carr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
[*] Governments Sued Over Failure to Combat Climate Change

                            *********

AARGON AGENCY: Dafeldecker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Agency, Inc.
The case is styled as Amber Dafeldecker, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aargon Agency, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-20725-MAS-DEA (D.,
N.J., Nov. 26, 2019).

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

Aargon Agency Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
   280 Prospect Ave. 6G
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 803-6611
   Fax: (866) 596-4973
   Email: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com



ACADIA MALIBU: Gozzi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Gozzi individually, and as representative on behalf of the
general public and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. Acadia
Malibu, Inc., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV39861 (Cal. Super., Nov. 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and others their earned
wages, including minimum wages and overtime wages, in violation of
California law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff as an independent contractor (as well as other employees)
and violated several California Labor Code sections throughout her
employment. The Defendants have grossly underpaid and taken
advantage of her, the Plaintiff alleges.

Acadia Malibu, Inc. is a drug rehab facility in Malibu,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Hartounian, Esq.
          HARTOUNIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          837 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: 818-794-9675
          Facsimile: 818-459-6997


ANGMAR MEDICAL: Class of LPNs and LVNs Certified in Mayhew Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lynette Mayhew, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Angmar Medical Holdings, Inc.
d/b/a Angels Care Home Health, Case No. 2:18-cv-02365-JWL-KGG (D.
Kan.), the Hon. John W. Lungstrum granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for the
issuance of court-supervised notice.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has met her burden to show
that this collective action should be certified for purposes of
sending notice of the action to potential class members.  The Court
grants conditional certification of a class of "LPNs and LVNs who
worked for defendant at any time during the last three years."

Judge Lungstrum directs the parties to meet and confer about the
form and substance of the notice and, if an agreement is reached,
to submit the proposed notice to the Court for approval no later
than December 9, 2019.  If the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, then the Plaintiff shall file a motion no later than
December 9, 2019, seeking approval of her proposed notice.  The
Defendant shall then file its objections to the Plaintiff's
proposed notice and submit an alternate proposed notice no later
than December 16, 2019.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, filed this wage and hour suit against the Defendant
alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
Specifically, the Plaintiff, a former employee, who worked for the
Defendant as a Licensed Practice Nurse ("LPN"), alleges that the
Defendant failed to compensate its LPNs for off-the-clock tasks,
such as pre- and post-shift answering of phone calls from clients.

In her collective action complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that she
is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of these persons:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt LPNs who worked
     for Defendant and were not paid for all hours worked,
     including but not limited to overtime hours at any time
     during the last three (3) years.

In her motion for conditional certification of this action as a
collective action, the Plaintiff expands the class definition to
include current and former Licensed Vocational Nurses ("LVNs") who
worked for the Defendant and were not paid for all hours worked in
the last three years.[CC]


BEST-LINE SHADES: Valenzuela Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOLORES VALENZUELA, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other
similarly situated individuals, and other current or former
employees, Plaintiff v. BEST-LINE SHADES, INC., BEST-LINE, INC., a
California Corporation; JILL SCHAFFER, an individual, and DOES 1
through 20, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07293 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5,
2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and California labor laws by failing to pay
contractual wages, minimum wage, and overtime pay.

The action revolves around the systematic failure by the Defendants
to pay California non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and
the Class, in conformance with federal and California laws.

Best-Line provides quality workmanship to the interior design
community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com


BUCA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. BUCA RESTAURANT, INC. DBA BUCA DI BEPPO, a
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19BBCV01008 (Cal. Super., Nov. 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California's Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

The Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated worked for
the Defendants in its California locations as non-exempt hourly
employees. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay
straight and overtime compensation, failed to provide meal periods,
and failed to provide rest breaks.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
aggrieved employees overtime in accordance with state law when they
worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours within a
workweek.

Buca owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The company offers
appetizers, salads, pastas, pizzas, desserts, beer, wine, and meat
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 N Brand Blvd., Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 818 696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          E-mail: hbklawyers.com


CALIFORNIA: FJ Seeks Remedy Over Deprivation of Early Parole
------------------------------------------------------------
F.J.; R.E.; and D.B.; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in his individual and
official capacities; SCOTT KERNAN, in his individual capacity; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07814 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
27, 2019), is seeking a remedy for two years during which they and
all other people sentenced to an indeterminate life term for a
nonviolent third strike offense were deprived of their early parole
eligibility in violation of the California and United States
Constitutions.

All California prisoners convicted and sentenced for nonviolent
crimes--including those sentenced under California's "Three Strikes
and You're Out" Law--were made eligible for early parole
consideration in January 2017 by amendments to the state
constitution enacted as part of Proposition 57, the Public Safety
and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Despite these amendments to the
state constitution, officials of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically stripped nonviolent
third strike offenders of this eligibility until January 2019, the
Plaintiffs argue.

The Defendants' regulations, which categorically excluded inmates
sentenced under the Three Strikes law from parole consideration
under Section 32, stripped all nonviolent third strike offenders of
access to the "fair procedures" that the Due Process Clause
requires. The Plaintiffs now seek compensation for the harm caused
by this violation of their constitutional rights and for the two
years they waited to obtain the parole eligibility that
California's voters had granted them by enacting Section 32.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons, who remain
incarcerated because the Defendants refused for two years to start
holding parole hearings for them, also seek to avoid an additional
three years of delay under the schedule that the Defendants have
set for clearing the resulting backlog of their hearings.

The Plaintiffs were recently released on parole from a prison or
are currently incarcerated at a prison in California.

The Defendants are current and former CDCR officials, who were
responsible for the failure to implement Proposition 57 from
January to April 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Bien, Esq.
          Ernest Galvan, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Phone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          Email: mbien@rbgg.com
                 egalvan@rbgg.com


CLEAR TRADING: Flo-Tech Files Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Trading, Inc.
The case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc.,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. Clear Trading, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07816 (N.D., Ill., Nov. 27, 2019).

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

Clear Trading offers international sourcing with importing and
exporting of industrial fasteners, electrical supplies and contract
manufacturing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com



COAST PROFESSIONAL: Kaykov Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying his case
titled DAVID KAYKOV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-06442-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), to proceed as a class action and
granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement
agreement.

The proposed class is defined as:

     All persons to whom Coast sent a letter to an address in New
     York state from November 13, 2017 to November 13, 2018,
     where such letter was sent to collect a debt allegedly owed
     to the Touro College and University System and all its
     component entities (collectively, "Touro") and Touro did not
     instruct Coast to add interest, fees, or other charges to
     the balance of the debt, and where such letter contains the
     following language: "Because of interest or other fees that
     may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day that you
     pay may be greater."

The Defendant does not oppose the Motion.

Mr. Kaykov filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges Coast Professional,
Inc. violated the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection
communications that stated interest, fees, or other charges could
be added to the debt despite that the creditor did not instruct
Coast to add such interest, fees, or other charges.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Spencer Schulz, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3850 N Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 828-3700
          Facsimile: (504) 828-3737
          E-mail: sschulz@sessions-law.biz


COLUMBUS OUTLETS: Faces Fiorelli Suit Over Unlawful & Hidden Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Fiorelli, on his own behalf and for all others similarly
situated v. COLUMBUS OUTLETS, LLC, TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CENTERS,
INC., BROOKS BROTHERS GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05278-SDM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, Nov. 27, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
unlawful fee charges in violation of the Class Action Fairness
Act.

The Defendants improperly collected fees from the Plaintiff and
other consumers, without disclosing that these fees would be added
to the purchase price, the Plaintiff alleges. This conduct occurred
at the Tanger Outlet in Sunbury, Ohio, at various retail stores.
The Defendants charged the Plaintiff and the putative class
additional fees, but never told consumers that their purchases
would be subject to these fees; hence, the Defendants were unjustly
enriched, says the complaint.

Nicholas Fiorelli made a purchase at Brooks Brothers in the Tanger
Outlet shopping center.

Columbus Outlets, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Phone: (440) 352-3391
          Fax: (440) 352-3469
          Email: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                 pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                 fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; and
CALIBURN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-24573-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2019), seeks to collect
unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated employees were
terminated as part of, or as a result of, a shutdown or mass layoff
ordered by the Defendants. As such, the Defendants have violated
the WARN Act by failing to give her and the class at least 60 days
advance written notice of termination, the Plaintiff contends.

On April 19, 2018, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a
clinical counselor at the Facility, which is formally known as the
Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Scott L. Terry, Esq.
          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  scott@fgbolaw.com
                  miguel@fgbolaw.com


CORBAS MARKETING: Floe-Tech Sues Over Sending of Unsolicited Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLO-TECH MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC. individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities v. CORBAS MARKETING, INC. D/B/A FACTORY DIRECT FASTENING,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07818 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 27, 2019), is brought for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

The Defendant promoted different products through the composition
of and sending of similar unsolicited fax advertisements to
consumers in this State, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant
sent the Subject Facsimile to the Plaintiff's Facsimile Number for
its financial benefit. The Plaintiff asserts it did not consent to
the Subject Facsimile. Thus, the sending of that Subject Facsimile
by the Defendant violated the TCPA, says the complaint.

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

the Defendant is a full service stocking distributor of fasteners
and industrial hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Judge Slams DeVos for Violating Court Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Arciga, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a federal judge
slammed the Education Department for violating her order to stop
collecting loan payments from ex-students of Corinthian Colleges, a
now-shuttered for-profit education company. According to Politico,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim said she was "extremely disturbed"
and "really astounded" that the department would continue to demand
payments from 16,000 individuals in violation of her May 2018 order
to cease the practice. At least 3,200 people ended up voluntarily
making payments they didn't need to, or having their tax returns or
wages unnecessarily seized. "At best, it is gross negligence . . .
At worst, it's intentional flouting of my order," Kim said, adding
that she would be considering punishments for the department. "I'm
not sending anyone to jail yet, but it's good to know I have that
ability," she said.

