CAR_Public/191209.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 245

                            Headlines

2U INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action in New York Underway
7-ELEVEN INC: Benites Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Orende Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Alexion
ADT INC: Trial in Villegas Suit in California Set for February 2020
ADT INC: Unit Still Defends Calif. Independent Contractor Lawsuit

AGELESS SKIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sweeney Suit Claims
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Still Pending
ALL WEB: Mendez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
ARS NATIONAL: Spitz Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
ASCENA RETAIL: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille

AT&T INC: Removes Cottrell Suit to N.D. California
AURA WELLNESS: Huerta Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Board Breached Fiduciary Duties, Pliscott Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Georges Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
BOO COMPANY: Sued by Humphrey for Not Paying OT Wages Under FLSA

BOS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NMMWA, Licon Says
BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Collects Children's PII, TK Says
CALIFORNIA: Mag. Judge Withdraws Findings/Recommendations in Garcia
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Court Dismisses Grosz FDCPA Suit
CBDMD INC: Sued by Davis for Illegally Selling CBD Products

CHARTER COMM: Bid to Continue ENE Conference in Sonico Denied
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gennarelli Suit Moved to C.D. California
CHEMED CORP: Lax Class Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
CHEMED CORP: Settlement Underway in 4 Wage-and-Hour Suits
CHEVRON USA: Heaster Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for Landmen

CIMA'S LANDSCAPE: Faces Jusuf Suit in California Superior Court
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Defends N.J. Securities Suit
CORTEVA INC: Fails to Provide Rest and Meal Periods, Craig Claims
COWEN INC: Fletcher Class Suit Resolved, No Appeal Filed
CURO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Yellowdog Partners Class Suit Pending

DAVID L. LEE: Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Oliver Says
DELTA DENTAL: Rittenhouse Sues Over Dental Insurance Conspiracy
DOORDASH INC: Court Orders Arbitration in Austin Labor Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Challenges $18.75MM Damages to Strauch Class
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lespiegle Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York

EDGE FITNESS: Mahoney Files Suit in Pennsylvania under ADA
ENDO INT'L: $50MM Deal in Mississippi PERS Case Wins Final OK
ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Pelletier Suit Still Pending
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Makris Class Action in Canada
ENDO INT'L: Defendants in Ohio Opioid-Related Suit Settle

ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Matters
ENDO INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month in "Bier"
ENDO INT'L: Ontario Superior Court Okays Settlement in Mesh Suit
ENDO INT'L: Unit Inks Settlement in Suit over Zetia Sales
ENERSAFE INC: Wise, Chaumont & Jensen Accord w/ EOG Approved

EQT CORPORATION: Heaster Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Landmen
GENERAL NUTRITION: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible App
GOODMAN NETWORKS: Quinney Seeks OT Wages for Cable Technicians
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Azar Suit over Drop in Share Price
HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

HELIX ENERGY: Fruge Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
HUDSON THEATRE: Court Dismisses Castillo's Consolidated ADA Suit
HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Klaus Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
INVO PEO: Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements, Cagle Says
ISOLVED HCM: Villagomez Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data

IVERIC BIO: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated NY Class Suit
LITTLER MENDELSON: Blanco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Underway
MARION COUNTY, OR: Ct. Narrows Discovery, Disclosure in Updike Case

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Special Master Recommends Class Certification
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Tentative Settlement Reached in Cantrell Suit
MDL 2492: Kosminskas Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: 3rd Amended Complaint Redacted Version Filing Due Dec. 10
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from Nixed Class Suit

MIAMI AUTO: Ferguson Sues Over Discrepancy in Vehicle's Mileage
MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Dismissal of Semerena Suit w/ Prejudice Upheld
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Charvat Suit Settlement Gets Final Ct. Approval
NEW DEAL LLC: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
NEW YORK CITY: Camacho Sues Over False Arrests and Accusations

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Barney Suit
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Appellate Brief Filed in DEXTENZA Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
PENNSYLVANIA: Wardlow Sues PHEAA Over Issues With Student Loans
POINT LOMA: Veal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Premium Pay

PREFERRED LICENSING: Greene Seeks OT Wages for Security Experts
PREMIER EMPLOYEE: Gordon BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PURDUE PHARMA: Richmond, Warren Counties Sue Over Sale of Opioids
REPP SPORTS: Court Dismisses Ringsmuth Suit Without Prejudice
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: $6.9MM Accord in Kent Suit Has Final OK

ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Court Okays Wisconsin Case Settlement
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Gomez Class Suit in California Underway
ROSE GROUP LLC: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA
RW DIRECT: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit
SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Removes Charles Suit to C.D. Illinois

SHOE SHOW: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
SI-BONE INC: Still Faces Fromer Chiropractic TCPA Class Suit
SIXTH GEAR: Harlow Sues Over Misleading Claims on CBD Products
SSK DONUTS: Joell Seeks to Recover Damages Under NYLL and NYWTPA
STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Awaits Court Okay

TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing
TILE SHOP: Faces Class Action over Decision to Delist from NASDAQ
TILE SHOP: Wynnefield Capital Seeks to Enjoin Go-Dark Scheme
TRADER JOE'S: Chau Sues over Mislabeled Oatmeal Products
TRUSTED MEDIA: Jones Files Suit under American Disabilities Act

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Voluntary Dismissal Notice in Diva Suit Granted
UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Suit Over Unlawful Termination Fees
WELLS FARGO: Cornelius Sues over Unlawful Banking Practices
WELLS FARGO: Failed to Properly Reply to RFIs & NOEs, Tanner Says

YANGTZE RIVER: Bid to Nix Behrendsen Class Suit Pending

                            *********

2U INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action in New York Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled, In re 2U, Inc., Securities Class Action,
No. 1:19-cv-7390 (S.D.N.Y.), is still ongoing, according to 2U,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company said, "On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne
M. Chinn filed putative class action complaints against us
Christopher J. Paucek, our CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, our former
CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The district court consolidated the two actions on
August 27, 2019, with the caption In re 2U, Inc., Securities Class
Action, No. 1:19-cv-7390 (S.D.N.Y.).  The complaints allege
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based upon
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding our company's
business prospects and financial projections.  The proposed class
consists of all persons who acquired our company's securities
between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019."

2U, Inc. operates as an education technology company in the United
States, Hong Kong, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. It
operates in two segments, Graduate Program Segment and Short Course
Segment. The Graduate Program Segment targets students seeking a
full graduate degree. The Short Course Segment targets working
professionals seeking career advancement through skills attainment.
The company builds, delivers, and supports online graduate programs
and certificates for working adults through its 2U Operating
System, a platform that provides front-end and back-end cloud-based
SaaS technology and technology-enabled services to university
clients. The company was formerly known as 2Tor Inc. and changed
its name to 2U, Inc. in October 2012. 2U, Inc. was founded in 2008
and is headquartered in Lanham, Maryland.


7-ELEVEN INC: Benites Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO BENITES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06551-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its 7-Select GO!Yum ice cream products.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural
characterizing flavor, vanilla beans, under their 7-Select GO!Yum
brand ("Products"). The front label representations include
"7-Select GO!Yum," "Vanilla Bean," "Vanilla Bean Ice Cream," "Ice
Cream Made With Natural Flavors," a scoop of vanilla bean ice cream
with "specks" and vignettes of the flower of the vanilla plant.

The front label statements of "Vanilla Bean Ice Cream" and "Vanilla
Bean" are understood by consumers to identify a product where (1)
vanilla is the characterizing flavor, (2) vanilla is contained in a
sufficient amount to flavor the product, (3) the flavor is derived
from vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring and unexhausted vanilla
beans, (4) no other flavors in the simulate, resemble, reinforce,
or enhance flavoring from vanilla and (5) vanilla is the exclusive
source of flavor.

The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount,
type and percentage of vanilla beans and vanilla extract or vanilla
flavoring as a component of the flavoring in the ice cream, which
is required and consistent with consumer expectations. Had
plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it.

7-Eleven, Inc. owns and operates chain of convenience store. The
Company offers beverages, candy, pizzas, groceries, tobacco items,
lottery tickets, and other related items. 7-Eleven serves its
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Orende Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Alexion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ORENDE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NICOLE
VITULLO, JOSEPH TRUITT, DAVID SCHEER, FRANK VERWIEL, JASON'S.
FISHERMAN, KURT GRAVES, MICHAEL D. KISHBAUCH, and ROBERT L. VAN
NOSTRAND, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05281-MAK (E.D. Pa., Nov. 8,
2019), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Achillion will be acquired by Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Beagle
Merger Sub, Inc.

The Plaintiff brings this shareholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public shareholders of Achillion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Achillion, its Board of Directors,
for breaches of fiduciary duties in conjunction with the proposed
buyout and acquisition of Achillion by Alexion Pharmaceuticals and
Beagle Merger Sub, Inc.

