CAR_Public/191204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 4, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 242

                            Headlines

ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Recalled Breast Implants
ALLIED WIRELINE: Underpays Wireline Technicians, Basler Alleges
AMAZON.COM: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Says
ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Action Over Tire Chalking Faces Setback

ARAMARK CORP: Settles Suits Over Canceled Bonuses for $21 Million
ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Faces Amil Suit Over FLSA and NYLL Violations
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Rejects Shareholders' Claims in Class Action
B&I HOTEL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Berryhill Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Castillo FLSA Suit

BARRICK GOLD: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
BATH & BODY: Mendez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
BJC & EGC: Faces Bailey Consumer Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
BOSMAN TRUCKING: Johnson Moves for Conditional Class Certification
BROWN'S MOVING: Mitchell Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Movers

CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Appeals Ruling in Gagliastre Suit to 4th Cir.
CHEVRON CORPORATION: Clayborne Suit Removed to N.D. California
COOLIBAR INC: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
COPART INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Fleming Says
COVETRUS INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit

CRAFT REVOLUTION: Miller Seeks Overtime Wages for Tipped Workers
DIRECT HOLDINGS: Moore Seeks to Stop Disclosure of Viewing Info
DOORDASH, INC. Court Dismisses Wage and Hour Suit
DOVER GOURMET: Faces Sosa Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. New York
ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Initial Court Approval of McGee Settlement

FARMINGTON FOODS: Bradford Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
FIDELITY: Wants Judge to Put Limits on 401(k) Plan Case Trial
FIVE STAR ADVERTISING: Wendell H Stone Sues Over Unwanted Fax Ads
GBP CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Shake Suit Continues for Florida Customers

GEO GROUP: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Novoa Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
GOLDWATER BANK: Fabricant Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
H MART INC: King Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
HEALTH INSURANCE: Appeals Decision in Moser Suit to 9th Circuit

INFOSYS LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Austin Sues for Fraud, Breach of Contract
IROBOT CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
IROBOT CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
JEROME GOLDEN: Jones Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees

KELLER WILLIAMS: Becker Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
KULICKE & SOFFA: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
KUSHAN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Castillo Says
LEGACY INN: White Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
LITTLE CAESAR: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says

MADONNA: Hit With Class Suit Over Late Start Times of Madame X Tour
MIDLAND CREDIT: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Pierre FDCPA Suit
MONAT: Class Action Over Hair-Care Products Can Proceed
NATIONAL GRID: Gas Outage Report Leads to Amended Lawsuits
NCAA: Sued by Washington for Ignoring Student-Athletes' Safety

NCAA: Williams Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCARE: Norman Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NEW YORK: Knight Sues MTA-New York City Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW YORK: Stiegman Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Workers
ONVOY LLC: Aussieker Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls

OVERSTOCK.COM: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
PINNACLE ATHLETIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Boyd Suit Claims
PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
PUBLIX SUPER: Aiuto Seeks to Recover Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA

QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan. 6 Deadline
RAGEON INC: Faces Steiner Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
REEBOK INT'L: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Claims
SOLARA MEDICAL: Maldonado Files Suit in S.D. New York

SRC ENERGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces BBK Global Suit Over Routing Monopolies
SWAPP LAW: Settles Advertising Class Action for $2MM
TASKUS INC: Walker Seeks Overtime Wages for Hourly Employees
TIDAL BASIN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Housing Inspectors

TRUSTY PLUMBING: Barajas Seeks to Recover Back and Overtime Wages
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Decision in UAW ERISA Suit to 6th Circuit
TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 30 Deadline
UP FINTECH: Faces Willard Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Price
UP FINTECH: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

VANTAGE MARKETING: Araque Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Evans Labor Suit
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Lotsoff Suit

                            *********

ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Recalled Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan, the manufacturers of BIOCELL textured "gummy" breast
implants, is the target of a proposed national class-action lawsuit
by consumer-rights law firm FeganScott. The suit claims that
although the FDA issued a recall for Allergan's BIOCELL products,
the company has no plans to provide medical monitoring for
individuals at risk of developing breast implant-associated
anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

According to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, Central Division, Allergan refuses to
appropriately care for, monitor and compensate individuals who seek
to remove the recalled implants or undergo invasive and expensive
diagnostic procedures.

"For decades, Allergan knew that its recalled implants were six
times more likely to cause BIA-ALCL, but it continued to market
these products, seemingly with little regard for the well-being of
its users," said Beth Fegan, founder and managing member of
FeganScott.

Fegan noted that beginning in at least 2006, Allergan possessed
information and evidence demonstrating that its recalled BIOCELL
implants posed a significant risk of BIA-ALCL.

According to the complaint, Allergan violated state and federal law
by failing to properly investigate, identify, disclose, warn of,
and report the risks and adverse events associated with the
implants.

"Allergan wasn't just trying to avoid reporting on the link between
their implants and cancer, it also conducted business with
purposeful secrecy--seeking to bury evidence of adverse events and
avoid public disclosure," said Fegan.

The 12-page complaint details Allergan's alleged actions that
prevented consumers from making informed decisions about their
implants, resulting in mounting surgical costs for removal and
ongoing medical monitoring.

Fegan added that the intent to deceive consumers into purchasing
recalled BIOCELL implants resulted in a bevy of individuals who
would have chosen a different product, had they been properly
informed.

"These days, we see recalls issued on a regular basis, but the
claims in this lawsuit are deeply disturbing and suggest the
manufacturer's ongoing attempts to disregard safety in favor of
profit," said Fegan.

The suit seeks to represent all U.S. consumers who, for personal
use, implanted Allergan's BIOCELL products that have been recalled
by the FDA and who have not been diagnosed with breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

According to Fegan, despite Allergan's compliance with the FDA's
recall, individuals with the implants are still at risk.

"Allergan tried to placate patients, offering to replace the
implants with an alternative, ostensibly safer type of implant, but
refused to pay for the cost of surgery," Fegan noted. "What's
worse, Allergen refused to help the women who simply wanted to take
the implants out or make medical monitoring possible to guard
against developing cancer later."

Consumers who are interested in learning more about this
class-action suit are urged to send their contact information to
allergan@feganscott.com.

FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable.

Contact:

         FEGANSCOTT
         Mark Firmani, Esq.
         Email: feganscottpr@firmani.com
[GN]



ALLIED WIRELINE: Underpays Wireline Technicians, Basler Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY BASLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED WIRELINE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
ALLIED-HORIZONTAL WIRELIEN SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-04535 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as wireline
technician.

Allied Wireline Services, LLC provides energy services. The Company
offers induction array, dual laterolog, gamma ray, multi array
sonic, microlog, telemetry, cement and casing evaluation, bridge
plugs, through tubing, and perforating services. Allied Wireline
Services serves customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


AMAZON.COM: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-09841 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 24, 2019), is brought as a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its failure to sell store gift cards that contain
writing in Braille so they may be fully accessible and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The 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.  He contends that because the Defendant's store gift
cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Amazon.com, Inc., is a Delaware public company with its principal
executive offices in Seattle, Washington.  The Company operates
Amazon retail stores, as well as stores for various subsidiary
companies and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells retail
merchandise in the City and State of New York and throughout the
world.[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
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  DanaLGottlieb@aol.com


AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORENA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; and DOES
1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02253 (C.D. Cal., Nov.
19, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (ABDC) provides pharmaceutical
products. The Company distributes prescription drugs, health and
beauty, home healthcare, proprietary drugs, and general merchandise
products, as well as technology, medication management, and
consulting services. ABDC operates in the United States.[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
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - 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

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - 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 facsimile
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Action Over Tire Chalking Faces Setback
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a man who
claims that Ann Arbor's practice of chalking tires is
unconstitutional suffered a legal setback when the Eastern District
of Michigan said it appeared he wasn't ticketed based on the
chalking.

Sean Anthony Yannotti claims that when he received a ticket in
April, the city regularly marked, or "vandalized," the tires of
parked vehicles with chalk to enforce its parking rules. Yannotti
received a $25 fine, plus a $55 late fee when he failed to pay
within 14 days. He filed a putative class action, claiming the
chalking practice is an unconstitutional warrantless physical
intrusion. [GN]



ARAMARK CORP: Settles Suits Over Canceled Bonuses for $21 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Brubaker, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that Aramark Corp. said on Nov. 8, 2019, that it will pay $21
million to settle two proposed class-action lawsuits over the
Philadelphia company's cancellation of bonuses for thousands of
managers in February.

The ensuing uproar among managers, some of whom lost 20% of their
expected annual compensation, contributed to the abrupt departure
of chief executive Eric Foss in August.

"We believe it is in the best interest of our employees and the
company to put this matter behind us," Aramark said in a
statement.

The settlement comes about a month after John Zillmer, the new CEO,
took over. The bonus denial and the events that followed
contributed to low morale among employees, a problem Zillmer
acknowledged in an interview last month.

The settlement, which requires court approval, is expected to
benefit about 4,500 employees and former employees. The company
employs about 274,400 people, including 14,000 in Pennsylvania and
nearly 6,500 in the Philadelphia region. The $21 million includes
fees for attorneys.

As part of the mediated settlement, the company, attorneys for the
employees, and the employees named in two lawsuits filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed not
to discuss the case.

Foss came under fire when he decided not to pay bonuses earned in
2018 to front-line managers because the company did not meet a
profit target set by the board of directors. Employees found it
especially egregious as Foss--who earned $16 million in 2018,
including $2.6 million in incentive bonus — touted record
revenues and profitability for the year ended in September.

Managers were furious at Foss because they were not told at the
beginning of the fiscal year that a company-wide profit target
would be a factor in their bonuses.

Another significant change at Aramark is the presence of activist
investor Paul C. Hilal as the company's largest shareholder. Hilal
notified the company in August that he planned to have
"conversations, meetings, and other communications" with members of
Aramark's board, management team, and other stockholders "to
discuss the issuer's business, operations, strategies, governance,
the composition of the executive suite and board, and possibilities
for changes."

Less than two weeks later, the company announced Foss' retirement.