Kim also said the class-action lawsuit against Education Secretary
Betsy DeVos' partial loan forgiveness policy would proceed despite
opposition from the department. The department reportedly said it
took "responsibility" for the matter and confirmed it was
processing refunds for the thousands affected by the erroneous
collections. [GN]



CREDIT PROTECTION: Diaz Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Protection
Association, LP. The case is styled as Fernando Diaz individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Protection Association, LP, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-02898-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

Credit Protection Association, LP. (CPA) provides outsourced
solutions that improve operational efficiencies for clients in the
cable, fitness, telecom, tolling and utilities industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRST EXPEDITED: Dueker Moves to Certify Class and Two Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER DUEKER, on behalf
of himself and all persons similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-08751-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order
certifying these class and subclasses pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. Class:

      All California residents employed by Defendant as a truck
      driver at any time during the Class Period of December 27,
      2013 through the date of trial;

   a. Minimum Wage Subclass:

      All California residents employed by Defendant as a truck
      driver during the Class Period who logged sleeper berth
      shift segment time within the territorial boundaries of
      California during which there was some truck movement; and

   b. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

      All Minimum Wage Subclass Members who have separated from
      their employment with Defendant.

Mr. Dueker also moves the Court for an order: 1) certifying the
rest break claim; 2) certifying the failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements claim; 3) certifying the derivative claims
for liquidated damages and unfair business practices; 4) appointing
him as class representative; and 5) and appointing Adam Blair
Corren, Esq., and Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq., of the Law Offices of
Corren & Corren, as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2020, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

Plaintiff Christopher Dueker is represented by:

          Adam Blair Corren, Esq.
          Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN
          5345 North El Dorado, Suite 7
          Stockton, CA 95207
          Telephone: (209) 478-2621
          Facsimile: (209) 478-3038
          E-mail: acorren@correnlaw.com
                  ssinclair@correnlaw.com

Defendant CRST Expedited, Inc., is represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Charles Andrewscavage, Esq.
          Jared S. Kramer, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7200
          Facsimile: (312) 422-1224
          E-mail: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com
                  jskramer@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bolka, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  jtaylor@scopelitis.com
                  ebolka@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam. C. Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          3214 West McGraw Street, Suite 301F
          Seattle, WA 98199
          Telephone: (206) 288-6192
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com


CVS HEALTH: Two Classes of Customers Certified in Corcoran Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
substitute class representatives and certifies Arizona and New York
classes in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL. v.
CVS HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Court amends the class definition to state as:

     All CVS customers in California, Florida, Illinois,
     Massachusetts, New York, and Arizona, who, between November
     2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class Period"), (1) purchased
     one or more generic prescription drugs that were offered
     through CVS's Health Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the
     time of the purchase; (2) were insured for the purchase(s)
     through a third-party payor plan administered by one of the
     following pharmacy benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express
     Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions
     (prior to January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an
     out-of-pocket payment for the purchase greater than the HSP
     price for the prescription.

The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for approval of the notice provider and for approval of the class
notice program.  The Court further orders with respect to the
motion for approval of the notice provider and for approval of the
class notice program as follows:

   1. For the purpose of providing notice to class members, the
      Defendants are authorized to disclose, and is ordered to
      disclose, to Angeion Group, LLC ("Angeion"): (a) the name;
      (b) the last known mailing address; and (c) e-mail address
      for the Defendants' customers associated with the purchases
      at the pharmacies identified by the Plaintiffs' expert
      report attached to Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
      certification (June 6, 2017).  The disclosure to Angeion
      shall occur:

      a. Within two business days of the entry of this Order, for
         individuals associated with the purchases occurring at
         CVS pharmacies in California, Florida, Illinois, and
         Massachusetts identified by the Plaintiffs' expert
         report; or

      b. Within two business days of the entry of any order
         certifying a class or classes for Arizona and New York,
         for individuals associated with the purchases occurring
         at the Defendants' pharmacies in Arizona or New York
         identified by the Plaintiffs' expert report;

   2. This Order authorizes the Defendants to disclose the
      information of the putative class members/customers
      pursuant to the regulations of the Health Insurance
      Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. See 45 C.F.R.
      Section 164.512(e)(1)(i);

   3. The parties to this action and Angeion are expressly
      prohibited from using or disclosing the contact information
      obtained pursuant to this Order for any purpose other than
      providing notice to proposed class members in this action.
      See 45 C.F.R. Section 164.512(e)(1)(v)(A);

   4. Angeion is further ordered to destroy contact information
      received in connection with this Order within 10 business
      days following the conclusion of this action.  See 45
      C.F.R. Section 164.512(e)(1)(v)(B); and

   5. The parties shall file revised proposed short-form and
      long-form notices incorporating the Court's comments at the
      November 12, 2019, hearing on or before December 2, 2019.

The Order terminates Docket Numbers 375, 376, 377, 386-2, 394, 396,
398, and 399.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants alleging that they knowingly overcharged millions of
insured patients by submitting falsely inflated drug prices to
pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") and third-party payor insurance
providers ("TPPs"), which resulted in higher copayment obligations
for the Plaintiffs.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs raise claims
under the laws of eleven states: (i) each state's statutory laws
proscribing unfair and deceptive acts and practices ("UDAP"); and
common law claims for (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent
misrepresentation, and (iv) unjust enrichment.[CC]


D.B.M.E. INC: Kaufman Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.B.M.E., Inc. The
case is styled as Chana Kaufman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D.B.M.E., Inc. dba Dutchess
Bureau of Medical Economics and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06674 (E.D., N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019).

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

Dutchess Bureau of Medical Economics is a debt adjuster in
Poughkeepsie.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DARKTRACE, INC: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant his motion for an
order directing notice to Settlement Class consisting of:

"all applicants for employment with and employees of DarkTrace from
whom DarkTrace obtained the individual's consent to procure a
consumer report using a form document substantially similar to the
authorization form signed by Plaintiff, and procured or caused to
be procured a consumer report, as defined by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, between November 5, 2016 and the date the Final
Judgment and Order approving this Settlement Agreement is entered
by the Court."

The class action lawsuit was brought under the FCRA and alleges
that DarkTrace, Inc. uses background checks -- formally, consumer
reports under the FCRA -- to evaluate potential employees for
employment with Defendant. It has become commonplace for employers
to conduct background checks on job candidates, but these
FCRA-regulated reports, which are inexpensive and usually done in
an automated fashion, often contain inaccurate and/or incomplete
information. The FCRA provides certain protections to job
candidates.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C.
          1600 Market Street Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744 1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michele B. Miller, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-262-8301
          Facsimile: 415-671-6589
          E-mail: mbmiller@cozen.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Patients Sue Over Water Crisis in Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENZO COSTA, VINITA SMITH, WILLIAM DUNBAR and STEFON KIRKPATRICK, on
behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. BARBARA
J. BAZRON, Director Department of Behavioral Health, in her
individual capacity; MARK J. CHASTANG, Chief Executive Officer,
Saint Elizabeths Hospital, in his individual capacity; and DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:19-cv-03185 (D.D.C., Oct. 23, 2019),
challenges the Defendants' decision to keep Saint Elizabeths
Hospital operating during an extended water crisis without adequate
protections for patients.

The Plaintiffs are all patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital, the
District's psychiatric hospital.  They are four of approximately
270 individuals with mental health disabilities at Saint Elizabeths
Hospital.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated
patients are currently subject to unconstitutional and inhumane
conditions that shock the conscience.  Saint Elizabeths Hospital
has been without safe, running water since September 26, 2019,
exposing vulnerable patients to irreparable harmful physical,
emotional, and mental health consequences, according to the
complaint.

The District of Columbia owns and operates Saint Elizabeths
Hospital, and is responsible for the services and supports provided
to patients at Saint Elizabeths.  Saint Elizabeths is the
District's only public psychiatric facility for individuals with
serious and persistent mental illness, who need intensive inpatient
care to support their recovery.  Saint Elizabeths also provides
mental health evaluations and care to patients committed by the
courts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800
          E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org

               - and -

          Kaitlin Banner, Esq.
          Margaret Hart, Esq.
          Hannah Lieberman, Esq.
          Jonathan Smith, Esq.
          Maria Morris, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
          E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
                  margaret_hart@washlaw.org
                  hannah_lieberman@washlaw.org
                  jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
                  maria_morris@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          Michael Perloff, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800
          E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
                  mperloff@acludc.org

               - and -

          John A. Freedman, Esq.
          Tirzah S. Lollar, Esq.
          Emily Reeder, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
                  Tirzah.Lollar@arnoldporter.com
                  Emily.Reeder@arnoldporter.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Stay Bid Partly Granted in Guidry Suit Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHEILA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, ET AL., v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 19-12233 (E.D. La.), Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to stay
pending appeal.

The toxic chemical class action lawsuit was removed to the Court
for the second time in 10 years on Aug. 20, 2019.  On Sept. 19,
2019, the Court entered Order and Reasons in which it denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and ordered
jurisdictional discovery directed to determining class size in the
case removed predicated on the Court's Class Action Fairness Act
jurisdiction.  

The Plaintiffs have sought the Fifth Circuit's permission to appeal
the Court's September 19 Order and Reasons.  They now ask the Court
to stay that portion of its decision requiring them to complete
jurisdictional discovery within 90 days, pending final appeal.