The June 25, 2014 Merger Agreement provides for a business
combination whereby the Merger Sub will be merged with and into
Achillion. As a result of the Merger, the separate corporate
existence of the Merger Sub will cease and Achillion will continue
as the surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the
Merger, Achillion will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Alexion.

Upon consummation of the Merger, each outstanding share of
Achillion common stock will be converted into the right to receive
$6.30 in cash, without interest (Cash Merger Consideration), and
one contractual contingent value right pursuant to the CVR
Agreement (the "CVR").

On November 5, 2019, Achillion filed a Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Preliminary Proxy is wholly
insufficient and provides either materially misleading and or
insufficient information for Achillion stockholders to properly
analyze whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and
is, therefore, a continuation of the Board's breaches of fiduciary
duty. He argues that the Proposed Transaction is unfair and
undervalued the Company for a number of reasons. He assert that
significantly, the Preliminary Proxy describes an insufficient
sales process in which the Board only paid lip service to its
fiduciary duties.

In addition to Alexion's interest in the Proposed Transaction, the
deal may also be tainted by conflicts of interest of the Directors
and Company executives, the Plaintiff also contends. He avers that
certain of the Company's Directors and senior executive officers
may have been motivated to enter into the Proposed Transaction in
order to receive benefits not shared equally with him and members
of the Class.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duty of candor and duty to maximize
shareholder value by, inter alia, agreeing to sell to Alexion
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Alexion without regard for Achillion's
public shareholders, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff further alleges that in violation of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on
November 5, 2019, with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an
effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Achillion shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. He asserts that the Preliminary
Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things: (a) the sales process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction; (b) the Company's financial projections; (c)
Achillion's financial projections; and (d) the data and input
underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support
the fairness opinions provided by the financial advisor to the
Board, Centerview Partners LLC.

Achillion is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in
the discovery and development of small molecule drug therapies for
infectious diseases and immune system disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          RODSKV & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029


ADT INC: Trial in Villegas Suit in California Set for February 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that discovery in the Los Angeles Alarm Permit Class
Action styled, Villegas v. ADT, is ongoing and trial is currently
scheduled in February 2020.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.  In this
complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain
provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.  The case was initially dismissed by the trial
court and judgment was entered in the Company's favor in October
2014, which the plaintiff appealed.

In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and
remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles on or after May 31,
2010 for a false alarm and for not having an alarm system permit: a
pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by the Company; a
pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT Authorized
Dealers; a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by the
Company; and a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT
Authorized Dealers.

Discovery is ongoing and trial is currently scheduled in February
2020.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Unit Still Defends Calif. Independent Contractor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled, Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC., remains
pending, according to ADT Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin
County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other
individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company.
The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV
1702912, Superior Court, Marin County).  Mr. Shuheiber was the
owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc.
("MPI"), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation.

In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court's
decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with
a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims
such that they were brought on a class basis.

According to the Company, the proposed class is not clearly defined
but appears to be composed of two groups of individuals: 1)
individual owners of sub-contractors who performed services for the
sub-contractor; and 2) individuals with no ownership interest in a
sub-contractor who were employed by the sub-contractor and provided
services pursuant to a contract between the sub-contractor and the
Company.

In October 2018, the Company answered Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff's
sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of
ADT's sub-contract.

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

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


AGELESS SKIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sweeney Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDAN SWEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGELESS SKIN INC. d/b/a AGELESS MEDICAL,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-024122 (Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov.
21, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Ageless Skin Inc. d/b/a Ageless Medical operates as a manufacturer
of skin care and beauty products. [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


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
suit entitled, In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., remains
pending, according to Akebia Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and Alpha
Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which
the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or the Merger.

On December 12, 2018, the Company completed the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of the Company),
former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven
C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael
Rogers, some of whom are current members of the Company's Board of
Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action, the Merger
Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with
the Merger.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).  The
fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts
District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (filed October 23, 2018).

On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.  The Delaware District Court also appointed
Kiswani and plaintiff Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the
Consolidated Action.

On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated
Complaint.  The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by the Company's advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety on August 2, 2019.  Under
the scheduling order applicable to the Consolidated Action,
briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was to be completed
by November 20, 2019.