Hilal, whose Mantle Ridge LP has a claim on 20% of Aramark though
stock holdings and other instruments, is now vice chairman. [GN]



ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Faces Amil Suit Over FLSA and NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT AMIL and IVON TEPIZILA v. ARCHWAY ON PEARL, INC. (D/B/A
ARCHWAY CAFE), ARCHWAY ON WATER CORP. (D/B/A LOVE & DOUGH), and
ARTHUR (A.K.A. ARTUR) HASANI, Case No. 1:19-cv-06059 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated members of the FLSA opt-in class for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, they are
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, minimum
wages, overtime compensation and damages, among other things.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a cafeteria, located at 57B
Pearl St., in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Archway Cafe" and
a pizzeria located at 57C Pearl St., in Brooklyn, under the name
"Love & Dough."  Archway Cafe and Love and Dough restaurants are
right next door to each other.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
                  jnussbaum@jhllp.com


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Rejects Shareholders' Claims in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Astec Industries Inc. has told a Tennessee
federal judge it shouldn't have to face shareholders' allegations
that it lied about the business prospects of its wood pellet
plants, claiming that, contrary to investors' claims they had been
in the dark about struggles at the two plants, it had updated them
properly. The company filed a motion to dismiss the proposed class
action. [GN]



B&I HOTEL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Berryhill Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BERRYHILL, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. B&I HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC Dba The Bertram Inn &
Conference Center, Case No. 5:19-cv-02504 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 25,
2019), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Ms. Berryhill is a former employee of Bertram.  As a front desk
associate, she asserts she was a non-exempt employee, and subject
to minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and the Ohio
Wage Law.  She alleges that while employed by the Defendant, she
regularly worked over 40 hours per week but was not paid an
overtime pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  She
adds that Bertram made improper deductions from her pay.

Bertram is a domestic corporation lawfully licensed to conduct
business in the state of Ohio with its principal place of business
located in the state of Ohio at 600 N. Aurora Road, in Aurora,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Hux, Esq.
          HUX LAW FIRM, LLC
          3 Severance Circle #18147
          Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
          Telephone: (937) 315-1106
          Facsimile: (216) 359-7760
          E-mail: jhux@huxlawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Castillo FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cindy R. Castillo filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Cindy Castillo v. Bank of America, N.A., et
al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Castillo v. Bank of
America, NA, et al., Case No. 19-56228, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 15, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling.  That appellate case
is styled as Cindy Castillo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case
No. 19-80098.

The District Court previously denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class consisting of:

   California Class: "All hourly-paid, non-managerial call center
   workers of Bank of America, National Association, in the
   State of California within four years prior to the filing
   of the complaint in this action until resolution of this
   lawsuit"; and

and a subclass consisting of:

   Sub-Class 1: "All Class Members who are or were employed by
   Defendants and subject to Defendant's Unfair Business
   Practices."

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

   -- Appellant Cindy R. Castillo's opening brief is due on
      December 23, 2019;

   -- Appellees Bank of America, NA and Does' answering brief is
      due on January 23, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant CINDY R. CASTILLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, NA, a North Carolina
Corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Sean Sullivan, Esq.
          John Arthur Van Hook, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                  ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com
                  jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Sylvia Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com


BARRICK GOLD: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Hunter, Esq. -- JHunter@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a recent decision,
Gradja v. Barrick Gold Corp, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
had an opportunity to consider the principles to be applied when
asking for dismissal of a proposed class action on consent.

The plaintiff, Mr. Gradja, had commenced a proposed class action
against Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) claiming damages for
alleged misrepresentations relating to Barrick's business
operations and an environmental accident that affected the
business's finances. The claim for misrepresentation was advanced
pursuant to common law principles and pursuant to a statutory
provision in the Ontario Securities Act. To support the claim,
counsel for Mr. Gradja retained local legal counsel in Argentina to
assist in obtaining the relevant documents. Unfortunately, local
Argentinian counsel were unable to retrieve all of the documents
and class counsel formed the view that the remaining documents were
unlikely to be recovered. For this reason, Mr. Gradja instructed
his counsel to try to dismiss the proposed class action on a
without-costs basis.

Following negotiations, the parties agreed that Barrick would
consent to the without-costs dismissal of the proposed class action
in exchange for a full and final release of Mr. Gradja's claims
against Barrick. As the action had yet to be certified, the release
did not bind any of the putative class members.

In considering the parties' request for dismissal, Perrel J. noted
that section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 required court
approval for the discontinuance, abandonment or settlement of a
class action. In this case, Perell J. was of the view that the
relief sought was equivalent to an "abandonment or discontinuance"
and required that the court be satisfied that the putative class
members would not be prejudiced.

In reviewing the applicable test, Perell J. noted that motions for
discontinuance and/or abandonment would be "carefully scrutinized"
and that the court should consider: (1) whether the proceeding was
commenced for an improper purpose,(2) whether there would be a
viable replacement plaintiff so that putative class members were
not prejudiced, and (3) whether the defendant would be prejudiced.
The court further noted that the requirement that a court approval
of a discontinuance would satisfy policy objectives, including the
deterrence of meritless class proceedings and ensuing that any
adverse effect of a discontinuance could be ameliorated. Further
policy reasons and a lengthier discussion of the purpose of section
29 of the CPA may be found in an earlier decision of Perell J. –
Naylor v. Coloplast Canada Corporation.

In Barrick, Perell J. noted that section 29 of the CPA requires a
court, in approving a discontinuance, to consider whether notice of
discontinuance ought to be given to putative class members. In this
case, Perell J. was of the view that notice should be provided. The
approved notice advised putative class members that the action was
discontinued, that a discontinuance meant that the action would not
be continuing, that the applicable limitation period would begin to
run again and that legal advice should be sought.

Takeaway

This case assists in laying out a roadmap for counsel who wish to
pursue a consent discontinuance or abandonment of a proposed class
action. Although civil actions outside of the class actions sphere
have additional tools to deal with claims that are not diligently
prosecuted (for example, in Ontario an action may be
administratively dismissed for delay if not set down for trial
within five years), such tools do not exist for proposed or
certified class actions.

Counsel who wish to consider a discontinuance or abandonment of a
proposed or certified class action will be required to consider
what (if any) notice will have to be given to the putative class
and what steps may be required to mitigate any potential adverse
effects of such an abandonment or discontinuance. Counsel should be
prepared for the court to take a hard look at motion materials
submitted for the purposes of seeking a discontinuance. [GN]


BATH & BODY: Mendez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09856-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to
sell store gift cards that contain writing in Braille so they may
be fully accessible and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The 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 contends that because its store gift
cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the Defendant violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Bath & Body Works, LLC, is a Delaware public company with its
principal executive offices in Columbus, Ohio.  The Defendant
operates Bath & Body Works retail stores, as well retail as stores
for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State
of New York and throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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


BJC & EGC: Faces Bailey Consumer Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BJC & EGC Partners LLC, d/b/a ProCo and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02026-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 25, 2019), is brought on
behalf of a class of Pennsylvania consumers seeking damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Ms. Bailey alleges that the Company deceived her and other
consumers by omitting the complete and accurate requirement that
every part of a consumer's dispute of a debt must be in writing, as
provided for under Section 1692g of the FDCPA (the "G-Notice").

ProCo is a Delaware limited liability company.  ProCo is a "debt
collector" as the phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(a)(6)
and used in the FDCPA.  ProCo is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

On November 18, 2018, ProCo sent the Plaintiff an initial contact
notice (the "Letter") regarding the alleged debt owed.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Letter does not meet the required
requirements of the FDCPA because it falsely omitted the
requirement of the "G Notice" in the first sentence by leaving out
the requirement that a consumer must dispute in writing.[BN]

The Plaintiff represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 722-6885
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


BOSMAN TRUCKING: Johnson Moves for Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARTANEZE JOHNSON, JAMES HANNAH AND WALTER
CHERRY, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated, known and unknown v. BOSMAN TRUCKING, INC., AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION AND GREG TLUSTOCHOWICZ, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:19-cv-02066 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs file their Motion for
Stage-One Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class
Members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BROWN'S MOVING: Mitchell Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Movers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MITCHELL, KALIN HUSKEY and TERELL LUNNIE, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v.
BROWN'S MOVING & STORAGE, INC., DEFENDANT, Case No.
4:19-cv-00783-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 6, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other Movers a lawful
minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant
as Movers out of its location in Little Rock. The Plaintiffs were
paid based on a percentage of the fee charged by the Defendant to
its customers for each moving job they completed, the lawsuit
says.

Brown's Moving provides moving, packing and delivery services under
the name Blue Truck Moving & Delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Appeals Ruling in Gagliastre Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Chris
Gagliastre, et al. v. Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK.

The case alleges that the Defendants have repeatedly violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly applying a tip credit to
servers' wages.  The case also asserts impermissible deductions in
violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant.  The Plaintiffs worked for
Captain George's as servers.

The appellate case is captioned as Chris Gagliastre, et al. v.
Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 19-2170, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellee CHRIS GAGLIASTRE, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated; ZACHARY TARRY, On behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated; and OLGA ZAYNEEVA, On behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          8151 Peters Road
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 North Orange Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Joshua Lee Jewett, Esq.
          Julia Rust, Esq.
          PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC
          101 West Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 216-0226
          E-mail: jjewett@piercemccoy.com
                  julia@piercemccoy.com

               - and -

          Patrick James McLaughlin, Esq.
          WUKELA LAW FIRM
          403 2nd Loop Road
          P. O. Box 13057
          Florence, SC 29505-0000
          Telephone: (843) 669-5634
          E-mail: Patrick@wukelalaw.com

Defendants-Appellants CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA LP,
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., SHERRY PITSILIDES and
PITSILIDES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and Defendants GEORGE PITSILIDES and
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-4 are represented by:

          Christopher Alan Abel, Esq.
          William Andrew McNinch Burke, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5547
          E-mail: cabel@wilsav.com
                  wburke@wilsav.com


CHEVRON CORPORATION: Clayborne Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAWN CLAYBORNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, NEWTRON, LLC; THE NEWTRON GROUP,
LLC and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. MSC 19-01830, was removed
on November 19, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Contra Costa to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07624 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie
Kim.

Chevron Corporation is an integrated energy company with operations
in countries located around the world. The Company produces and
transports crude oil and natural gas. Chevron also refines,
markets, and distributes fuels, as well as is involved in chemical
and mining operations, power generation, and energy services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
           Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
           MEGAN M. LAWSON, Esq.
           GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
           333 South Grand Avenue
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
           Telephone: (213) 229-7000
           Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
           E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com
                   jcripps@gibsondunn.com
                   mlawson@gibsondunn.com


COOLIBAR INC: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, On behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated v. COOLIBAR INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02500-PAG (N.D. Ohio,
Oct. 25, 2019), is brought as a proposed nationwide class action
complaint against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio, who received an unsolicited
facsimile advertisement from the Defendant on its office fax
machine without consent.  The Plaintiff seeks to make the Defendant
accountable for its sending of unsolicited facsimiles to people and
businesses, who have not given their consent.

Coolibar Inc. is registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State
as a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.  Coolibar sells sun protective apparel and accessories
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


COPART INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Fleming Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH ALEXANDER FLEMING, TASHAE EDWARDS, and TREVEL J. SMITH,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COPART,
INC. (D/B/A COPART DIRECT), MICHAEL PALMER, and DANIEL RYAN, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05994 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked.