The Plaintiffs seek to stay their obligation to conduct "a
burdensomely expensive claims process."  They submit that the
amount-in-controversy is not knowable until after a claims process,
which ordinarily takes place after a liability trial prosecuted by
the class representatives.  The Plaintiffs complain that the burden
for jurisdictional discovery should not be placed on them because
the burden for establishing the Court's CAFA removal jurisdiction
is on the Defendants.

The Defendants counter that, if it is inclined to temporarily stay
the affirmative claims process obligation pending appeal, the Court
should nevertheless require the Plaintiffs to turn over to the
Defendants any evidence presently in their counsel's possession
that bears on the amount-in-controversy.  The information, the
Defendants submit, may suffice to support its submission on
amount-incontroversy.

Judge Feldman finds that a limited stay of the Court's order, which
limits the scope of jurisdictional discovery pending appeal, is
prudent.  He wastes little time weighing the factors informing the
appropriateness of a stay, given that the Defendants do not contend
that their own interests will be harmed by a stay.  It is worth
noting that none of the other factors weighs heavily in favor of a
stay.  

Nevertheless, given the unique nature of the jurisdictional
discovery ordered, Judge Feldman will stay the Court order insofar
as it requires the Plaintiffs' counsel to affirmatively undertake a
sworn claims process pending appeal, but he declines to stay the
order insofar as it allows discovery of any evidence presently in
the Plaintiffs' counsel's possession which would support the
Defendants' jurisdictional allegations, such as facts that identify
class members or otherwise bear on class size or on determining
class size.

Judge Feldman observes that its 9/19/19 Order and Reasons does not
shift the burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction to the Plaintiffs;
rather, it ordered jurisdictional discovery based on which party
has access to or control over the information needed to determine
if the amount-in-controversy is met.  In the case, that access lies
exclusively with the Plaintiffs.  It will remain the Defendants'
obligation to demonstrate whether the preponderance burden is met;
that is, the removing them must satisfy the Court by a reponderance
of the evidence that the case has placed into controversy more than
$5 million.

Judge Feldman finds that staying the Plaintiffs' affirmative
obligation to undertake a sworn claims process but requiring the
parties to conduct discovery concerning jurisdictional facts
already in their possession strikes a just balance pending the
Plaintiffs' appeal.  Accordingly, he granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to stay (the Plaintiffs' obligation to
affirmatively conduct a sworn claims process is stayed pending
appeal); and denied inpart (the Plaintiffs must provide to the
Defendants facts presently in their possession bearing on class
size and amount-in-controversy).

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/9yAebJ from Leagle.com.

Sheila Guidry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Bartholomew Kelly, III,
Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, Benjamin W. Gulick, Law Offices
of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Catherine Hilton, Ron Austin Law, LLC,
Gregory Pius DiLeo, Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey
P. Berniard --  -- Berniard Law LLC, Madro Bandaries, Madro
Bandaries, PLC, Roderick Alvendia, Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC
& Ron Anthony Austin -- raustin@ronaustinlaw.com -- Austin &
Associates, LLC.

Ramona Alexander & Vanessa Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Bartholomew Kelly, III, Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, Benjamin
W. Gulick, Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Gregory Pius
DiLeo, Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey P. Berniard,
Berniard Law LLC, Madro Bandaries, Madro Bandaries, PLC, Roderick
Alvendia, Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC & Ron Anthony Austin,
Austin & Associates, LLC.

Henry Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by John Bartholomew Kelly,
III, Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, Gregory Pius DiLeo, Law
Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey P. Berniard, Berniard Law
LLC, Madro Bandaries, Madro Bandaries, PLC, Roderick Alvendia,
Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC & Ron Anthony Austin, Austin &
Associates, LLC.

Bates Whiteside, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin W. Gulick, Law
Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Gregory Pius DiLeo, Law Offices
of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey P. Berniard, Berniard Law LLC,
Madro Bandaries, Madro Bandaries, PLC, Roderick Alvendia, Alvendia,
Kelly, & Demarest, LLC & Ron Anthony Austin, Austin & Associates,
LLC.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr. -- David.Bienvenu@bblawla.com -- Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Colin  Patrick O'Rourke --
colin.orourke@bblawla.com -- Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco,
Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Patrick Hayes Hunt --
patrick.hunt@bblawla.com -- Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC & Phillip E. Foco -- Phillip.Foco@bblawla.com --
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

Department of Environmental Quality State of Louisiana, Defendant,
represented by Peter Stephan Koeppel, Koeppel Traylor, LLC &
William Scarth Clark, Koeppel Clark Turner.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Neil Charles
Abramson, Liskow & Lewis, Mark Charles Dodart, Phelps Dunbar, LLP &
Nora Bolling Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis.

DR. PEPPER: Removes BIPA Case to Northern District of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. removed the case captioned as GIO
VILLANUEVA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019 CH 07934 (Filed July 2,
2019), from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Oct 31, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07184 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint alleging that
Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was required to clock-in and
clock-out using a timeclock that operated, in part, by scanning
plaintiff's fingerprint.

The Plaintiff alleges that as an employee, he was "required to scan
at least one fingerprint, multiple times" so Dr Pepper/Seven Up
could "create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/or
obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff' that was then used "to
track his time, potentially with the help of a third-party
vendor."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@pwcklegal.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          James J. Sipchen, Esq.
          John H. Scheid, Jr., Esq.
          Kayla A. Condeni, Esq.
          PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED
          One South Wacker Drive - Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 578-7422
          E-Mail: jsipchen@pretzel-stouffer.com

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN L. BURTON n/k/a Jamaal
Ali Bilal, a/k/a "Superman," and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. FRANK SARIVOLA, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TECHNICIAN,
PINELLAS COUNTY CL HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE; Melissa LNU MADISON POINT
HOUSING, INTAKE SPECIALIST; JANE DOE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND SCREENING
SPECIALST; PINELLAS COUNTY; and VA MEDICAL CENTER, BAY PINES
Florida, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02869-MSS-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all tenants who are minorities (Black and Hispanic) who
      have had a criminal background checks made against them by
      Madison Point Apartments Officials who have previously,
      currently, or in the future will be denied housing there
      based upon their criminal background"; and

   2. appointing counsel.

The Plaintiff avers that the case satisfies the numerosity because
the number is so large that a joinder is not possible; that Madison
Point Apartments Officials have made a blanket denial of all person
with criminal histories from living in those senior citizen
apartments which appear to cater to older Caucasian population of
people even though Madison Point is located on 380 Dr. Martin
Luther King Ave. the outskirts of the Afro-American Community in
Clearwater, Florida.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ravitz Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Devorah Ravitz individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., AmeriCredit Financial
Services, Inc. Dba GM Financial, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-10908 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian is a global information services company that provides
information, analytical tools, and marketing services to help
clients manage their commercial and financial decisions. The
company helps organizations manage credit risk, prevent fraud,
target marketing offers, and automate decision making.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          Stein Saks, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


FAT BRANDS: Class Certification Sought in Vignola Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ADAM VIGNOLA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. FAT BRANDS, INC., ANDREW A.
WIEDERHORN, RON ROE, JAMES NEUHAUSER, EDWARD H. RENSI, MARC L.
HOLTZMAN, SQUIRE JUNGER, SILVIA KESSEL, JEFF LOTMAN, FOG CUTTER
CAPITAL GROUP INC., and TRIPOINT GLOBAL EQUITIES, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiffs Charles Jordan
and David Kovacs move the Court for an order certifying the action
as a class action on behalf of this class:

     All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
     securities of FAT Brands, Inc. ("FAT Brands") pursuant
     and/or traceable to FAT Brands' October 23, 2017 initial
     public stock offering (the "Class").

     Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all present and
     former officers and directors of FAT Brands and any
     subsidiary thereof, members of such excluded persons'
     families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
     or assigns and any entity which such excluded persons
     controlled or in which they have or had a controlling
     interest.

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Kaskela
Law LLC as co-Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 27, 2020, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Joshua Baker, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com
                  soddo@robbinsllp.com


FCA US LLC: Marksberry Files PI Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Michael Marksberry, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
FCA US LLC formerly known as: CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Landers McLarty
Olathe KS, LLC doing business as: OLATHE DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02724 (D. Kan., Nov. 25, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. It designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo
brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



FIDELITY CAPITAL: Stamps Files Suit in Wisconsin under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity Capital
Holdings, Inc. dba Fidelity Information Corporation. The case is
styled as Tanika Stamps, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fidelity Capital Holdings, Inc.
dba Fidelity Information Corporation and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00971 (W.D., Wis., Nov. 26, 2019).

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

Fidelity Creditor Service is a professional, full service
collection agency based in Southern California. Call today for a
free debt collection consultation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




FOURFOOT LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fourfoot, LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Fourfoot, LLC doing business as: Spenco Footwear, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06630 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

Fourfoot, LLC is an established provider of medical supplies for
both commercial and personal use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREEDOM DEBT: Brent Fisher Sues Over Illegal and Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Fisher v. FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 19-007883-CI
(Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Nov. 27, 2019), is a class action
complaint against the Defendant for violations of Counseling Credit
Services Act and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff entered into a debt negotiation agreement with the
Defendant in an attempt to resolve his unsecured debt. However, he
alleges that the Defendant misrepresented its fees and services,
and failed to inform consumers of their rights to funds deposited
with the Defendant. The Plaintiff says he agreed to pay specified
fees to the Defendant that, unknown to him at that time, were
criminally illegal based on their excessive size. By knowingly
charging settlement fees that exceeded the amount permitted by the
CCSA, the Defendant violated the CCSA and was unjustly enriched,
says the complaint.