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

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALL WEB: Mendez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA MENDEZ, JAMES CAGLE, APRIL SANDERS and DRANEKIA SAVAGE,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No.
1:19-cv-01084 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Sales
Representatives and non-exempt from the requirements of the FLSA.
As Sales Reps, the Plaintiffs' primary duties were to take phone
calls from consumers seeking to purchase insurance and convert
those calls into sales for the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs and other Sales Reps regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The
Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid workers also received
non-discretionary performance bonuses. However, the Defendant did
not include the non-discretionary bonus that was paid to the
Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid workers in their regular rates
when calculating their overtime pay, the lawsuit says.

All Web is a foreign for-profit corporation, registered to do
business in the State of Texas, providing customer acquisition
marketing.[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@santordlawfirm.com


ARS NATIONAL: Spitz Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Spitz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS
National Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06779 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019).

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

ARS National Services Inc is a debt collection agency, which
receives a lot of consumer complaints to our law firm for debt
harassment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASCENA RETAIL: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille
--------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC. D/B/A
LOU & GREY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10773 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20,
2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the Defendant failed to sell
store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and
to be fully accessible to and independently usable the 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 the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. is a holding company for a national chain
of women's apparel specialty stores. The Company's stores operate
nationwide and in the District of Columbia. [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


AT&T INC: Removes Cottrell Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DAVID COTTRELL, Plaintiff v. AT&T
INC.; PACIFIC BELL CO.; and DIRECTV, LLC, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa (Case No. C19-02167) to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
November 21, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of
California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07672-JCS. The case is
assigned to Joseph C. Spero.

AT&T Inc. is a communications holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local and long-distance
phone service, wireless and data communications, Internet access
and messaging, IP-based and satellite television, security
services, telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising
and publishing. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
          Telephone:  (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile:  (202) 263-3300
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com


AURA WELLNESS: Huerta Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emiliano Huerta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AURA WELLNESS SPA CORP., ROCKFORD CHUN, and "JANE DOE"
[LEGAL NAME UNKNOWN], Case No. 1:19-cv-11095 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3,
2019), is seeking equitable and legal relief for the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA and
the NYLL, and was entitled to spread of hours pay and overtime
compensation. However, despite routinely working more than 40 hours
per week, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation of one
and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay or the minimum
wage, whichever is greater, for the hours he worked over 40 per
week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a locker room
maintenance employee from December 2008 until July 22, 2019.

Aura provides spa and wellness services to its customers, including
massages, facials, and body treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 460-0047
          Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Board Breached Fiduciary Duties, Pliscott Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL PLISCOTT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of AYTU BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff v. JOSHUA
R. DISBROW; STEVEN BOYD; GARY CANTRELL; CARL C. DOCKERY; JOHN
DONOFRIO, MICHAEL MACALUSO; and KETAN MEHTA, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0933 (Del. Ch., Nov. 20, 2019) is an action against the
members of the board of directors of Aytu Bioscience, Inc. for
breaching their fiduciary duties.

The action arose from alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Aytu Board in connection with the Board's dissemination of a
materially omissive proxy statement, which solicits stockholder
approval in connection with two separate transactions that have
increased (and/or will increase) Aytu's largest stockholder's
ownership and control of the Company at a time when Aytu's stock is
trading at a depressed price of less than $1.00 per share.

On November 4, 2019, Aytu filed a preliminary proxy statement (the
"Proxy") with the SEC soliciting the requisite stockholder approval
of the Proposals. Aytu is also seeking stockholder approval of a
charter amendment (the "Charter Amendment") that would double the
amount of the Company's authorized shares of common stock.
According to the Proxy, Aytu has scheduled a special meeting of
stockholders for December 13, 2019 to vote on the Proposals and the
Charter Amendment.

The Proxy is so materially deficient that it deprives Aytu
stockholders of any meaningful way to assess the reasonableness of
the process leading to -- or the financial fairness of -- the
Purchase Agreements or the Acquisition, the lawsuit says.

Proxy fails to disclose, among other things: a. anything regarding
the process or negotiations (if any) culminating in the Purchase
Agreements or Acquisition (including whether any measures were
implemented by the Aytu Board to protect against conflicts of
interest, and whether Boyd voted on the approval of the Purchase
Agreements or Acquisition); b. whether the Board explored any
alternatives to the Purchase Agreements or Acquisition; c. Whether
the Board retained and/or consulted with any financial advisors in
connection with the Purchase Agreements or the Acquisition; d. a
summary of any financial analysis prepared by any such financial
advisor; e. a summary of any such financial advisor's prior and
present engagements with Aytu, Armistice Capital, or Cerecor, and
the compensation that has been or will be received by any such
financial advisor therefrom; or f. the nature and amount of the
compensation payable to any such financial advisor for its services
in connection with the Purchase Agreements or the Acquisition.