Copart, Inc., doing business as Copart Direct, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners,
managers, principals, or agents of Defendant Corporation and,
through this corporate entity, operate or operated the distribution
center as a joint or unified enterprise.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a car purchase center,
located at 81 Apollo Street, in Brooklyn, New York, under the name
"Copart Direct."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


COVETRUS INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Covetrus, Inc.  Shareholders who purchased shares during the dates
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)
Investors Affected : February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Covetrus, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had overstated its capabilities with
regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii)
Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry
Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and
nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had understated its
separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the Company
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4285&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]

CRAFT REVOLUTION: Miller Seeks Overtime Wages for Tipped Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTI MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAFT REVOLUTION, LLC d/b/a ARTISANAL
BREWING VENTURES, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00601 (W.D.N.C.),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, misappropriated tips, and
statutory penalties for the Plaintiff and similarly situated
co-workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The workers include servers, bussers, hostesses, and bartenders
(Tipped Workers) who work or have worked at the ABV restaurant and
brewery located at 4001 Yancey Road, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Ms. Miller was employed by ABV as a bartender from April 2, 2018,
to January 11, 2019. The Defendant paid her and other Tipped
Workers an hourly rate less than the full applicable federal
minimum wage, the lawsuit says. The Defendant also failed to inform
her and other Tipped Workers of the provisions of the tip credit
subsection of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant terminated her
employment because she engaged in protected activity by complaining
about its unlawful compensation practices of Tipped Workers in
violation of the FLSA.

Craft Revolution is an Australian owned premium beverage company
formed in 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Marcus, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: 704-612-0038
          E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com
                  jason@gibbonsleis.com
                  geoffrey@gibbonsleis.com


DIRECT HOLDINGS: Moore Seeks to Stop Disclosure of Viewing Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT HOLDINGS AMERICAS INC., doing
business as "TIME LIFE," Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14418-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks legal and equitable remedies to
redress and put a stop to Time Life's practices of intentionally
disclosing its customers' Personal Viewing Information in violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

To supplement its revenues, Direct Holdings sells, rents,
transmits, and/or otherwise discloses, to various third parties,
records containing the personal information (including names and
addresses) of each of its customers, along with detailed
transactional information revealing the titles and subject matter
of the videos, DVDs, and other audiovisual materials purchased by
each customer (Personal Viewing Information).

According to the complaint, after Time Life discloses its
customers' Personal Viewing Information, the various third-party
recipients of this data then append to it a myriad of other
categories of personal and demographic data pertaining to Time
Life's customers, only to then re-sell that Personal Viewing
Information (enhanced with the appended demographic information) to
other third parties on the open market.

As a result of Time Life's unlawful disclosures of their Personal
Viewing Information, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have
suffered privacy and economic injuries, the lawsuit says.

Direct Holdings markets music and video products. The Company
specializes in distinctive multi-media collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


DOORDASH, INC. Court Dismisses Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned DARNELL AUSTIN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC.,
Defendant. No. 1:17-cv-12498-IT. (D. Mass.)

Defendant moved to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Plaintiff Darnell Austin brings claims under the Massachusetts Wage
Act, Mass, arising from Defendant DoorDash, Inc.'s alleged failure
to pay Plaintiff minimum wage and overtime.
At the outset of this litigation, the parties presented a number of
issues of law that have since been resolved by decisions of the
Supreme Court. Those issues included Plaintiff's contention that
the Mutual.
  
The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private
arbitration agreements. While a court's authority under the
Arbitration Act to compel arbitration may be considerable, it isn't
unconditional.

Section 1 of the FAA provides that the statute shall not apply to
contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other
class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

Plaintiff argues that he falls within the FAA's exclusion for any
other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce
the residual clause and therefore the Agreement is exempt from the
FAA.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce and thus the FAA applies to the contract and
the court must enforce the arbitration provision in accordance with
the FAA.

In Circuit City, the Supreme Court considered whether all
employment contracts were excluded from the FAA's coverage by the
residual clause in Section 1 or just those of transportation
workers. The Court concluded that the residual clause should be
read to give effect to the terms `seamen' and `railroad employees,'
and should itself be controlled and defined by reference to the
enumerated categories of workers which are recited just before it.

Here, the first, sixth and eighth factors listed in Lenz weigh in
favor of finding Plaintiff to be a transportation worker under the
FAA, as he works as a driver, his vehicle is vital to Doordash's
commercial enterprise, and there is a complete nexus between his
duties as a delivery driver and the vehicle he uses in carrying out
his duties. The court finds the fourth factor whether Plaintiff
supervises other transportation workers irrelevant, for as in
Waithaka, this factor is meant to broaden the exemption to workers
who do not directly engage in transporting goods and thus the
inapplicability of the fourth factor to Plaintiff does not preclude
finding he falls within the scope of the exemption.

The court also finds the fifth factor cuts neither for nor against
the exclusion as "on demand" drivers did not exist at the time the
FAA was enacted.

The second factor whether the employee is directly responsible for
transporting the goods in interstate commerce goes against
Plaintiff where he does not allege that he ever crosses state lines
when working for Defendant. Nor has Plaintiff claimed here that
drivers are offered routes that involve transporting meals across
state lines.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration is ALLOWED.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yymv2bp9  
from Leagle.com

Darnell Austin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide H. Pagano -
apagano@llrlaw.com - Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E.
Liss-Riordan - sliss@llrlaw.com - Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

DoorDash, Inc., Defendant, represented by Francis J. Bingham  -
fbingham@littler.com - Littler Mendelson P.C. & Michael Mankes -
mmankes@littler.com - Littler Mendelson P.C.


DOVER GOURMET: Faces Sosa Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO SOSA, IRVING SOSA ROJAS, and LEONIS RIVADENEIRA ANDRADE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DOVER GOURMET CORP d/b/a HUDSON'S ON THE MILE, and
FREDDY CORDINAS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06257
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment at Dover Gourmet.

As a result of the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies the Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiffs was employed by the Defendants from June 2019 until
July 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to
provide them with wage statements upon each payment of wages.

Dover Gourmet Corporation was founded in 1976. The company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption. [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


ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Initial Court Approval of McGee Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 is awaiting a preliminary court order
approving a proposed settlement in the class action suit entitled,
William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al.; certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only; and
approval of the notice to the settlement class.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers.

An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a
defendant, was filed December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which,
among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted
against Constant Contact and its former officers.

On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and
approval of notice to the settlement class.

The court has not yet ruled on this motion but a hearing is
scheduled for November 8, 2019.

The Company's contribution to the settlement pool under this
proposed settlement would be equal to the $1.5 million it reserved
for this matter during the year ended December 31, 2018.

Endurance said, "The Company cannot make any assurances as to
whether or when the McGee settlement will be approved by the court
and the Company cannot assess the ultimate outcome of this matter
or an estimate of any probable losses or any reasonably possible
losses (other than the reserve specifically discussed above) at
this time."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


FARMINGTON FOODS: Bradford Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIA BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMINGTON FOODS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH12888 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to redress
and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when the Defendant hires an employee,
including the Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in its employee
databases using a scan of his or her hand geometry. The Defendant
uses the employee databases to monitor the time worked by its
employees. While many employers use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), the
Defendant's employees are required, as a condition of employment,
to have their hand geometry scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses--such as the Defendant's--and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into
consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as
checking accounts and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--hand geometry is unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks,
the lawsuit says.

Farmington Foods is an Illinois corporation that operates a meat
processing and production facility in Forest Park, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          E 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hyenkins@stephanzouras.com


FIDELITY: Wants Judge to Put Limits on 401(k) Plan Case Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that FMR LLC, the
parent company of Fidelity Investments, asked a federal judge in
Massachusetts to put limits on an upcoming trial over the company's
401(k) plan, saying the advisory jury that's been tapped to hear
the case may become confused and prejudiced against the company.

Fidelity's motion comes two weeks after Judge William G. Young of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts took the
unusual step of ordering an advisory jury to assist him in the
class action over Fidelity's 401(k) plan. [GN]



FIVE STAR ADVERTISING: Wendell H Stone Sues Over Unwanted Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STAR ADVERTISING, LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company; and JOHNNY LEE, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03157 (D. Colo., Nov. 6,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited fax advertisements, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by
Junk Fax Prevention Act.

The action seeks relief expressly authorized by the JFPA:

  -- injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants, their employees,
     agents, representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all
     persons and entities acting in concert with them, from
     sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of the JFPA;
     and

  -- an award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500
     for each violation of the JFPA, and to have such damages
     trebled, as provided by Section 227(b)(3) of the Act.

The Defendants transmitted a facsimile advertisement to the
Plaintiff on October 1, 2019. The Plaintiff has never invited nor
given permission to the Defendants to send the Faxes and had no
prior relationship with Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GBP CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas against GPB Capital Holdings, LLC ("GPB") and its
lead underwriters and distribution agents Ascendant Capital, LLC
and Ascendant Alternative Strategies, LLC (collectively,
"Ascendant"), and Axiom Capital Management, Inc. ("Axiom"), and
their principals, as well as numerous entities, including
independent brokerage firms (the "Broker Defendants"), auditors,
and the fund administrator, who assisted in private placement
offerings of GPB's limited partnership funds (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The Class includes all investors who, between June
6, 2013 and October 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
purchased or otherwise acquired interests in various GPB funds,
including: GPB Holdings, LP; GPB Holdings Qualified, LP; GPB
Holdings II, LP; GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP; GPB Cold Storage,
LP; GPB NYC Development; GPB Waste Management, LP; and GPB Holdings
III, LP (collectively, the "Funds").

The suit asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of
the Texas Securities Act (the "TSA"), Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art.
581-33 and 581-7, as well as claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, substantially assisting in the breach of such duties, and
negligence. The lawsuit was filed by Kirby McInerney LLP of New
York, NY, along with co-counsel Brophy Edmundson Shelton & Weiss,
PLLC of Austin, Texas and Blackner Stone & Associates, P.A. of Palm
Beach, Florida.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants: (i)
made materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in the offering documents and subsequent
communications concerning the nature of the Funds' businesses and
distributions, the actual value of the investments, and the
significant conflicts of interest of David Gentile and Jeffry
Schneider, the principals of GPB and Ascendant, respectively; and
(ii) failed to properly register the Fund offerings and the
underlying securities or make required disclosures, as they were
required to do given the circumstances of the offerings.

The complaint also alleges that numerous Broker Defendants selling
the limited partnership interests, the Funds' outside auditors, and
the fund administrator assisted in the scheme. Importantly, the
complaint does not assert claims against the specific Broker
Defendants for their direct sales of the partnership interests to
particular class members; rather, the complaint only asserts claims
against the Broker Defendants for their substantial assistance, or
aiding and abetting, of the scheme relating to these unregistered
public offerings.