Brent Fisher is a natural person, who is a citizen of Pinellas
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a "credit counseling agency," which provides both
debt management services and credit counseling services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          SHRADER LAW, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 360-1529
          Fax: (813) 336-0832
          Email: bshrader@centroneshrader.com


G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
4, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company is awaiting the court's decision on plaintiff's motion to
withdraw the class action suit against Gold Frost Ltd.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as class action was filed on
July 22, 2018, against Gold Frost Ltd (through the company.)
(hereafter "Gold Frost") and eight other companies to the Jerusalem
District Court for allegedly not complying with the food labelling
regulations in connection with one of its products and thereby
misleading consumers.

At this stage the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 4 million, since the
plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of the
damage.

On November 16 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the
lawsuit, including payment compensation and attorneys' fees at
amounts that are immaterial to the Company.

G. Willi-Food said, "As of the date of this report, the Court has
not yet issued a ruling approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit."

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

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.


G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
4, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit related to customer
protection breach.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as class action was filed on
March 26, 2018 against the company to the Tel Aviv District Court
for allegedly breaching some of its consumer protection duties in
connection with one of its products, thereby misleading its
customers.

At this stage, the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 2.7 million, since
the plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of
the damage.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2018.

In view of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is not yet
possible to assess the result of the lawsuit.

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

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Spitz Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Spitz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Halsted Financial Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06728 (E.D., N.Y., Nov. 27,
2019).

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

Halsted Financial Services is a global financial services firm,
providing consumer and commercial solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEADWAY TECH: Trujillo Sues over HDD Suspension Assembly Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMABLE TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON
TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.,
NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK
SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO.,
LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07191 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other relief available as
a result of Defendants' violations of federal antitrust, state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants -- who, at all
relevant times, are manufacturers and suppliers of Hard disk drives
(HDD) suspension assemblies throughout and into the United States
-- and their co-conspirators as a result of their unlawful conduct
in contracting, combining, or conspiring to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices of HDD suspension assemblies from
approximately May 2008 to at least April 2016.

Defendants' illegal and anticompetitive conduct resulted in their
exchange of pricing information with one another, which they used
to their advantage in their negotiations with U.S. and foreign
customers for the sale of HDD suspension assemblies, which
ultimately became the critical component in HDDs for sale in, or
delivery to, the U.S. and elsewhere.

According to the complaint, NHK and TDK Defendants, along with
their affiliates and/or subsidiaries, have maintained a 90%
dominance of the global market for HDD suspension assemblies.

The potential price-fixing of HDD suspension assemblies have been
the subject of investigations by the United States government as
well as foreign governments since at least 2016, the lawsuit says.

Suspension assemblies are an important component of the HDD because
they hold the recording heads close to the disks and provide the
electrical connection from the recording heads to the hard disk
drives' circuitry.

According to Assistant Attorney General of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim, HDD suspension
assemblies are "critical to the operation and performance of
electronic devices, and their impact on American consumers and
business is direct and substantial."

HDD are incorporated into electronic devices, such as desktop
computers, laptops, gaming consoles, MP3 players, printers, and
copy machines, or sold as stand-alone storage devices. An HDD uses
a magnetic recording head to read from, and write onto, a spinning
disk contained in the hard drive.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer harddisk drive industry. The Company provides solutions to
the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Pilaar, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: ecabraser@I|chb.com
                  Ichan@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  jpilaar@Ichb.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: Inussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

HKS BUILDERS: Samaniegos Seek Damages for Violation of FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELSIN AMAY SAMANIEGO and HENRY AMAY SAMANIEGO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HKS BUILDERS
& CONSULTANTS INC., and AMARJIT SINGH, as an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10283 (S.D.N.Y.,  Nov. 5, 2019), seeks
to recover damages for egregious violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of the
Plaintiffs' employment at HKS Builders.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in
an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies
this Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiffs were employed from June 2018 until April 2019 by the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs primary duties were as construction
laborers while performing other miscellaneous duties. The
Plaintiffs worked approximately 45 hours or more per week during
their employment. The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

HKS Builders offers carpentry and contractor services specializing
in kitchens, bathrooms, additions, and remodels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., is still stayed.

On January 31, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of New York against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief
financial officer, members of the company's board of directors and
the underwriters of its July 2016 initial public stock offering, or
IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO.

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's IPO
and SPO, alleges that the company made false or misleading
statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those
offerings concerning demand for the company's products and
inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal consolidated
securities class action.

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

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a trial date has been set for
February 1, 2021 in the consolidated class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v.
Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf
of all purchasers of our common stock from May 7, 2018 through and
including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that the company's
quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of
2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading
statements about our business prospects and financial condition.

The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On
October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this
complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al.,
the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including
August 2, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or
misleading statements in its financial statements, press releases
and conference calls during the purported class period in violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the
City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc.,
et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016
through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the
company made false or misleading statements about customer demand
for its products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and
conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.

On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
its products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.

The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's
President and COO, dismissed product capability-related allegations
against the company's former CFO, and dismissed allegations that
defendants made false or misleading statements concerning
increasing demand prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court
denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants.

A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


INFOSYS LIMITED: Faces Batwara Securities Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABHISHEK BATWARA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INFOSYS LIMITED, SALIL PAREKH, and M. D.
RANGANATH, Case No. 1:19-cv-05959 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019), is
brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or acquired
publicly traded Infosys securities from July 7, 2018, through
October 20, 2019, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mr. Batwara alleges that the Defendants' statements contained in
the Company's 2018 and 2019 annual reports were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them.  Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company improperly recognized revenues to inflate
short-term profits; (2) Defendant Parekh bypassed reviews and
approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny; (3)
management pressured the Company's finance team to hide information
from auditors and the Company's Board of Directors; and (4) as a
result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants' statements
about Infosys's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On October 21, 2019, before the market opened, the Economic Times
reported that an anonymous group calling itself "ethical employees"
sent a whistleblower complaint to the Company's audit committee and
the SEC.  The whistleblower complaint stated that Defendant Parekh
was using "unethical practices" to boost short-term revenues and
profits.

On this news, Infosys American Depository Shares ("ADSs") fell
$1.28 per ADS, or over 12%, to close at $9.29 per ADS on October
21, 2019, damaging investors, including the Plaintiff.  As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's ADSs, the Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Infosys, with its subsidiaries, purports to provide consulting,
technology, and outsourcing services in North America, Europe,
India, and internationally.  Infosys is incorporated in India and
its principal executive offices are located in Karnataka, India.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit Set for March 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in the
class action suit related to the company's 401(k) Plan has denied
plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and has set a bench trial for
March 2, 2020.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to
eligible worksite employees in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of
Plan participants.

The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of
the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to
pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by
failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent
investment choices.

The court certified a class defined as "all participants and
beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009
through September 30, 2017."

The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to
the selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper of the Plan.

On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion
for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims
concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees.

The court has denied plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and has
set a bench trial for March 2, 2020.

With respect to plaintiffs' remaining claims, plaintiffs allege
damages up to $128 million against all defendants.

Insperity said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements."

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

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


IOOF HOLDINGS: Regulator Imposes Conditions Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambar Warrick, writing for Reuters, reports that Australia's
financial regulator said on Oct. 28 it has imposed additional
license conditions on the investment services unit of wealth
manager IOOF Holdings Ltd.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)said the
extra conditions on IOOF Investment Services Ltd related to
governance, structure and compliance arrangements.

The changes were part of a broader restructure of the IOOF group,
ASIC said, and took into account concerns highlighted by a powerful
government-backed inquiry into the financial services sector, which
concluded earlier this year.

Among the new conditions is a requirement that IOOF Investment
Services appoint a majority of independent directors to its board.

IOOF, Australia's second largest wealth manager, said it had
already started implementing the changes.

IOOF's shareholders launched a class action lawsuit in the wake of
the Royal Commission inquiry, alleging the company engaged in
deceptive conduct and breached stock market disclosure obligations.
IOOF has said the case, which is ongoing, is without foundation.

IOOF recently won a separate case brought by the Australian
Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to disqualify five top IOOF
executives for failing to act in customers' interests by breaching
pension laws.

Chief Executive Christopher Kelaher left the company by "mutual
agreement" in July amid the restructure. [GN]


ISS FACILITY: Garcia Suit Removed to Northern District of Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Claudia Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC.; a
Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG19040507, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Nov. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-07807 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action for: (1)
failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, (3) failure to pay minimum wages, (4) failure
to pay overtime wages, (5) failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, (6) failure to maintain required
records, (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
(8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures
incurred in discharge of duties, and (9) unfair and unlawful
business practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Barber, Esq.
          Julie W. Odell, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 4000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714.545.9200
          Facsimile: 714.850.1030
          Email: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Julie.ODell@lewisbrisbois.com


ITX HEALTHCARE: Kull Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ITx Healthcare, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07368 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's debt collection actions
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Mary Kull is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in
the Northern District of Illinois, from whom the Defendant
attempted to collect defaulted consumer debts that she allegedly
owed for medical services.

On April 24, 2018, Ms. Kull filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
in a matter styled In re: Kull, N.D.IIl. Bankr. No. 18-11954. Among
the debts included in Ms. Kull's bankruptcy were medical debts that
she allegedly owed to Palos Health. Accordingly, on April 27, 2018,
Palos Health was sent, via U.S. Mail, notice of the bankruptcy by
the court.