Aytu BioScience, Inc. operates as a specialty healthcare company.
The Company concentrates on acquiring, developing, and
commercializing products focused primarily on sexual disfunction
disorders, urological cancer, urinary tract infections, and male
infertility. Aytu Bioscience serves patients and customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and –

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (888) 715-1740


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Georges Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksander Georges and Isa Jelveh, Individually And On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case
No. 8:19-cv-02329 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for its misleading and illegal business practices
relating to age discrimination in its maintenance fees, in
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

In each type of personal bank accounts, Bank of America imposes a
monthly maintenance fee of $12. To meet the requirements of a
student waiver, a consumer must show: (1) that he or she is a
student enrolled in a high school or a college, university or
vocational program, and (2) the consumer is under 24 years old.

Due to their financial circumstances, the Plaintiffs say, they were
unable to meet the requirements that they have at least one
qualifying direct deposit of $250 or more; maintain a minimum daily
balance of $1,500 or more in the account; or enroll in Preferred
Rewards program and qualify for the Gold, Platinum or Platinum
Honors tier. Despite still being full-time students, the Plaintiffs
are now required to pay a Maintenance Fee of $12 simply because
they are twenty-four years or older, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are currently twenty-four years old and twenty-nine
years old, who opened accounts with Bank of America.

Bank of America offers several banking products, including personal
bank accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 jason@kazlg.com
                 nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


BOO COMPANY: Sued by Humphrey for Not Paying OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Humphrey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. BOO COMPANY, INC., VCC MANAGEMENT LLC, VCCSA, LLC, all d/b/a
VOGUE COLLEGE OF COSMETOLOGY, and TEENA BALL, Case No.
5:19-cv-01401 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Humphrey, who worked for the Defendants as an instructor,
alleges that the Defendants forced her to work a substantial amount
of overtime without properly paying all compensation due, thus,
depriving her of rightful compensation for work that the Defendants
are legally obligated to pay.

The Plaintiff also alleges that she was denied timely overtime
compensation she was due under the FLSA. She adds that she was
damaged by the Defendants' illegal policies or practices.

The Defendants operate a private beauty and cosmetology
school.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NMMWA, Licon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Licon, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. BOS
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01130-LF-KK (D.N.M., Dec. 3,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for failing to pay overtime
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a week but BOS did not pay him and other workers overtime as
required by the FLSA and NMMWA. Instead, BOS improperly classified
the Plaintiff and other workers similarly situated to him as
independent contractors and paid them a day rate with no overtime
compensation, says the complaint. This class/collective action
seeks the unpaid overtime and other damages owed to these workers.

The Plaintiff worked for BOS as a Solids Control Technician from
November 2016 until October 2017.

BOS says it is "the leading provider of Solids and Liquids Waste
Separation Solutions" operating throughout the United States,
including in New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Collects Children's PII, TK Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
T.K., through her mother Sherri Leshore and A.S., through her
mother Laura Lopez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., MUSICAL.LY
INC., MUSICAL.LY THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION, and TIKTOK, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07915 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants surreptitiously tracked, collected, and disclosed the
personally identifiable information and/or viewing data of children
under the age of 13--without parental consent--while they were
using the Defendants' video social networking platform, i.e.,
software application.

Recognizing the vulnerability of children in the Internet age, in
1999 Congress enacted the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Under COPPA, developers of child-focused apps cannot lawfully
obtain the personally identifiable information of children under 13
years of age without first obtaining verifiable consent from their
parents. The Defendants' unfair and deceptive business practices
have had serious ramifications, including children being stalked
on-line by adults.

The Defendants failed to deploy appropriate safeguards in their App
that would prevent minor children from creating Musical.ly App
accounts, and, thereby, providing their personally identifying
information, without first obtaining verifiable parental Consent in
violation of the COPPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs T.K. and A.S. were under the age of 13 while using the
App.

ByteDance acquired, owns and/or otherwise controls the Defendants
Musical.ly, Inc., Musical.ly, a Cayman Islands corporation, and
TikTok, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Phone: 773.545.9607
          Fax: 773.496.8617
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and –

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@wbmllp.com


CALIFORNIA: Mag. Judge Withdraws Findings/Recommendations in Garcia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. U. BANIGA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01258-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California withdrew the findings and
recommendations entered on Sept. 27, 2019.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  He filed the Complaint commencing the action on Sept. 10,
2019.