If you acquired limited partnership interests in any of the GPB
Funds, have information, or would like to learn more about these
claims, please contact Peter S. Linden, Partner, or Elizabeth M.
Ortiz, Legal Assistant of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out the contact
form found on the firm's GPB litigation page, to discuss your
rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost
to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP – http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and
whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of
shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries
totaling billions of dollars.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Peter Linden, Partner
Elizabeth Ortiz, Paralegal
(212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
[GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Shake Suit Continues for Florida Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that a Chevy
shake class action lawsuit will proceed, but not on a nationwide
basis that would have included GM customers outside of Florida.

Florida plaintiff Douglas Weiss says his new 2015 Chevrolet
Silverado 1500 suffered from the so-called Chevy shake that caused
his truck to violently shake when it reached about 70 mph and
shakes strongest in the range of 75-80 mph.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff paid more than $2,000 to replace
the brakes, rotors, tires and for re-rounding of the rims. The
plaintiff says he also took the truck back to a Firestorm store for
realignment and rebalancing of the tires, but the violent shaking
allegedly continued.

According to the class action, defective driveshafts cause the
following vehicles to violently shake while driving.

2015 to present Cadillac Escalade
2014 to present Chevrolet Silverado
2015 to present Chevrolet Suburban
2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoe
2014 to present GMC Sierra
2015 to present GMC Yukon/Yukon XL

The shake is allegedly caused by aluminum driveshafts that
eventually deteriorate and fail as the driveshafts drop to the
ground.

The plaintiff argues General Motors sent technical service
bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships for 10 years concerning the Chevy
shake but allegedly refuses to make permanent free repairs to the
vehicles. According to the class action, victims of the Chevy shake
continue to pay for repairs even when the vehicles are allegedly
still covered by warranties.

GM customers typically claim they can get rid of the Chevy shake by
replacing the aluminum driveshafts with custom-made steel
driveshafts. But the cost of installing a steel driveshaft is
thrown onto the customer because the automaker won't recall the
vehicles and won't cover repair costs.

GM customers also complain about paying for repairs that are
recommended by dealerships, then learning the repairs had no effect
on the Chevy shake.

GM's motion to dismiss the lawsuit attacked the plaintiff's
arguments about the driveshafts and how all the named vehicles
allegedly had defective driveshafts. GM told the judge that just
because the plaintiff allegedly had a problem with his 2015 Chevy
Silverado 1500 doesn't mean every Silverado in the country has the
same problem.

In addition, the plaintiff claims multiple GM models suffer the
Chevy shake, yet the plaintiff doesn't own any of those other
models.

The automaker also argued the plaintiff apparently wants a limited
warranty to last a lifetime because a GM dealer refused to pay for
repairs after the Silverado warranty allegedly expired.

The judge ruled the lawsuit can proceed for Florida GM customers
but there will be no nationwide class action lawsuit. According to
the judge, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim is the only federal
claim asserted in the lawsuit, and the claim depends on Florida
law.

The judge ruled the plaintiff doesn't claim a legal injury in any
state other than Florida and doesn't allege an injury under the
laws of any other state.

"Therefore, the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf
of class members who purchased GM vehicles outside of Florida." -
District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Although the claim for nationwide class action certification was
dismissed, the judge did allow the Florida class action to continue
based on breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties
and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

The Chevy shake class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami - Weiss, et al.,
v. General Motors LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Cory Watson, and Migliaccio &
Rathod.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the vehicles
named in the GM class action. [GN]




GEO GROUP: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Novoa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jesus G. Bernal entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Raul Novoa, et al. v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No.
5:17-cv-02514-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.):

   (1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   (2) denying the Defendant's motion to exclude certain
       declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of the
       Motion; and

   (3) vacating the hearing set for December 2, 2019, on the
       Motion to Exclude.

The Court says a separate class certification order will be filed
concurrently with order, defining the classes and appointing class
counsel.

On December 19, 2017, Raul Novoa filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendant.  The putative class action is
brought by current and former immigration detainees against the
operator of an immigration detention facility located in the City
of Adelanto, California. Since May 2011, GEO has operated the
Adelanto facility as a subcontractor for the City of Adelanto,
which entered into an Intergovernmental Service Agreement ("IGSA")
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to hold
immigration detainees at the facility.

On August 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file a third
amended complaint.  The TAC added Abdiaziz Karim and Ramon Mancia
as Plaintiffs, amended the class definitions, and added two causes
of action.  The TAC alleges seven causes of action arising from the
Plaintiffs' detention at California's Adelanto Detention Center,
including violation of California's Minimum Wage Law; unjust
enrichment; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of California's Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify four classes,
including subclasses:

   (1) Adelanto Wage Class:

       All civilly detained immigrants who (i) were detained at
       the Adelanto ICE Processing Center any time between
       December 19, 2014 and the date of final judgment in this
       matter, and either (ii) participated in the Voluntary Work
       Program at any point during their detention, or (iii)
       performed work for no compensation in the Uncompensated
       Work Program pending their participation in the Voluntary
       Work Program, or (iv) performed work for no compensation
       pursuant to the Adelanto Housing Unit Sanitation Policy;

   (2) Adelanto Forced Labor Class:

       All civil immigration detainees who were detained at the
       Adelanto ICE Processing Center any time between May 1,
       2011 and the date of final judgment in this matter.

       The Plaintiffs urge that the Adelanto Forced Labor Class
       be divided into two subclasses:

        (i) The Work Program Subclass:

            All individuals who participated in the Voluntary
            Work Program at any point during their detention; and

       (ii) The Uncompensated Work Program Subclass:

            All individuals who participated in the Uncompensated
            Work Program at any point during their detention; and

   (3) Nationwide HUSP Class:

       All civilly detained immigrants who (i) were detained at
       any civil immigration detention center owned or operated
       by GEO in the United States between December 19, 2007 and
       the date of final judgment in this matter, and (ii) were
       subject to a GEO Housing Unit Sanitation Policy (HUSP) at
       any point during their detention.

The Plaintiffs propose to exclude four categories of detainee from
the nationwide class: (1) individuals detained in GEO's family
residential detention facility in Karnes City, Texas; (2)
individuals detained in the Alexandria Staging Facility in
Alexandria, Louisiana; (3) any individual detained in the custody
of the U.S. Marshalls [sic] or any other law enforcement agency at
a GEO facility where the company also detains civil immigration
detainees pursuant to contracts with ICE; and (4) civilly detained
immigrants held at the Aurora ICE Processing Center in Aurora,
Colorado at any time before October 22, 2014.[CC]


GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the Federal
Trade Commission says Gilead Sciences Inc. is on the wrong side of
a key issue in a Northern District of California lawsuit claiming
it schemed to maintain the market "stranglehold" enjoyed by its
blockbuster HIV drug Truvada.

The proposed class action also targets Bristol-Myers Squibb Inc.,
Japan Tobacco Inc., and Johnson & Johnson. It accuses them of
conspiring with Gilead to delay generic competition for the
breakthrough drug, known generically as tenofovir. The case was
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]


GOLDWATER BANK: Fabricant Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Terry Fabricant filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in the lawsuit entitled Terry Fabricant v. Goldwater Bank,
N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-00164-DSF-JC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Terry Fabricant v. Goldwater
Bank, N.A., Case No. 19-56227, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed from a ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
styled Terry Fabricant v. Goldwater Bank, N.A., Case No. 19-80099.

The lawsuit alleges that in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Defendant sent telemarketing calls without
prior express written consent.

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

   -- Transcript is due on December 23, 2019;

   -- Appellant Terry Fabricant's opening brief is due on
      February 3, 2020;

   -- Appellee Goldwater Bank, N.A.'s answering brief is due
      on March 3, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant TERRY FABRICANT, individually and in behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jon Fougner, Esq.
          FOUGNER LAW
          600 California Street, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 577-5829
          Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
          E-mail: jon@FougnerLaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee GOLDWATER BANK, N.A., AKA Goldwater Bank, N.A.
Inc., AKA Goldwater Bank, N.A. Incorporated, is represented by:

          Jack Frank Altura, Esq.
          Marie Maurice, Esq.
          IVIE, MCNEILL & WYATT
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-0028
          E-mail: jaltura@imwlaw.com
                  mmaurice@imwlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Righeimer Martin, Esq.
          Sean C. Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER HICKS PLLC
          831 E. Morehead Street, Suite 650
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 705-8311
          E-mail: frank.martin@wagnerhicks.law
                  sean.wagner@wagnerhicks.law


H MART INC: King Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H Mart, Inc. The case
is styled as Lianna King individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H Mart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06736 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2019).

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

H-Mart operates as a chain of grocery stores. The Company offers
variety of Asian grocery products.[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


HEALTH INSURANCE: Appeals Decision in Moser Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., and National
Congress of Employers, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Kenneth Moser v. HII, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as KENNETH J. MOSER, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC.; NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
EMPLOYERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants; and
UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Texas Corporation;
COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a South Carolina Corporation;
DONISI JAX, INC., a Florida Corporation, AKA Nationwide Health
Advisors; CHARLES DONISI, an individual; EVAN JAXTHEIMER, an
individual; HELPING HAND HEALTH GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation;
ANTHONY MARESCA, an individual; MATTHEW HERMAN, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 19-56224, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, HII filed an
appeal from a decision issued by the District Court in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled Kenneth Moser v. HII, et al., Case
No. 19-80111.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making multiple, unauthorized calls to
his cellular and residential telephones using an automatic dialing
system or artificial, pre-recorded voice.

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

   -- December 23, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- January 31, 2020 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- March 2, 2020 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


INFOSYS LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Infosys Limited (INFY)
Class Period: 7/7/2018 - 10/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-infy   

iRobot Corporation (IRBT)
Class Period: 11/21/2016 - 10/22/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-irbt
   

Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com
[GN]




INVENTION SUBMISSION: Austin Sues for Fraud, Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Austin and Nil Leone, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Invention Submission Corp. d/b/a
InventHelp, Western Invention Submission Corp. d/b/a Western
InventHelp, Intromark Incorporated, and Technosystems Service
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01396-PLD (W.D. Pa., Oct. 25, 2019),
arises from InventHelp's alleged material fraudulent statements and
omissions of fact regarding its standardized invention submission
services and its failure to perform under the terms of its
contracts with Plaintiffs and Class members.

The Plaintiffs bring this Class Action on behalf of themselves and
those consumers, who entered into InventHelp Submission Agreements
with ISC or WISC for invention promotion services.  The Plaintiffs
assert claims against the Defendants for violation of the American
Inventor's Protection Act of 1999 ("AIPA") and for breach of
contract under Pennsylvania law, which applies to all Class
members' contracts.