Nonetheless, ITx sent four collection letters, dated July 19, 2019,
directly to Ms. Kull, demanding payment of the various Palos Health
debts she allegedly owed prior to the bankruptcy. Moreover, in each
of these letters, ITx failed to advise Ms. Kull the amount of the
debt it was attempting to collect, the lawsuit says.

The case seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of
the FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dill Files PI Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Harold R. Dill and Edward M. Appleby, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10947
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that
constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the
U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S Devorkin, Esq.
   Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP
   711 Third Avenue, 17th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 907-7300
   Fax: (212) 754-0330
   Email: mdevorkin@golenbock.com


KM INDUSTRIAL: Harris FCRA/Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Levone Harris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KM INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG19040444,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07801 to the
proceeding.

The eight claims alleged by the Plaintiff are: (1) Violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3)
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages;
(5) Failure to Indemnify; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written
Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and (8)
Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com

               - and –

          Megan Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com


L & M HS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Angus Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN ANGUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L & M HS LLC; L & M OPERATIONS LLC LELAND & MICHAEL
HEALTH SERVICES LLC FRANCIS LEGASSE, individually, and in his
official corporate capacity; and BRIAN TURNER, individually, and in
his official corporate capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-03032 (D. Colo.,
Oct. 23, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are the Defendants'
current and former employees, who are/were employed as
Companion/Homemakers, Home Health Aides, and Certified Nurse's
Aides ("CNAs").  The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated current and former healthcare
providers of the Defendants, who were misclassified as exempt from
overtime under the FLSA or who otherwise were not paid
one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

The Defendants own and/or operate as Sevens Home Care, an
enterprise located in Denver County, Colorado.  Sevens Home Care is
a company headquartered in Denver, Colorado, that offers in-home
healthcare services to individuals in need of such services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

              - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


LA ROSA REALTY: De La Cruz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned as Alexander De La Cruz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA ROSA REALTY, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2019-031220-CA-01, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-24929-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Original Action sues the Defendant under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Chico, Esq.
          Benjamin Weissman, Esq.
          DAVID CHICO LAW GROUP
          607 Celebration Avenue
          Celebration, FL 34747
          Phone: 407-933-7703
          Fax: 407-933-7713
          E-mail: serve@davidchicolaw.com


LANDMARK EVENT: Patel Seeks Overtime Wages for Security Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIJAY PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK EVENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. Case No. 19CV358065 (Cal. Super., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to
recover penalties and/or damages for the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages based on the correct rate of pay and for penalties
or damages under the California Labor Code.

The complaint challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the California
Labor Code and Unfair Practices Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are current and former
employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff began employment with
the Defendant in 2017. The Plaintiff worked as a security officer
in Santa Clara County, California.

Landmark Event Staffing Services provides crowd management and
event security services to sports, entertainment, and convention
events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          11501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com


LGSTX SERVICES: Illegally Uses Consumer Reports, Santana Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN SANTANA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LGSTX SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 98407078 (Fla. Cir., Nov. 5, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and other
appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely obtains and
uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks
on prospective employees and existing employees, and frequently
relies on such information as a basis for adverse employment
action.

The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A) by taking
adverse employment action based on undisclosed consumer report
information against the Plaintiff and other putative class members,
without first providing her and other affected class members with a
copy of the pertinent consumer report, and without providing them a
reasonable opportunity to respond to the information in the report
and discuss it with the Defendant, according to the complaint.

While the use of consumer report information for employment
purposes is not per se unlawful, it is subject to strict disclosure
and authorization requirements under the FCRA, the Plaintiff notes.
She contends that the Defendant willfully violated these
requirements, thereby, systematically violating her rights and the
rights of other putative class members.

The Defendant owns and operates distribution centers throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telepone: 813 224 0431
          Facsimile: 813 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


LMT REAL ESTATE: Vider Seeks to Certify Classes of Tipped Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as MONIKA VIDER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. LMT REAL ESTATE, LLC d/b/a PANACHE
WOOD FIRE GRILL; RISTORANTE CASTELLO, INC. d/b/a RISTORANTE
CASTELLO; CHASE "HABIB" TROUDI; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No.
2:19-cv-02066-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff seeks an order
granting:

     (i) certification of a proposed Class, pursuant to
         Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
         consisting of all current and former Tipped Employees
         who have worked for Defendants at their Panache Wood
         Fire Grill location in the State of Pennsylvania at any
         point from May 13, 2016 through the present;

    (ii) conditional certification of a Collective Class,
         pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
         Section 216(b), consisting of all persons employed by
         Defendants as Tipped Employees at their Panache Wood
         Fire Grill and Ristorante Castello locations during the
         last three years; and

   (iii) the production to the Plaintiff of all names and
         addresses of members of the collective class in
         accordance with Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S.
         165 (1989).[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brady, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                  mbrady@carlsonlynch.com


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against two class action suits in Colorado and
one in Canada alleging violation of the federal securities laws.

On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the District Court of Colorado, naming Maxar and members of
management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the
Company's public disclosures were deficient in violation of the
federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages.

On August 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members
of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.

Also in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued
a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien vs. Maxar
Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming
misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and seeking
monetary damages.

The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074.

On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al.
No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of
management and the board of directors as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of
its October 17, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe.

Although the lawsuit alleges different legal claims than the
federal putative class action, it is based upon many of the same
underlying factual allegations.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MDL 2804: Marino v. Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Al Marino, Inc., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, Defendants, Case
2:19-cv-00723 (Filed Oct. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland)
on Nov. 6, 2019.

The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-op-45976-DAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster. The lead case is Case No.
1:17-md-02804-DAP.

The lawsuit seeks to recompense for compensatory damages, emotional
distress; loss of enjoyment of life; lost earning capacity and loss
of income; loss of filial consortium; loss of spousal consortium;
anguish; sorrow; solace, including companionship, comfort,
guidance, kindly offices, advise, services, protection, care, and
assistance; services for medical care, including any necessary
rehabilitation; and/or funeral and burial expenses.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the State of West Virginia. In addition to the tragic loss
of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones,
some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental
entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute
prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic
painkillers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have
engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage
doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing
so, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants falsely minimized the risks
of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more
opioid prescriptions than there should have been.

The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years,
they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture
and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a
direct result of the harms they inflicted, the Plaintiff asserts.

The direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants' misconduct
is that every West Virginia purchaser of private health insurance
paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance
companies have considerable market power and pass onto their
insureds the expected cost of future care--including opioid-related
coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the
unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related
coverage caused by the Defendants and charged that back to insureds
in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments, the
lawsuit says.

The Marino Case is being consolidated in MDL 2804 RE: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 5,
2017.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that: (1) manufacturers of
prescription opioid medications overstated the benefits and
downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and
aggressivelymarketed (directly and through key opinion leaders)
these drugs to physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to
monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders
of prescription opiates. All actions involve common factual
questions about, inter alia, the manufacturing and distributor
defendants' knowledge of and conduct regarding the alleged
diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' alleged improper marketing of such drugs.

In its Dec. 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Dennis Young, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN-JACKSONVILLE
          76 South Laura Street, Ste. 1100
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 361-0012
          Facsimile: (904) 366-7677
          E-mail: jyoung@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW FIRM PLLC
          222 Capitol Street, Ste. 200A
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-1122
          Facsimile: (304) 414-5692
          E-mail: mark@troylawwv.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Benavides Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Arnold Benavides
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00354 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Desances Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Rockshana Desances individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03334 (D. Colo., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOMENTA PHARMA: Jury Trial in NGH Class Suit Set for January 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a jury
trial in federal district court has been scheduled for January 6,
2020, in the class action suit initiated by The Hospital Authority
of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for
generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal
anti-trust laws.

NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz,
but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied
the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a
new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or
DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for treble damages under
the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin.

On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the
motion to amend the complaint.

On December 14, 2017, the District Court granted NGH's motion to
amend.

In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. On December 6, 2018 the District
Court granted one of the motions, granted one in part and denied
one. As a result the suit will continue pursuant to the surviving
portions of the amended complaint.

On September 20, 2019, the District Court issued an order
certifying a class in the suit. On October 2, 2019, the Company and
Sandoz filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)
for permission to appeal the district court's class certification
order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. A jury trial in the District Court has been scheduled for
January 6, 2020.

Momenta said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


NATIONAL HEALTH: Rosenbloom Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA ROSENBLOOM, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL HEALTH PLANS & BENEFITS
AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-13261-LVP-APP (E.D. Mich.,
Nov. 5, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, National Health markets its products
and services, in part, through text message advertising. National
Health directly markets its products and services to persons in the
United States through text message advertising.

Ms. Rosenbloom is the owner of a cell phone and pays the bill for
her cell phone account. Her cell phone number is 314-XXX-9504. She
contends that she did not provide National Health prior express
written consent to send her text message communications.

National Health assists people in obtaining health insurance from
various health insurance providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard Mungo, Esq.
          MUNGO & MUNGO AT LAW, PLLC
          31700 Telegraph Road, Suite 250
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: (248) 792-7557
          Facsimile: (313) 792-7303
          E-mail: caseaction@mungoatlaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Spitz Files Suit in New York Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Spitz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06722
(E.D., N.Y., Nov. 27, 2019).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW BEGINNINGS: Kavlakian Moves for Certification of TCPA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CAROLINE KAVLAKIAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NEW
BEGINNINGS MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 9:19-cv-80946-RLR (S.D. Fla.),
moves to:

   (1) certify two classes with respect to the claims for
       violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act set
       forth in the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint;

   (2) designate the Plaintiff as class representative; and

   (3) designate the law firms of Edelsberg Law, P.A. and Shamis
       & Gentile as class counsel.