InventHelp advertises that it is in the business of submitting to
industry the new ideas, inventions or products ("inventions" or
"products") of its inventor clients in exchange for a fee, to
obtain a "good faith review" of inventions for the purpose of
potential commercialization.  InventHelp represented to the
Plaintiffs and Class members that it would submit their inventions
to certain businesses listed in a claimed proprietary Data Bank of
approximately 9,000 companies (the "Data Bank") that have both: (a)
registered with InventHelp; and (b) agreed to review any inventions
that InventHelp submits to them on a confidential basis.

In reality, the Plaintiffs allege, InventHelp's submission services
are a costly scam that violate the AIPA and constitute a breach of
customers' contracts' implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing.  The Plaintiffs contend that InventHelp's standardized
submission services are deeply flawed, as it omits to disclose that
it has no reasonable and systematic procedures in place to assure
with accuracy that its Data Bank is not rife with defunct and
non-operational companies and that InventHelp does not actually
match its clients' inventions to companies most likely to be
interested in a particular invention so as to yield optimum
results.  The Plaintiffs point out that InventHelp's misleading
representations and omissions of material facts caused them and
others similarly situated to suffer significant financial injury.

Invention Submission Corporation, doing business as InventHelp, is
a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Western Invention Submission
Corporation, doing business as Western InventHelp, is a Tennessee
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Pittsburgh.  ISC, an affiliate of WISC, performs the services under
WISC's contracts with consumers.  WISC is a subsidiary of
Technosystems Consolidated.  Intromark is an affiliate of
Technosystems Service Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net
                  atrask@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net


IROBOT CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Infosys Limited (INFY)
Class Period: 7/7/2018 - 10/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-infy   

iRobot Corporation (IRBT)
Class Period: 11/21/2016 - 10/22/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-irbt
   

Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com
[GN]




IROBOT CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT)
between November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019 (the "Class Period")
of the important December 23, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
iRobot investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the iRobot class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1703.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) iRobot's explosive growth was not based on increased
demand, expanding margins, and product innovations, as it claimed,
but rather based on channel stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to
conceal its actions by acquiring its distributors in Europe and
Asia; (3) these acquisitions were designed to clean up the
company's global inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) as a
result, iRobot's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1703.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

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



JEROME GOLDEN: Jones Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify their case styled JOYCE
JONES and MARGARET SCHNITZER, on behalf of themselves and a class
of those others similarly situated v. THE JEROME GOLDEN CENTER FOR
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 9:19-cv-81422-RLR (S.D. Fla.), as
a class action for a group of former employees whose rights under
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 were
violated because they received no advance notice of the Defendant's
fall 2019 mass layoff.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as:

     All former employees of The Jerome Golden Center who were
     not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of
     termination and whose employment was terminated during any
     90-day period surrounding October 8, 2019 as a result of a
     "mass layoff" or "plant closing" as defined by the Workers
     Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The putative Class Members hold identical claims for identical
statutory WARN Act remedies consisting of 60 days' pay and the
consequent loss of benefits during that period.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives; to appoint Ryan Barack, Esq., and Michelle Nadeau,
Esq., of Kwall Barack Nadeau PLLC as class counsel; and to approve
the proposed notice to the class and permit limited discovery to
facilitate notice and damage calculations.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
          KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
          304 S. Belcher Road, Suite C
          Clearwater, FL 33765
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
                  mnadeau@employeerights.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James F. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LEGAL PL
          1665 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 101
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 296-3252
          Facsimile: (561) 828-3115
          E-mail: jmiller@millerlegalpl.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Becker Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY MAX BECKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.., a Texas corporation, and
KRISTAN COLE, Case No. 9:19-cv-81451-RS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing
calls and text message calls in violation of consumers' privacy
rights.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendants
accountable for their flagrant violations of the TCPA, and for
violating the privacy of thousands of consumers.

Keller Williams is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business located in Austin, Texas.  Keller Williams is one of the
largest real estate companies in South Florida and America.  Ms.
Cole acts as the Vice President of Mega Agent Expansion for Keller
Williams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


KULICKE & SOFFA: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that
Judge C. Darnell Jones, II of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative
securities class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of equipment and tools
used to assemble semiconductors and its CEO and CFO.  Kumar v.
Kulicke & Soffa Indus., Inc., No. CV 19-0362, 2019 WL 5081896 (E.D.
Pa. Oct. 9, 2019).  Based on the company's disclosure of control
deficiencies, improper transactions by an unnamed "senior finance
employee," the resignation of the company's CFO, and amended
financial statements, plaintiffs alleged that the company's SEC
filings and SOX certifications contained material
misrepresentations.  Id. at *2.  The Court held that plaintiffs had
identified actionable misstatements as to the CFO but had not
adequately alleged scienter and, therefore, dismissed the case,
while allowing plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

With respect to alleged misrepresentations, the Court determined
that the representations made in certifications by the company's
CFO were plausibly false or misleading in light of his resignation
and subsequent termination from his next job.  Id. at *6.  Thus,
whether or not the CFO was the unnamed "senior finance employee" at
the center of the investigation, there "appear[ed] to be more than
a sheer possibility" that the CFO acted unlawfully.  Id.  In
contrast, the Court held that plaintiffs made no allegations that
suggested the CEO "knew about or was involved with the
misappropriations" at the time of the relevant filings and
dismissed the claims against him.  Id. at *7.

The Court, however, rejected plaintiffs' arguments that an
inference of scienter against the CFO should be drawn from his
resignation and subsequent termination from his next job.  The
Court explained that "the resignation of corporate officials will
not strengthen an inference of scienter if the allegations do not
cogently suggest that the resignations resulted from the…
executives' knowing or reckless involvement in a fraud."  Id. at *8
(quoting In re Hertz Global Holdings Inc., 905 F.3d 106, 119 (3d
Cir. 2018)).  The Court emphasized that the CFO resigned at least
four months before the company discovered the improper
transactions, and that plaintiffs had failed to allege the CFO
"resigned because of his involvement or knowledge of fraud that had
yet to be discovered."  Id.  The Court also noted that given the
timing of the CFO's resignation, even if plaintiffs' allegations
that the CFO was involved with certain improper transactions were
true, it was also plausible that another employee had been involved
after the CFO made the requisite certifications for the company's
securities filings.  Id. *9.  Moreover, since the CFO continued to
work at the company for several months after his resignation as
CFO, the Court held that a "more compelling inference would be that
another employee was responsible for the fraud during the second
fiscal quarter, and that same employee was therefore responsible
for the fraud in the first fiscal quarter as well."  Id.

In addition, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that
"corporate scienter" could still be established against the company
based on remedial steps the company took following the discovery of
the weaknesses in its internal controls.  Id. at *9.  The Court
noted that the Third Circuit had yet to address whether "corporate
scienter" could support a claim under Rule 10b-5 absent sufficient
allegations to make out scienter by an individual and that other
Circuit Courts of Appeal were divided on the issue.  Id. at *10.
But even if the Third Circuit were to accept the "corporate
scienter" theory, the Court held, the facts alleged did "not
support the existence of any type of large-scale cover-up scheme"
of the type that had been determined by other courts to support an
inference of corporate scienter.  Id. at *11.  The more reasonable
inference was that the company's remedial measures reflected an
attempt to improve its processes to prevent future mistakes.  Id.
at *9. [GN]


KUSHAN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Castillo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CASTILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the State of California, and as an "aggrieved employee"
on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. KUSHAN, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company; MRXI CORPORATION, an Illinois
corporation, MAYUR SHAH, an individual, PRITI SHAH, an individual;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-02060 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
28, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Castillo is a resident of California and the Defendants first
employed her in January 2018 to work in California as an instructor
for a veterinary assistant program at College of the Desert in
Riverside County, California.  She continuously worked for the
Defendants from that date until March 6, 2019.

Kushan, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of Illinois.  MRxI Corporation is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Illinois.  The Individual
Defendants are the "owners," "managing agents," and/or "officers"
of the Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Carl J. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  carl@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

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


LEGACY INN: White Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra L. White, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Legacy Inn & Suites, LLC, dba Best Western
Legacy Inn & Suites, an Arizona limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05571-DWL (D. Ariz., Nov. 6, 2019),
seeks unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime for all hours worked
exceeding 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arizona wage laws.

Legacy Inn does business as a Best Western hotel franchise in Mesa,
Arizona. It provides hotel accommodations to guests at its Mesa,
Arizona location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT,
P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: thrrankel@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com


LITTLE CAESAR: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10329 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 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.

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.

Little Caesar operates as a chain of pizza restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zare Khorozian, Esq.
          ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW LLC
          1047 Anderson Avenue
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: 201.957.7269
          Facsimile: 201.224.9841
          E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com

               - and -

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


MADONNA: Hit With Class Suit Over Late Start Times of Madame X Tour
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew McNulty, writing for Fox Business, reports that fans of
Madonna are suing the "Material Girl" over the increasingly late
start times for her Madame X Tour, according to legal documents
obtained by TMZ.

Both Madonna and events promoter Live Nation were named in a
class-action lawsuit filed by Nate Hollander after the Florida
ticketholder claimed he lost money when the pop icon pushed back
the start time of her concerts from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

The lawsuit alleges Madonna has had issues with punctuality during
her current ongoing tour, routinely making concertgoers wait two
hours longer initially scheduled.

Hollander claims he had bought three tickets for $1,024.95 in
August for Madonna's Dec. 17 concert in Miami Beach, which at the
time of purchase was slated to start at 8:30 p.m., TMZ reported.

The lawsuit maintains that Hollander's tickets lost considerable
value after the singer delayed the start time of her remaining
shows by two hours. Hollander said he'd purchased three tickets for
the Tuesday night show, but was denied a refund after she switched
her start times to 10:30 p.m.

Hollander, who has since assembled a group of similarly angry
Madonna fans for his class-action suit, claimed the start time was
too late because most concertgoers have work early the next day,
TMZ reports.

Meanwhile, entertainment news website Wonderwall reports that more
than 500 refunds were issued following Madonna's scheduled 10:30
p.m. Thursday night show at the Caesars Palace Colosseum in Las
Vegas. She did not come onto the stage until after midnight, and
the concert did not end until close to 3 a.m., according to the
entertainment news outlet.

The class-action lawsuit is pursuing the "Like a Virgin" singer for
damages. [GN]



MIDLAND CREDIT: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Pierre FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Renetrice R. Pierre filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Renetrice Pierre v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02895, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Renetrice Pierre v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 19-3109, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 5, 2019, Midland
appealed a ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is titled as
Renetrice Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
19-2993.

The District Court previously issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiff Renetrice Pierre, individually and on behalf of a class,
alleges that the Defendant sent debt collection letters that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Pierre
raised two FDCPA claims: (1) a class claim that the Defendant
falsely represented the status of the debt, used deceptive means to
attempt to collect the debt, and used unfair or unconscionable
means to attempt to collect the debt and (2) an individual claim
that the Defendant falsely represented the amount of Pierre's
debt.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief was due on or before December 3, 2019, for
Renetrice R. Pierre.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RENETRICE R. PIERRE, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER
          134 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 726-4162
          E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, a
Kansas corporation, is represented by:

          David M. Schultz, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 N. Franklin Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com


MONAT: Class Action Over Hair-Care Products Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nelson, writing for HBW Insight, reports that  eighteen
plaintiffs seeking nationwide class certification may proceed with
their suit alleging that Monat hair-care products, deceptively
advertised as anti-aging solutions, actually cause hair loss. A US
district judge in October largely denied Monat's motion to dismiss,
while noting that plaintiffs may have difficulty proving that the
company's products are to blame for their injuries. [GN]

NATIONAL GRID: Gas Outage Report Leads to Amended Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Flynn, writing for newportri.com, reports that amended class
action suits were filed in Superior Court that claim more than
7,455 residents and businesses in Newport and Middletown were left
without heat and hot water for up to week beginning Jan. 21 this
year due to the negligence of National Grid and Enbridge Inc. and
their affiliates.

In one of the lawsuits, attorney Brian Cunha, Esq., names nine
individuals, all residents of Newport, as plaintiffs and
representative of the class. In the second lawsuit he names three
businesses as plaintiffs and representatives of that class seeking
damages.

"Many of the town of Middletown and City of Newport's residents
were forced to relocate, incur costs and otherwise suffer in the
midst of a New England winter without heating and cooking gas," the
individuals' complaint says. "Individuals lost daily revenue,
suffered spoilage and other losses and incurred in some instances,
damages from bursting water pipes, increased electric bills and
other collateral effects."

The lawsuit alleges the defendants' "failure to analyze, invest,
and maintain the gas lines and infrastructure caused the Newport
Gas Crisis." The defendants have "strict liability" for all damages
due to their "negligence," the lawsuits claim.

Cunha filed initial lawsuits against the defendants in late
January, but filed the amended lawsuits on November 7 to
incorporate the findings of a report issued Oct. 30 by the state
Division of Public Utilities and Carriers that determined the
outage was caused by a system failure at the National Grid-owned
Liquid Natural Gas facility in Providence on Jan. 21, a valve
failure in Weymouth, Massachusetts, on the main Algonquin gas line
on the same day, the 2010 removal of LNG facilities on Aquidneck
Island, and near record low temperatures causing record demand on
the system on that day.

Cunha says in the complaints that he also incorporated a report
released on Aug. 13 by the federal Department of Transportation,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as well as
information provided to him independently by a "whistleblower."
Each lawsuit is about 24 pages long.

Cunha is demanding a trial by jury. If he can convince a judge and
the jury that actions by gas transmission line owner Enbridge,
Inc., and gas supplier National Grid may have negligently caused
the more than 7,400 customers to suffer damages, all those
customers will be asked if they want to join these class-action
lawsuits he has filed against the companies.

The nine named individuals, all residents of Newport, include Gail
Johnson, Stuart Hebb, Robert Hyde, Sandy Tarr, Victoria Mele, Bekki
Schenker, Patrick Kennedy, Mick Harvey and Shawn McKenna.

The three named Newport businesses include BHK, LLC, of 536 Thames
St.; The Pale LLC, which does business as Buskers Pub, 178 Thames
St.; and Bodhi Spa, LLC, at 654 Thames St.

Class-action lawsuits take place because the courts do not want to
handle hundreds of separate lawsuits with all essentially the same
claims, Cunha said.

If the judge determines the criteria for a class-action lawsuit
have been met, he would order the two companies to send out letters
to all their customers in the affected area, asking them if they
would like to join the lawsuit, Cunha said. If there is an award of
damages, all members of the class lawsuit receive a share of the
awarded money.

"If there is a settlement, all will participate," Cunha said. "But
damages may be different for different plaintiffs if the judge
bifurcates the damage."

When Cunha initially filed the lawsuits, National Grid spokesman
Ted Kresse said, "As a standard practice, we do not comment on
pending litigation."

Marylee Hanley, spokeswoman for Enbridge and its subsidiary,
Algonquin Gas Transmission, said at the time in an email, "It is
Algonquin Gas Transmission's policy not to comment on matters of
pending litigation."

Cunha, who lives in the Beacon Rock estate off Harrison Avenue in
Newport and practices in Fall River, Massachusetts, has experience
in class-action lawsuits. He is one of the attorneys who filed a
class-action lawsuit against Columbia Gas of Massachusetts in
September 2018, claiming the company's negligence led to a series
of gas explosions that forced residents of Lawrence, Andover and
North Andover out of more than 8,600 homes, leaving them without
shelter for days. [GN]




NCAA: Sued by Washington for Ignoring Student-Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04187-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Nov. 6, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of
the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Kentucky State University student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and the Plaintiff and a Class of
football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During
football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes, the
Plaintiff alleges. During the course of a college football season,
athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs
(gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of
football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some
approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your
car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a
seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around
100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old
student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing
for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the
danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the Plaintiff avers.

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

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713.554.9099
          Facsimile: 713.554.9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Williams Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04471-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
Nov. 6, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of
the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Texas State University student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes, the
Plaintiff contends. During the course of a college football season,
athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs
(gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of
football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some
approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your
car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a
seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around
100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old
student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives, the Plaintiff
asserts. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific
research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs")
like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to
implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them.
They did so knowingly and for profit, the Plaintiff avers.

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

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713.554.9099
          Facsimile: 713.554.9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCARE: Norman Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTA NORMAN, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCARE
PROVIDERS, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00170-KS-MTP (S.D.
Miss., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, damages and other relief arising from the Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated are current and
former healthcare workers of Neighborhood Healthcare. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has suffered and permitted the Plaintiff
to regularly work more than 40 hours in certain workweeks, but
failed to compensate overtime wages.

Neighborhood Healthcare is an agency that provides in home respite
services in clients' homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Dillard, Esq.
          JOEL F. DILLARD, P.A.
          775 N. Congress St.
          Jackson MS 39202
          Telephone: 601-487-7369
          E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com

               - and -

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


NEW YORK: Knight Sues MTA-New York City Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE N. KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MTA-NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Case No.
1:19-cv-09960 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to address the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wage after 40 hours of work in
a week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is an employee of NYCT since 1999, and currently
works as an Associate Transit Management Analyst (Material
Forecaster/Project Coordinator).  The Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, lost wages, exemplary relief, and all other relief allowed
under Federal and State law.

MTA-New York City Transit Authority is a public benefit
corporation.  NYCT is a New York State public authority established
in 1953 by Public Authorities Law Section 1201 for the benefit of
the people of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
          Laine Alida Armstrong, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway, Suite 1902
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400
          E-mail: aschwartz@afjlaw.com


NEW YORK: Stiegman Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. New York State Office of Information Technology
Services, Case No. 1:19-cv-00018-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), moves for
class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed Class is defined as:

     Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
     defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
     is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
     York Department of Civil Service classified position.

Under Rule 23(c)(5), the Plaintiff also proposes certification of
this Subclass:

     Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
     defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
     is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
     York Department of Civil Service classified position
     represented by the Public Employee Federation.

The case is about an alleged unlawful conspiracy involving a New
York State agency, and other accomplices, which have attempted to
deprive a discrete and insular minority, a class of older
individuals with a disability, of protected rights in violation of
the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.

The named Plaintiff, Mr. Stiegman, the proposed class
representative, is a former New York State employee, who was
allegedly discriminated and retaliated against due to his age and
disability, which included a personal history of cancer.  On
several occasions, Mr. Stiegman alleges he was denied reasonable
accommodations, development opportunities, timely and fair
evaluations, and subsequently, was retaliated against for invoking
his Constitutional and federally protected rights.

Soon after being informed to take leave for follow-up medical
appointments at Mayo Clinic, despite prior approval to work
remotely while out-of-the-state, he was terminated under the guise
of false evaluative information, which was served to his private
e-mail address and an unpublished physical address while he was at
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, according to Mr.
Stiegman.[CC]


ONVOY LLC: Aussieker Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONVOY, LLC; INTELIQUENT, INC.; BMD REALTY,
INC. d/b/a/ KW EL DORADO HILLS; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-at-01093 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2019), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Onvoy, LLC provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
network-based voice and messaging services to wireless, cable,
carrier, and communication service providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 W Oxnard St., #780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


OVERSTOCK.COM: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Overstock.com, Inc..  Shareholders who purchased shares during the
dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Investors Affected : May 9, 2019 - September 23, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Overstockcom, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) it was not true that Overstock would be able to
support the launch of its tZERO crypto currency with earnings or
cash flow from its retail operations and that whatever marginal
improvements defendants had made by cutting costs and engineering
earnings could not be sustained so as to generate positive EBITDA
or cash from operations necessary to support its crypto currency
operations; (b) there were extreme additional risks and substantial
volatility in the price of Company shares was foreseeable, given
defendants' undisclosed plan to offer its tZERO Preferred Share
Dividend as a means to squeeze short sellers out of Overstock and
to prevent them from holding legitimate positions in the Company;
(c) there was a foreseeable likelihood that the Company's ability
to accomplish its intended short squeeze would embolden the SEC or
even market participants, such as major brokerage houses, to act to
prevent this market manipulation; (d) it was not true that
Overstock contained adequate systems of internal operational or
financial controls, such that Overstock's quarterly reports filed
with the SEC were true, accurate or reliable; (e) as a result of
the foregoing, it also was not true that the Company's quarterly
reports filed with the SEC were prepared in accordance with GAAP ad
SEC rules; and (f) as a result of the aforementioned adverse
conditions which defendants failed to disclose, defendants lacked
any reasonable basis to claim that Overstock was operating
according to plan, or that Overstock could achieve guidance
sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/overstock-com-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4285&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]



PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Infosys Limited (INFY)
Class Period: 7/7/2018 - 10/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-infy   

iRobot Corporation (IRBT)
Class Period: 11/21/2016 - 10/22/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-irbt
   

Pareteum Corporation (TEUM)
Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum  


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com
[GN]




PINNACLE ATHLETIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Boyd Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BOYD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. PINNACLE ATHLETIC CAMPUS, LLC, DANIEL BREE,
in his professional and individual capacities, SHARON CARDARELLI,
in her professional and individual capacities, and JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE #1-10, Case No. 6:19-cv-06795 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
employees overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

Pinnacle is a New York Limited Liability Company.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, managers or agents of Pinnacle.  The Doe
Defendants are unidentified owners, officers, shareholders, and
managers of Pinnacle.