The case concerns the Defendant's disregard for the TCPA, and the
use of powerful automated technology to bombard individuals with
unwanted, telemarketing text messages.  Specifically, the Defendant
sent between 25,000 to 35,000 unsolicited marketing text messages
("New Beginnings Messages") to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers in violation of the TCPA.

The Defendant is a "modern health spa" that "specializes in
providing an advanced Medical Solutions to achieve the greatest
personal enhancement, whether it be in weight loss with HCG or
cosmetic improvements."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191st St., #703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


NIKE INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, DelaCruz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10292-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated
group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Nike, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is engaged
in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing
and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Dailey Sues Over Unfair & Illegal Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ALIESHA DAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 191002749
(Pa. Comm. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Oct. 23, 2019), arises from
PFCU's unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of
multiple $28 "insufficient funds fees" on the same items.

Besides being deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable, this practice
breaches contract promises made in PFCU's adhesion contracts, Ms.
Dailey contends.  She points out that she and other PFCU customers
like her have been injured by PFCU's practices.

PFCU is a credit union with approximately $1 billion in assets.
PFCU is one of the largest credit unions in Pennsylvania and is
headquartered in Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
          Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500
          E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
                  epasternack@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com


PROMPT NURSING: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Paguirigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Prompt Nursing Employment Agency, LLC, et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's judgment issued on September 27,
2019, in the lawsuit titled Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Employment
Agency, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1302, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The appellate case is captioned as Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing
Employment Agency, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-3494, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is entitled Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Employment Agency,
LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2833.

District Court Judge Nina Gershon previously granted the motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit.  The class is comprised
of all nurses, who were recruited by the Defendants in the
Philippines and were employed by the Defendants in the United
States at any time since December 23, 2008.

Ms. Paguirigan brings claims for alleged violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act.  She also brings a breach of
contract claim against Defendants Prompt Nursing, Benjamin Landa,
Bent Philipson and Berish Rubenstein.[BN]

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellee Rose Paguirigan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          John Howley, Esq.
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          350 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601-2728
          E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com

Defendants-Counters-Claimants - Appellants Prompt Nursing
Employment Agency, LLC, DBA Sentosa Services, Golden Gate
Rehabilitation & Health Care Center LLC, Benjamin Landa, Francis
Luyun, Bent Philipson, Berish Rubenstein, Sentosa Nursing
Recruitment Agency, Sentosacare, LLC and Spring Creek
Rehabilitation and Nursing Center are represented by:

          Elliot Hahn, Esq.
          HAHN EISENBERGER PLLC
          969 East 27th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11210
          Telephone: (347) 410-5800


PROXY PROTECTION: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proxy Protection,
LLC. The case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc.,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. Proxy Protection, LLC
doing business as: First American Capital, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07821 (N.D., Ill., Nov. 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.

Proxy Protection, LLC is an independent investment boutique,
focused on creating value and stability in demanding mortgage
environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Warren Police Securities Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL,
INC., CHARLES F. LOWREY and KENNETH Y. TANJI, Case No.
2:19-cv-20839 (D.N.J., Nov. 27, 2019), is brought on behalf of all
persons or entities, who purchased common stock of Prudential
between February 15, 2019, and August 2, 2019, inclusive, seeking
remedies for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 6, 2018, the Defendants held a Guidance Call for
analysts and investors in which they provided earnings per share
guidance at $12.50-$13.00 for the upcoming 2019 fiscal year. On
February 15, 2019, the Company filed with the SEC its annual report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, which provided
the Company's full year and fourth quarter 2018 financial results,
including reported net income of $4.09 billion (or $9.50 EPS) and
$842 million (or $1.99 EPS), respectively. The Form 10-K stated
that reserves for future policy benefits were established
consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
described the Company's methodology and assumptions used to
determine its reserves.

Following the filing of the Form 10-K, Prudential's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices of more than $97 per share. On May 1,
2019, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial
results for the first quarter of 2019, including EPS of $3.00,
which missed analyst expectations. However, despite disappointing
earnings results, Defendant Lowrey described Prudential's balance
sheet as "rock-solid."

The Plaintiff contends that the strength of the Company's balance
sheet was materially false and misleading because the Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose the following
facts: (a) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to account for
adversely developing mortality experience in the Individual Life
business segment; (b) the Company was not over-reserved, but
instead, its reported reserves, particularly for the Individual
Life business segment, were insufficient to satisfy its future
policy benefits liabilities; and (c) the Company had materially
understated its liabilities and overstated net income as a result
of flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience.

As a result of these further negative disclosures in the Form 10-Q,
Prudential's stock price declined another 5.6%, from a close of
$91.09 per share on August 1, 2019, to $88.56 per share on August
2, 2019, and to $85.95 per share on August 5, 2019, on volume of
more than 4.2 million shares traded on both August 2 and 5, 2019,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
purchased Prudential common stock, and was damaged by the decline
of share prices.

Prudential describes itself as providing a wide range of insurance,
investment management, and other financial products and services to
both individual and institutional customers throughout the United
States and in many other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: (201) 845-9600
          Fax: (201) 845-9423
          Email: psp@njlawfirm.com


PUBLIC REPUTATION: Feagler Suit Wants to Stop Unauthorized Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Feagler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PUBLIC REPUTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PR
Business, a Florida limited liability company, INTERNET DIRECTORY
ASSOCIATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ELEV8TE
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:19-cv-00528
(D. Neb., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendants' illegal
practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice
messages to the cellular and residential telephones of consumers
nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

As a primary part of their marketing efforts, the Defendants and
their agents place thousands of automated calls employing a
prerecorded voice message to consumers' phones nationwide.
Unfortunately, the Defendants did not obtain consent prior to
placing these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the TCPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a citizen of the state of
Nebraska.

The Defendants sell and perform services placing online directory
listings for small businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: 650-781-8000
          Facsimile: 650-648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Issued False Proxy Over UCB Sale, Wheby Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., EDWARD
MATHERS, ROBERT HEFT, TIMOTHY PEARSON, RAJEEV SHAH, AOIFE M.
BRENNAN, BO CUMBO, and DOUGLAS TRECO, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02099-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a
misleading proxy statement in connection with a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Ra Pharmaceuticals will be acquired
by UCB S.A. and Franq Merger Sub, Inc.

On October 9, 2019, Ra Pharmaceuticals' Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with UCB.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ra Pharmaceuticals'
stockholders will receive $48.00 in cash for each share of Ra
Pharmaceuticals common stock they own.

On November 1, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to, among other things, the analyses
performed by Ra Pharmaceuticals' financial advisor.

Ra Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on leading the field of complement biology to bring
innovative and accessible therapies to patients with rare
diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


RE/MAX LLC: DeClements Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Daniel DeClements and Sam Tuli, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. RE/MAX LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-05476-NVW (D. Ariz., Oct. 23,
2019), seeks to stop Re/Max from directing its realtors to violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or at the very least from
ratifying its realtors' TCPA violative conduct.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege, Re/Max's realtors use third
party lead generating services to mine expired property listings
from the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS").  These lead generators
use skip-tracing to match cell phone numbers of the owners of those
expired listings to the properties to allow realtors to cold call
them without consent.  These calls are often made using an
autodialer and/or to telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call
registry ("DNC") in violation of the TCPA.

Re/Max is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered at
5075 S. Syracuse Street, in Denver, Colorado.  Re/Max provides real
estate services.  The Company markets and sells single-family homes
through real estate agents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Suite 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (602) 529-3474
          E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com


ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roofline, Inc. The
case is styled as Gary Sifuentes, On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Roofline, Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00269947-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
County, Nov. 27, 2019).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment.

RoofLine Supply & Delivery is a Wholesale Distributor of
Residential Exterior Building Materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mehrdad Bokhour #285256
   Bokhour Law Group, PC
   1901 Avenue Of The Stars
   Ste 450, Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 975-1493
   Fax: (310) 300-1705
   Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com





SAKS FIFTH: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10289 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019), arises from the Defendant's
failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing
in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated
group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. was founded in 1986. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of general lines of apparel such
as suits, coats, dresses, and home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanmedica
International, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Sanmedica International, LLC doing business as:
serovital.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06632 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
25, 2019).

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

SanMedica International, LLC develops and distributes innovative
formulations that meet the needs of consumers looking for an
anti-aging system that gets visible results.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SCHOLLE IPN: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Raul Alvarado, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated; Emma Sarwar,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated; Sergio Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
SCHOLLE IPN PACKAGING, INC., an unknown business entity; SCHOLLE
IPN CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; SCHOLLE PACKAGING,
INC., an unknown business entity; SCHOLLE CORPORATION, an unknown
business entity; SCHOLLE PACKAGING IMPREST, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19-CV04613, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Merced to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Nov. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01673-AWI-SKO to
the proceeding.

The Complaint purports to assert nine claims for relief stemming
from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code as
to the Plaintiffs and a purported class of similarly situated
individuals: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premium; unpaid
rest period premium; unpaid minimum wages; untimely payment of
final wages; untimely payment of wages during employment;
non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep payroll records; and
failure to reimburse business expenses. The Complaint also seeks
damages under California Business and Professions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: crowley@seyfarth.com
                 abednarova@seyfarth.com


SECOND ROUND: Thaar Files Suit in Michigan under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Second Round, L.P.
The case is styled as Christopher Thaar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Second Round, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-13520-GAD-RSW (E.D., Mich., Nov. 27,
2019).

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

The Plaintiff demanded $2 million dollars.

Second Round LP is a third-party collection agency based in Austin,
TX.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
   Lemberg Law, LLC
   43 Danbury Road
   3rd Floor
   Wilton, CT 06897
   Tel: (203) 653-2250
   Fax: (203) 653-3424
   Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com



SHADE STORE 989: Norman Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
The Shade Store 989, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Shade Store 989, LLC and The Shade
Store, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11004 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 27,
2019).

The Shade Store, LLC operates a chain of window treatment stores.
The Company offers solar and roman shades, metal blinds, valances,
and drapery hardware products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gurrieri, Esq.
   Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
   277 Broadway Suite 408, Ste 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


SKECHERS USA: Cavalier Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Cavalier Fundamental Growth Fund filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order and Judgment issued in the lawsuit
entitled STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.,
ROBERT GREENBERG and DAVID WEINBERG, Case No. 1:17-cv-08107-AT-SN,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

Cavalier appeals from the Order dated September 23, 2019, and
Judgment entered on September 24, 2019, that dismissed with
prejudice the second amended consolidated class action complaint
for violations of the federal securities laws.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Oct. 20, 2017, the
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed a securities class
action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other
shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a five-month period in
2015, against the company and certain of its officers.

On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second
amended and consolidated complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION
PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., ROBERT GREENBERG and DAVID WEINBERG, Case
No. 19-3468, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Lead Plaintiff Cavalier Fundamental Growth Fund and the Class are
represented by:

          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Alec T. Coquin, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com
                  acoquin@labaton.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Robert M. Rothman, 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: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  rrothman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
          Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                  eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
                  arees@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907−0853
          Facsimile: (212) 883−7053
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

Defendants-Appellees Skechers U.S.A, Inc., et al., are represented
by:

          Abby Faith Rudzin, Esq.
          Asher Louis Rivner, Esq.
          David Kirkpatrick Lukmire, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326−2033
          Facsimile: (212) 326−2061
          E-mail: arudzin@omm.com
                  arivner@omm.com
                  dlukmire@omm.com

               - and -

          Seth Aronson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (213) 430−6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430−3407
          E-mail: saronson@omm.com


SP PLUS: Ignores Credit & Debit Card Truncation Rules, Orsi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ORSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
HUB PARKING TECHN OLOGY USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BROW
ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendants, Case No. CACE-19-022989 (Fla.
Cir., Nov. 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which requires businesses to truncate certain credit
card and debit card information on printed receipts provided to
consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and each Class Member
paid for parking at the Airport from June 2018 to present, and
while paying for parking at a very public pay station, were
provided electronically printed receipts at the point of sale with
more than the last five digits of their debit or credit card
numbers, which violated their substantive rights and protections
under FACTA. The Plaintiff alleges that the number of digits
printed out would show sufficient, unique and personally
identifying account number information to enable theft of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities.

SP Plus, HUB Parking, and Broward County are each independently
liable, or alternatively, liable as agents, subagents, or
principals for each other under FACTA, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiff adds that they knowingly or recklessly ignored their
credit and debit card truncation duties when they provided at the
point of sale printed receipts to the Plaintiff and Class Members
with more than the last five digits of their debit or credit card
numbers.

The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to statutory damages
between one hundred dollars ($100) and one thousand dollars
($1,000), as well as attorney's fees and costs, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants collectively and cooperatively own, operate,
maintain, or manage fully automated public pay stations taking
thousands of debit and credit card payments for parking services
daily at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Ste. 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dennis@Cloorg.Com
                  Oarren@Cloorg. Com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
          499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 954-962-2333
          E-mail: Chris@Theconsumerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          Email: jshaw@zpllp.com
                 mperez@zpllp.com
                 jgarcia@zpllp.com


ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, AR: Jones Seeks Overtime Pay FLSA and AMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No.
2:19-cv-00148-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 27, 2019), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Mr. Jones seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and costs, and a reasonable
attorney's fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice
of failing to pay him lawful overtime compensation under the FLSA
and AMWA.

The Plaintiff asserts he was routinely required to work in excess
of 40 hours per week and was not paid for all hours worked, nor was
he paid proper overtime pay. The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and the Defendant required
him to do so, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
sheriff's deputy from April 2017 until August 2019.

The Defendant operates the St. Francis County Sheriff's
Department.[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


STAUD INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staud, Inc. The case
is styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Staud, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06633 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

STAUD offers an online store that enables shoppers to find and buy
clothing and accessories. It also offers their customers with
shipping and return services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          Shaked Law Group, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Fax: (718) 504-7555
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tally Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Tally Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06631
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2019).

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

Tally Technologies, Inc. is a U.S.-based financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TATE & KIRLIN: Maul Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
LADONNA MAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01215 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 5, 2019), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a congressionally
defined right to receive all communications from a debt collector
free from any misrepresentations and false threats.

On January 17, 2019, TKA sent the Plaintiff a collection letter.
The alleged debt identified in the letter was originally allegedly
owed to Credit One Bank N.A. and was incurred only for personal,
family or household purposes. The Defendant sent this letter in an
attempt to collect on a Credit One Bank N.A. despite the fact that
the Plaintiff had already paid the debt owed.

On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a check to Credit One Bank
N.A. to satisfy the amount owed and proceeded to cancel the credit
card immediately after. The Plaintiff confirmed this via telephone
with a Credit One Bank N.A. representative.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection activities
violated the FDCPA. The Plaintiff has, thus, suffered an injury as
a result of the Defendant's conduct.

The Defendant's attempt to collect on a previously paid debt
misrepresents the character, amount and legal status of the alleged
debt. The Defendant's actions are harassing and misleading in
nature, the lawsuit says.

TKA is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samantha Orlowski, Esq.
          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: 314) 451-1314
          Facsimile: (314) 787-4323
          E-mail: sam(@hklawstl.com
                  joel@hklawstl.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bolden Files RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Bolden
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis PLC, Actavis, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3
1:19-cv-05354-WMR (N.D. Ga., Nov. 25, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., is a global pharmaceutical
company. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets generic
and branded human pharmaceuticals as well as active pharmaceutical
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Keller Lenkner LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 741-5222


TOWN SPORTS: Diaz Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL & NYMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Diaz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Town Sports International, LLC, Case No. 161574/2019
(N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov. 27, 2019), is brought to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid spread of hour wages, wage deductions and
compensation for not receiving notices and statements pursuant to
the New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked more than 10 hours a day, on several days for
the Defendant, including in September 2019, but was not paid an
additional hour of pay for each such day as required by NYCRR, says
the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a wage
policy where the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and its other
minimum wage workers an extra hour of pay for each day that they
worked a spread of hours of more than 10 hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a housekeeper from
August 28, 2017, to November 22, 2019.

Town Sports International, LLC was engaged in the business of
providing gym and fitness services to the public and operated
dozens of fitness clubs and centers in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Phone: 718-740-1000
          Fax: 718-740-2000
          Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


TRULIA LLC: Kim Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trulia, LLC. The case
is styled as Andrew Kim, John Doe individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trulia, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06733 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Trulia, Inc. renders real estate solutions. The Company provides
real estate search engine that helps users find homes for sale and
offers real estate information at the local level.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com



UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Moore Seeks OT Wages for Security Guards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Moore, Eduardo Guerra, and Alisa Jones, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Universal Protection Service, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security
Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-09506 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 5,
2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order

The Plaintiffs are or were hourly-paid, non-exempt security guard
employees of the Defendant, who worked at its customers' sites
providing security services, including patrolling, monitoring, and
reporting suspicious activity.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated security guards frequently
earned either the applicable minimum wage or only slightly more
than the applicable minimum wage. When they worked over 40 hours in
a workweek, which happened frequently, the Plaintiffs assert they
and similarly situated security guards were eligible to receive
overtime wages.

The Defendant's policies and/or practices with regard to Plaintiffs
and similarly situated security guards violated the FLSA, the
Plaintiffs allege. They contend that the Defendant typically
required its security guard employees to perform uncompensated work
'off-the-clock' before and after their scheduled shifts. They add
that in weeks when they and similarly situated security guards
worked more than 40 hours (inclusive of time worked
"off-the-clock"), which occurred frequently, this requirement
resulted in a violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant frequently failed to
provide rest breaks required by state laws, and failed to fully
relieve them and similarly situated security guards during
requisite meal breaks in California, and failed to compensate
security guards for "on duty."

The Defendant is a security and facility services company that
provides security personnel to safeguard its customers' locations
across the country. According to its Web site, the Defendant
employs more than 200,000 individuals and has revenues exceeding $7
billion.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street #700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 346-5909
          Facsimile: (214) 210-2100
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Dr. Heaps' Sexual Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 22, an individual; JANE DOE 23, an individual; JANE DOE
24, an individual; JANE DOE 25, an individual; JANE DOE 26, an
individual; JANE DOE 27, an individual; JANE DOE 28, an individual;
JANE DOE 29, an individual; JANE DOE 30, an individual; JANE DOE
31, an individual; JANE DOE 32, an individual; JANE DOE 33, an
individual; JANE DOE 34, an individual; and JANE DOE 35, an
individual, Plaintiffs v. DR. JAMES HEAPS, an individual; THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 500, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV40040 (Cal.
Super., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to vindicate the rights of 14 women,
who were sexually abused, harassed and molested at the hands of
serial sexual predator, Dr. James Heaps, while they were seeking
necessary medical treatment from The Regents of the University of
California at The University of California, Los Angeles.