Pinnacle owns and operates an athletic training facility campus
located at 7600 Pinnacle Road, in Victor, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin R. Marino, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 939.7228
          Facsimile: (212) 531-6129
          E-mail: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com


PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class, Appointment of
Class Representative and Class Counsel, Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement, and Direction of Notice in the lawsuit
captioned Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Motion is granted insofar as the proposed settlement agreement
is preliminarily approved; the class is provisionally certified for
purposes of settlement only; the notices and plan of dissemination
are approved; and the appointment of Class Counsel is approved.

The Plaintiff is appointed as Class Representative.  The
Plaintiff's counsel, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Robert B.
Mobasseri P.C., are appointed as Class Counsel.

The Final Approval Hearing will be scheduled for April 20, 2020, at
10:00 a.m.

The Stipulation of Settlement contains key class definition,
relief, notice, and release provisions, including:

   -- "Settlement Class Members" are defined as: "all
      Policyowners of Class Policies and, where all Policyowners
      and insureds of a Class Policy are also deceased, then also
      any designated beneficiary(ies) of that Class Policy at
      time of final lapse";

   -- "Class Policy" or "Class Policies" are defined as "one or
      more individual universal life or variable universal life
      insurance policies issued by a Defendant, as to which
      Guaranteed Charges were applicable to the calculation of
      the deficiency and/or reinstatement amount, and which
      policy either entered into default or lapsed between
      July 18, 2013 and the date of Preliminary Approval, or
      which had default cured or was reinstated on or after
      July 18, 2013 and remains in force on the date of
      Preliminary Approval.";

   -- "Guaranteed Rate(s)" is defined as "with respect to a Class
      Policy, the monthly cost of insurance rate applicable to
      the particular policy and insured that is guaranteed by the
      policy contract as a rate that cannot be exceeded when
      determining the Current Rate."  "Guaranteed Charge(s)" is
      defined as "with respect to a Class Policy, the monthly
      cost of insurance that a Policyowner would be charged with
      respect to a particular policy and insured if calculated
      based on Guaranteed Rate(s), along with guaranteed maximum
      applicable charges including, but not limited to, sales
      loads and administrative fees.";

   -- "Class Period" is defined as "July 18, 2013 to and through
      the date of Preliminary Approval.";

   -- The Stipulation divides the Settlement Class Member into
      three categories: (1) Lapsed/ Alive Population; (2) Lapsed/
      Deceased Population; and (3) Current Policyholders;

   -- Within 21 days after the date of entry of the Preliminary
      Approval Order, Defendants will provide to the Claims
      Administrator the names, addresses, and email addresses to
      the extent available in Defendants' records; and

   -- Settlement Class Members may exclude themselves from the
      Class by sending a Request for Exclusion to the Claims
      Administrator by the Objection/Exclusion Deadline.

The Stipulation provides that Class Counsel may apply to the Court
for attorneys' fees up to $3.5 million and costs and expenses up to
$500,000 to be paid by Defendants.  The Stipulation also provides
that Class Counsel may apply for an Incentive Award to be given to
the Class Representative for an amount up to $50,000.[CC]


PUBLIX SUPER: Aiuto Seeks to Recover Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AUDENZIO AIUTO, NATHANIEL PALMER, and CHENZERIA WRIGHT, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PUBLIX SUPER
MARKETS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-04803-LMM (N.D. Ga., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is brought for the Plaintiffs and other current and
former employees, who worked as Meat Managers, Deli Managers, or
Bakery Managers (collectively the "Department Manager" or "DM"
positions at issue) paid by the Defendant as overtime exempt at any
of its locations, who worked more than 40 hours as a DM in any
workweek for which workweek the DM was paid on a pay date within
the period beginning three years preceding the filing date of this
complaint and ending on the date of the regular pay period for the
workweek that included the effective date of its reclassification
of the DM positions to hourly-paid non-exempt, which upon
information and belief became effective beginning in April 2019.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., is registered to transact business in
Georgia.  The Defendant owns and operates approximately 1,230 or
more locations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1170 Howell Mill Rd. NW, Suite 305
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 523-0463
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Quad/Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: QUAD) investors who
have suffered significant losses to submit their losses now or
contact the firm immediately to learn if they qualify to recover
compensable damages.  A securities fraud class action was recently
filed on behalf of certain QUAD investors against the company and
senior executives.

Class Period: Feb. 21, 2018 - Oct. 29, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 6, 2020
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/QUAD
Contact An Attorney Now: QUAD@hbsslaw.com
                         510-725-3000

Quad/Graphics (QUAD) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges Defendants misled investors by concealing the
underperformance of the company's U.S. book business, that it was
likely to divest that business, and that the company's business was
highly vulnerable to market price decreases, which in turn required
a dividend cut.

On Oct. 29, 2019, Quad/Graphics announced a surprising $126 million
net loss in 2019 (a year-over-year earnings decline of nearly
650%), divestment of its book business, reduced dividends, and
slashed guidance.  In downgrading the stock, one Buckingham analyst
exclaimed, "We are absolutely shocked by these developments given
the confidence management had just three months ago."

This news sent the price of Quad/Graphics shares down $6.42, or
down about 57%, on October 30, 2019.

If you invested in Quad/Graphics between Feb. 21, 2018 and Oct. 29,
2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered significant losses, you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.  Contact Hagens Berman immediately
for more information about the case and being a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]



QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan. 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until January 6, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Quad/Graphics, Inc.
(NYSE: QUAD), if they purchased the Company's securities between
February 21, 2018 and October 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Quad/Graphics and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-quad/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by January 6, 2020.

About the Lawsuit

Quad/Graphics and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On October 29, 2019, the Company disclosed a cut to its dividend,
in half to $0.15 per share, and its plans to divest its book
business, which it stated generated $200 million in annual sales,
with an accompanying reduction to 2019 net sales guidance to
"approximately $3.9 billion" from the previous range of "$4.05
billion to $4.25 billion" to reflect the divestiture.

On this news, the price of Quad/Graphics' shares plummeted.

The case is Born v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 1:19-cv-10376.

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

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

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

RAGEON INC: Faces Steiner Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA STEINER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAGEON, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24600-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 6, 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.

The Defendant is an online custom merchandise retailer. To promote
its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

Founded in 2013, RageOn is an all-over-printing made-to-order
product Web site. It offers clothing, like shirts, sweatshirts, and
pants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


REEBOK INT'L: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LTD, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10344-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 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 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.

Reebok is an Anglo-American footwear and apparel company, and a
subsidiary of German sporting goods giant Adidas since 2005. Reebok
produces and distributes fitness, running and CrossFit sportswear
including clothing and footwear.[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


SOLARA MEDICAL: Maldonado Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solara Medical
Supplies, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Maldonado and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Solara Medical
Supplies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02284-H-KSC (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 29, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Solara Medical Supplies, LLC provides medical devices. The Company
offers insulin pumps, infusion sets, accessories, skin dressing and
insertion devices, glucose and diabetes meters, syringes, and test
strips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S Green, Esq.
          Green & Noblin, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing CircleSuite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Phone: (415) 477-6700
          Fax: (415) 477-6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com


SRC ENERGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of SRC Energy Inc. ("SRC") (NYSE
American: SRCI) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of SRC by PDC Energy, Inc. ("PDC") announced on August
26, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against SRC, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and PDC, is captioned Plumley v. SRC
Energy Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01912 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On August 25, 2019, SRC entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with PDC. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of SRC will receive 0.158 shares
of PDC common stock per share (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and PDC's financial
projections and the analyses performed by SRC's financial advisors.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of SRC common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 27, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]


SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces BBK Global Suit Over Routing Monopolies
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBK GLOBAL CORP. dba ALLURE PHARMACY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC;
RELAYHEALTH; and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07640 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 19, 2019), alleges
violation of the Sherman Act, seeking to restrain the
anticompetitive conduct of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were able to maintain
their dominant market position not through competition on the
merits, but instead through a multifaceted scheme to exclude
competitors. The Defendants has taken several anticompetitive steps
to ensure that it, and it alone, controls routing service and
pricing in the U.S. The goal and effect of the Defendants'
overarching scheme was to neutralize actual and nascent competitors
before they could undermine the Defendants' ability to charge
monopoly prices in the e-prescribing industry.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawfully maintained dominance,
pharmacies, such as the Plaintiff, have been forced to pay
considerably more for their routing services than they otherwise
would have paid in the presence of lawful competition, the
Plaintiff contends.

The details of the Defendants' scheme were first revealed to public
knowledge through the investigations of the Federal Trade
Commission, which filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 3, 2019.

Surescripts, LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes providing communication services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


SWAPP LAW: Settles Advertising Class Action for $2MM
----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a personal injury law firm with offices in
Washington state agreed to pay up to $2 million to settle
allegations that it unlawfully acquired the names and addresses of
a certified class of traffic accident victims before sending them
advertising materials for the practice. Swapp Law PLLC, which does
business as Craig Swapp & Associates, agreed to make an upfront
payment of $950,000 into a settlement fund and to make a deferred
payment of up to $1.05 million into a separate fund. [GN]



TASKUS INC: Walker Seeks Overtime Wages for Hourly Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA WALKER, VICTORIA MAYWEATHERS, and VAN ROBBINS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS v.
TASKUS, INC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:19-cv-01309 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 6,
2019), seeks recovery of monetary damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime hours worked by the
Plaintiffs and the class members.

The Plaintiffs are hourly-paid employees, who performed social
media content review work and who were clocked-out mid-shift and,
thereby, deprived of compensation, and recruiter employees who were
classified as salaried employees. The Plaintiffs and the proposed
class members work/worked for the Defendant and are/were denied
their rights under applicable federal wage and hour laws, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant's primary business purpose is to provide its
customers with outsourced digital systems and management services,
including virtual assistants, customer service, technical support,
billing services, social media content moderation and fraud
prevention, among other services. The Defendant employed employees,
such as the Plaintiffs, to accomplish these purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TIDAL BASIN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Housing Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff in the
lawsuit entitled ADAM NELSON, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. TIDAL BASIN HOLDING, INC. and
VANGUARD EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 5:19-cv-00030-MFU-JCH (W.D.
Va.), moves for conditional class certification and to facilitate a
Court-approved notice of this lawsuit to all Housing Inspectors of
the Defendants.