According to the complaint, Dr. Heaps used his position of trust
and authority as the Plaintiffs' physician to sexually abuse and
assault each of them, by, among other things: groping and fondling
their breasts, under the guise of conducting "breast examinations;"
digitally penetrating their vaginas, under the guise of conducting
"pelvic examinations," and rubbing and caressing the exterior of
their genitalia, all for no legitimate medical purpose and for no
other reason than to satisfy his own sexual desires.

Despite the fact that the Regents and UCLA have publicly admitted
that they received numerous complaints of Dr. Heaps' sexually
abusive behavior dating back to at least the year 2015, the Regents
and UCLA actively and deliberately concealed his sexual abuse for
years, continuing to grant him unfettered sexual access to the
vulnerable female patients in his care, all to protect the
Defendants' reputation and financial coffers, the lawsuit says.

The University of California, Los Angeles, is a public research
university in Los Angeles. It became the Southern Branch of the
University of California in 1919, making it the fourth-oldest of
the 10-campus University of California system and oldest of the
campuses in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Manly, Esq.
          Vince W. Finaldi, Esq.
          Alex E. Cunny, Esq.
          Jane E. Reilley, Esq.
          MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
          19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 252-9990
          Facsimile: (949) 252-9991


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Continues to Defend Wolther Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against a consolidated class action suit
entitled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition.

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action,
and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.

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

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VERISHOP INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verishop Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Verishop Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06628 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
25, 2019).

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

Verishop is a premium lifestyle destination for everyday luxury in
fashion, beauty, home and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS ENTERPRISES: Lyons Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Joelle Lyons, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells Enterprises,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-10916 (S.D., N.Y., Nov. 26,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Wells Enterprises, Inc. is the largest privately held, family-owned
ice cream and frozen treat manufacturer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Spencer Sheehan
   Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
   505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 303-0552
   Fax: (516) 234-7800
   Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com








WHITESTONE REIT: Clark Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Whitestone REIT said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the complainants in
the consolidated Clark v. Whitestone REIT, et al. class action suit
have withdrawn their claims and the Court has issued an order
dismissing them with prejudice.

On April 16, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company, James C.
Mastandrea, and David K. Holeman, entitled Clark v. Whitestone
REIT, et al., Case 4:19-cv-01379.  

A second class action lawsuit was filed but was consolidated into
the Clark case.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants violated certain federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements in the Company's
Forms 10-Q for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended
December 31, 2018 as a result of the accounting errors that
required the restatement of the company's consolidated financial
statements for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended
December 31, 2018.  

The purported class period runs from May 9, 2018 through February
27, 2019.

The complaint sought, among other things, compensatory damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.  

In August 2019, the complainants in these purported class actions
withdrew their claims and the Court issued an order dismissing them
with prejudice.

On July 17, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from a
purported shareholder containing allegations similar to those
contained in the purported class actions.

Subsequent to the dismissal of the purported class actions, in
September 2019, counsel for the purported shareholder withdrew its
demand.

Whitestone REIT is a fully-integrated real estate company that owns
and operates commercial properties in culturally diverse markets in
major metropolitan areas. Founded in 1998, the company is
internally managed with a portfolio of commercial properties in
Texas, Arizona and Illinois. The company is based in Houston,
Texas.


XPO LAST MILE: Green Sues Over Deductions From Drivers' Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Green and Waldo Tejada, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01896
(D. Conn., Nov. 27, 2019), is brought against the Defendant under
the Connecticut wage payment laws.

Although XPO classifies the Plaintiffs, as well as other class
plaintiffs, as independent contractors, the control manifested over
the drivers by XPO, as well as the drivers' inability to maintain
an independently established business demonstrates that they
qualify as XPO's employees under the Connecticut wage payment law,
according to the complaint. If a customer complains about a
delivery, XPO will send a giftcard of between $50 to $150 to the
customer and deducts that amount from the pay of the Plaintiffs and
the other class members.

The Plaintiffs alleges that XPO deducts certain expenses directly
from the compensation it pays, including deductions for insurances
(including auto liability, cargo, general liability, umbrella and
workers' compensation insurance), gift cards, administrative costs
such as processing fees, uniforms, and compels the Plaintiffs and
other drivers to incur certain expenses, which would normally be
borne by an employer, such as for fuel costs, vehicle maintenance
costs, and payments to helpers.

The Defendant's practice of making various unlawful and
unauthorized deductions from the Plaintiffs' and other drivers'
compensation violates Conn. Gen. Stat, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as delivery drivers.

XPO is in the business of providing delivery services for companies
such as Home Depot, Sears, Bob's Discount Furniture, Lowe's, Ikea,
and Amazon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: zrubin@llrlaw.com
                 hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 bjweber@llrlaw.com


YANKEE CANDLE CO: Delecruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Yankee Candle Company,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10999 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 27,
2019).

The Yankee Candle Company is an American manufacturer and retailer
of scented candles, candleholders, accessories, and dinnerware. Its
products are sold by thousands of gift shops nationwide, through
catalogs, and online, and in nearly 50 countries around the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ZARA USA: Sosa Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Zara USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony
Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Zara USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10958
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019).

Zara USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells apparel and fashion
products. The Company offers outwear, blazers, tops, jeans, skirts,
shoes, bags, and accessories for men, women, and kids. Zara serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



ZEPHYRHILLS DONUTS: Carr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Carr and all others similarly situated v. ZEPHYRHILLS DONUTS
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and MANOJ K. PRASAD,
individually, Case No. 8:19-cv-02933 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 27, 2019), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover all wages
owed to the Plaintiff and others during the course of their
employment.

The Defendants have unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff, and all
other employees similarly situated, of minimum wage and overtime
compensation during the course of their employment, the Plaintiff
alleges. During the Plaintiff's employment with ZDL and Prasad, the
Defendants required her to work approximately 45 hours per week,
for two weeks per month.

The Plaintiff tells the Court that the Defendants manually deleted
hours that she recorded in their time-keeping mechanisms, thereby,
depriving her of overtime pay for at least two weeks per month,
when she was required for work 45 hours per week. She also contends
that the Defendants refused to compensate her at the proper
overtime rate of time-and-one-half, as required by the FLSA, for
all hours worked in excess of 40 during the relevant time period.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
cashier, shift leader, and food and beverage preparation employee.

ZDL operates several Dunkin Donuts franchise restaurants in the
state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Mellissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS–JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com


[*] Governments Sued Over Failure to Combat Climate Change
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press in News reports that fifteen young Canadians are
suing the federal government over climate change. It's not the
first climate change litigation. Here are five other cases:

1) An environmental group in Quebec sought to launch a class action
against the federal government in November 2018 for what it said
was a failure to combat climate change. Lawyers sought to argue
that Quebecers who are 35 and under are being deprived of a right
to a healthy environment and will suffer the effects of global
warming more than older generations.

Superior Court Justice Gary Morrison said in July that the cause of
environmental protection was of undoubted importance. But he said
in a ruling that members of the class would have to be 18 or older
and excluding those over 35 appeared to be a "purely subjective and
arbitrary choice" by the organization.

"Although the mission and objectives of (the group) are admirable
on the socio-political level, they are too subjective and limiting
in their nature to form the basis of an appropriate group for the
purpose of exercising collective action," Morrison wrote. The group
"can be the 'voice' of young people," he added, "but it does not
have the authority to change the legal status and powers of
minors."

2) Youth represented by Our Children's Trust filed a constitutional
climate lawsuit against the United States government in 2015.

The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore.,
and it wants a judge to declare that the U.S. government is
violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to life, liberty
and property by substantially causing or contributing to a
dangerous concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It asks the court to declare federal energy policy that contributes
to global warming unconstitutional, order the government to quickly
phase out carbon dioxide emissions to a certain level by 2100, and
mandate a national climate recovery plan.

The young people argue that government officials have known for
more than 50 years that carbon pollution from fossil fuels was
causing climate change and that policies promoting oil and gas
deprive them of those rights.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump's administration have argued
that the lawsuit is trying to direct federal environmental and
energy policies through the courts instead of through the political
process.

3) In the Netherlands, an appeals court last year upheld a landmark
ruling that ordered the Dutch government to cut the country's
greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020 from
benchmark 1990 levels.

The original June 2015 ruling came in a case brought by the
environmental group Urgenda on behalf of 900 Dutch citizens.

The Hague Appeals Court said the government is under a legal
obligation to take measures to protect its citizens against
dangerous climate change. "Considering the great dangers that are
likely to occur, more ambitious measures have to be taken in the
short term to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect
the life and family life of citizens in the Netherlands," the court
said in a statement.

4) Colombia's highest court told the government is has to take
urgent action to protect its Amazon rainforest against
deforestation in 2018.

An environmental group that supported a group of 25 children and
youth in the lawsuit says they successfully argued that
deforestation and the increase of the average temperature in the
country threatened their rights to a healthy environment, life,
health, food and water.

The youth also argued that future generations will be the ones to
suffer the worst climate change effects.

The organization says the court ordered the government to create an
"intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon" to
reduce deforestation and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. It also
recognized the Colombian Amazon as "an entity subject of rights."

5) The City of Victoria explored the idea of launching a
class-action lawsuit with other municipalities against energy
companies this year.

The city is among more than a dozen B.C. municipalities that sent
letters to oil and gas companies asking them to chip in to cover
growing bills associated with climate change in proportion to their
emissions.

Storm surges combined with a one-metre rise in sea level, which is
projected by 2100, could result in business disruption losses of
almost $500,000 per day, according to a 2015 report commissioned by
the regional government.

Meanwhile, delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted
against a proposed motion from Port Moody calling the province to
pass legislation holding energy companies financially liable for
costs related to climate change at their annual meeting in
September. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***