Mr. Nelson moves to facilitate Court approved notice of this
lawsuit to: "all current and former Housing Inspectors of
Defendants Tidal Basin Holding, Inc. and Vanguard Emergency
Management at any time during the three year period prior to the
date the Court authorizes notice to the present."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Foty, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Assad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
                  gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

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


TRUSTY PLUMBING: Barajas Seeks to Recover Back and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERICO BARAJAS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PLAINTIFFS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN v. TRUSTY PLUMBING, INC., AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION, HOMESTEAD MANAGEMENT, LLC, AN ILLINOIS
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ANDRIUS GEDVILAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
VAIDA GEDVILAS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:19-cv-07085 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid back and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Mr. Barajas is a former hourly employee of the Defendants and was
employed as a plumbing assistant and laborer.  He alleges that he
received an improper salary and was denied overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 per work week.

Trusty Plumbing owns and operates a plumbing and construction
company located in La Grange, Illinois.  Homestead owns and
operates a property management company located in La Grange,
Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are owners and officers of the
Companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Decision in UAW ERISA Suit to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TRW Automotive U.S. LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled UAW International, et al. v. TRW
Automotive U.S. LLC, Case No. 2:11-cv-14630, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

The appellate case is captioned as UAW International, et al. v. TRW
Automotive U.S. LLC, Case No. 19-2252, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
appealed a ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled
UAW International, et al. v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, Case No.
18-1160.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees UAW INTERNATIONAL; MARTIN LAMER, for himself
and others similarly situated; JOHN YASSO, for himself and others
similarly situated; KIM TASKILA, for himself and others similarly
situated; and RONALD GARDNER, for himself and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Maneesh Sharma, Esq.
          UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
          60 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 807
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 562-2531
          E-mail: msharma@usw.org

               - and -

          William Arthur Wertheimer, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM ARTHUR WERTHEIMER, JR.
          2018 N. Lakeshore
          Carsonville, MI 48419
          Telephone: (248) 396-2125
          E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC is represented by:

          Gregory Valentin Mersol, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7935
          E-mail: gmersol@bakerlaw.com


TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE:TWTR) between
August 6, 2019 and October 23, 2019 (the "Class Period") of the
important December 30, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Twitter investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Twitter class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1708.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) while Twitter represented that it "fixed" certain issues
relating to user choice settings designed to target advertising,
these settings were not working as intended; (2) the changes
implemented to fix these issues adversely affected Twitter's
ability to target advertising, including the targeting of
advertising through its Mobile App Promotion ("MAP") product, which
caused a material decline in advertising revenue; and (3) as a
result, Twitter's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1708.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

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




UP FINTECH: Faces Willard Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI RONGEY WILLARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UP FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED,
TIANHUA WU, JOHN FEI ZENG, YONGGANG LIU, LEI FANG, DAVID ERIC
FRIEDLAND, and VINCENT CHUN HUNG CHEUNG, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-10326 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2019), pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, that
purchased or otherwise acquired (a) Fintech American Depository
Shares (ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about March 20, 2019 (IPO or
Offering); or (b) Fintech securities between March 20, 2019, and
May 16, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

On February 22, 2019, Fintech filed a registration statement on
Form F-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the IPO (Registration No. 333-229808), which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on March 19, 2019.
The Registration Statement was filed with respect to the underlying
Class A ordinary shares represented by the ADSs to be sold in the
IPO.

On March 20, 2019, Fintech filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form
424Be4 (the Prospectus), which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the Offering Documents). That same day,
Fintech announced the pricing of its IPO of 13 million ADSs, each
representing fifteen Class A ordinary shares of the Company, at
$8.00 per ADS. The ADSs began trading the same day on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market under the symbol "TIGR." Fintech raised $104
million in proceeds from the IPO.

The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. The
Plaintiff adds that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, in the Offering Documents and during the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- Fintech was experiencing a material decrease in commissions
      because of a negative trend related to risk-averse
      investors in the market;

   -- Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the
      rapid growth of its business and its status as a publicly
      listed company on a U.S. exchange;

   -- Fintech was incurring significant additional expenses
      related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
      compensation and benefits;

   -- all of the foregoing had led to Fuintech significantly
      increasing operating costs and expenses; and

   -- as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false
      and/or misleading and failed to state information required
      to be stated therein, and the Company's Class Period
      statements were likewise materially false and/or
      misleading.

On May 17, 2019, during pre-market hours, Fintech issued a press
release announcing its unaudited first quarter 2019 financial
results--the Company's first quarterly earnings announcement
following the IPO. In that press release, Fintech disclosed a 4.1%
decrease in commissions, noting that "Investors were relatively
risk averse at beginning of this year which leads to moderated
trading activities and a slight decrease in trading commission."

The 1Q19 Press Release also disclosed, among other issues, that
Fintech's operating costs and expenses and net loss attributable to
the Company had begun to skyrocket as a result of increases in
expenses related to employee headcount, employee compensation and
benefits, and office space and leasehold improvements, as well as
rapid customer growth, expanded market data usage for its
customers, and additional professional expenses as a listed
company.

With respect to Fintech's drastically increasing operating costs
and expenses and net loss attributable to the Company, the 1Q19
Press Release disclosed that total operating costs and expenses for
the first quarter of 2019 increased by 36.4% to $14.0 million from
$10.3 million in the first quarter of 2018, and that employee
compensation and benefits increased by 60.8% from $4.9 million in
the first quarter of 2018 to $7.8 million in the first quarter of
2019.

On this news, Fintech's ADS price fell $1.21 per share, or 17.34%,
to close at $5.77 per share on May 17, 2019.

As of the time this complaint was filed, Fintech ADSs continued to
trade below the IPO price, damaging investors, the Plaintiff
asserts.

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

Fintech was founded in 2014 and is based in Beijing, China. The
Company provides online brokerage services focusing on Chinese
investors and has developed a purported brokerage platform that can
be accessed through its app and Web site. The Company offers
brokerage and value-added services, including trade order placement
and execution, margin financing, account management, investor
education, community discussion, and customer support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UP FINTECH: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Up Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR): (a) pursuant
and/or traceable to Up Fintech's initial public offering conducted
on or about March 20, 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b)
between March 20, 2019 and May 16, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Up
Fintech investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Up Fintech class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1714.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement and
Defendants' statements throughout the Class Period were false
and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fintech was
experiencing a material decrease in commissions because of a
negative trend related to risk-averse investors in the market; (2)
Fintech was unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth
of its business and its status as a publicly listed company on a
U.S. exchange; (3) Fintech was incurring significant additional
expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
compensation and benefits; (4) all of the foregoing had led to
Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and
(5) as a result, defendants' statements regarding Up Fintech's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 6,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1714.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

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



VANTAGE MARKETING: Araque Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Vantage Marketing Group, LLC, removed on Oct. 25, 2019,
the lawsuit styled DILLON L. ARAQUE, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated v. VANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company; TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
19CIV04886, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07021 to the
proceeding.

On August 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this class action Complaint
in the Superior Court.  On October 24, 2019, Vantage learned that
the Plaintiff had filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on
October 22, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants "as a
commission-base [sic] employee" from June 2017 through January
2019.  He claims that he "and the putative class were misclassified
as independent contractors while employed by Defendants."  The
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven claims on behalf of himself and
the putative class(es): (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2)
failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay "hourly and
overtime wages"; (4) failure to indemnify; (5) failure to furnish
"accurate written wage statements"; (6) failure to timely pay all
final wages; and (7) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant VANTAGE MARKETING GROUP, LLC, is represented by:

          Neda N. DalCielo, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          177 Park Avenue, Suite 200
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (669) 256-5342
          Facsimile: (669) 770-3282
          E-mail: Neda.DalCielo@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
          Amy P. Frenzen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
                  Amy.Frenzen@jacksonlewis.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Evans Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., grants the Defendant's motion to
stay further proceedings related to Count VI of the Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint in the lawsuit entitled JAMES S. EVANS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., and DOES 1-50, Case No. 2:17-cv-07641-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.).

The Court also grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Regular
Rate Class, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
Vacation/Holiday Pay Class, and grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the Wage Statement Class.

The case arises from the Defendant's purported violations of
various provisions of California's Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code.  Through its present motion, the Plaintiffs seek
to certify four classes, and seek to have Plaintiff James S. Evans
appointed as a class representative.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify four classes:

   a. The Regular Rate Class:

      All persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant
      in any store in California at any time on or after
      September 13, 2013 through the date of class certification
      who were paid overtime and non-discretionary bonus in any
      pay period;

   b. The Vacation/Holiday Pay Class:

      All persons employed by Defendant in any store in
      California at any time on or after September 13, 2013
      through the date of class certification who earned paid
      vacation days, including but not limited to, holiday pay
      without receiving compensation for each vested paid
      vacation day and/or holiday pay;

   c. Wage Statement Class:

      All persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant
      in any store in California at any time during the period
      beginning one year before the filing of this action and
      ending when final judgment is entered; and

   d. Waiting Time Penalty Class:

      All persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant
      in any store in California at any time during the period
      beginning three years before the filing of this action and
      ending when final judgment is entered.

In his order, Judge Birotte opines that the Plaintiffs' Proposed
Vacation/Holiday Pay Class does not satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class
certification.  He notes that the Plaintiffs' second proposed
class, the Proposed Vacation/Holiday Pay Class, does not satisfy
the standing requirements for class certification or Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirements.[CC]


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Lotsoff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Helen Lotsoff, et al. v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02033-AJB-MDD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2019, the
District Court issued an Order denying Defendant Wells Fargo's
Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration in the case.

Plaintiffs Helen Lotsoff and Ashleigh Hartman bring this action on
behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated Wells
Fargo customers against Defendants. Plaintiffs hold checking
accounts with Defendant Wells Fargo Bank and challenge Defendant
Wells Fargo's practice of charging overdraft fees (OD Fee) on
"Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions".
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Wells Fargo routinely
assesses OD Fees on transactions that did not overdraw the account
and charges both a non-sufficient funds fee and an OD Fee on a
single transaction, though the Defendant's contractual agreement
with its customers states otherwise.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC) in
Superior Court on July 13, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1)
breach of contract; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (3) violation of the unfair competition law; and (4)
conversion.  This case was then removed on August 30, 2018.
Defendant Wells Fargo subsequently filed this motion to compel
arbitration.  Defendant FCTI filed its motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file second amended
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Helen Lotsoff, et al. v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-56240, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s opening brief is due on
      December 24, 2019;

   -- Appellees Ashleigh Hartman and Helen Lotsoff's answering
      brief is due on January 24, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees HELEN LOTSOFF and ASHLEIGH HARTMAN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jdkaliel@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Alejandro Emmanuel Moreno, Esq.
          Edward D. Vogel, Esq.
          Karin Dougan Vogel, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 515-4125
          E-mail: amoreno@sheppardmullin.com
                  evogel@sheppardmullin.com
                  kvogel@sheppardmullin.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***