On Sept. 27, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and
recommendations, recommending that the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction be denied.  On Oct. 18, 2019, the Plaintiff
filed objections to the findings and recommendations.  In the
objections, the Plaintiff argues that the Court mistook his
statement in the Complaint that he was seeking injunctive relief
for a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.  He asserts that he
did not file a motion, and a ruling on his intention to seek
injunctive relief is premature.

The Plaintiff also contends that under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(A),
the Magistrate Judge has no authority to decide issues of
injunctive relief.  He accuses the Magistrate Judge of conducting
litigation on behalf of the Defendants, since the judgment
forecloses the Plaintiff's injunction motion and creates a defense
for the Defendants by ruling that the injunction be denied to the
Plaintiff.

Magistrate Judge Austin holds that the Plaintiff is correct that 28
U.S.C. Section 636(B)(1)(A) does not provide authority for
magistrate judges to resolve dispositive motions, including motions
for injunctive relief.  However, in so arguing, the Plaintiff
conveniently omits reference to section B, which provides explicit
authority for a magistrate judge to conduct proceedings for
injunctive relief and submit proposed findings of fact and
recommendations to a district judge.  Thus, in submitting the
proposed findings and recommendations to Judge Ishii, the
Magistrate acted within his authority.

In light of the Plaintiff's request in the Complaint that the case
be treated as an "emergency action," the Magistrate construed the
Plaintiff's statement in the Complaint requesting "speedy medical
care" as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and therefore
addressed it as a request for immediate medical care.  The
Plaintiff also alleges in the Complaint that his life is in
imminent danger, and he suffers in extreme pain.  Nonetheless, the
Plaintiff claims that he is not requesting immediate medical care
and seeks to preserve his right to request injunctive relief in the
Complaint.

The Magistrate advised the Plaintiff that the findings and
recommendations of Sept. 27, 2019, address only preliminary
injunctive relief, and importantly, not his right to request
injunctive relief in the Complaint.  However, given that the
Plaintiff has vehemently denied any intent to request preliminary
injunctive relief, the Magistrate will withdraw his findings and
recommendations.

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, Magistrate Judge
Austin withdrew the findings and recommendations entered on Sept.
27, 2019.

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

Jose Garcia, Plaintiff, pro se.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Court Dismisses Grosz FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss an amended complaint in the case captioned ROBERT GROSZ and
CHAYA GROSZ, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members
described below, Plaintiffs, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-3166 (SJF) (AYS), (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Robert Grosz and Chaya Grosz commenced this putative
class action against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC alleging that
Defendant has used unlawful collection practices in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et
seq.  Plaintiffs allege that the VM Message is a standardized
message used by Cavalry. The call was received on a telephone land
line that is billed to Robert, but is regularly used by both Robert
and Chaya.  Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, that
the call pertained to one of two credit card accounts, with the Gap
or Lord & Taylor, held by Chaya.

On September 28, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave Plaintiffs leave to
amend consistent with that Order. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiffs
timely filed an Amended Complaint, asserting the same claims but
adding factual allegations.

Defendant now moves to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief.

LEGAL STANDARDS

To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. However, a pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

Plaintiffs contend that the amended complaint states a plausible
claim of: (1) violation of Section1692e, which generally prohibits
a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt and (2) violation of Section1692e(11), which requires specific
disclosures to consumers in communications with them.

The amended complaint fails to address these deficiencies, rules
the Court.

The only new information to be mined from the new factual
allegations is that Chaya is the cardholder on two accounts and
therefore it may be inferred that she is a consumer within the
meaning of the FDCPA. The amended complaint fails to allege,
however, that the VM Message was an initial communication with her
and thus does not state a plausible claim under Section 1692e(11).


In addition, the amended complaint remains silent as to whether
Chaya ever actually heard the VM Message, and the question remains
unanswered upon review of the parties' motion papers. In response
to Defendant's suggestion that Chaya never heard or received the
message, Plaintiffs state that she is a plaintiff, and her
complaint expressly sets forth the text of the communication, so
she obviously knows about it, but do not attempt to explain the
legal import of this statement.

To circumvent the amended complaint's failure to plead that the VM
Message was an initial communication with Chaya, Plaintiffs argue
that Robert is Chaya's agent for the purpose of receiving and
responding to communications and that therefore, a communication to
him is automatically a communication to her.   

This position is presumably based on the amended complaint's wholly
conclusory allegation that Robert often returned calls on behalf of
Chaya Grosz, as her agent. The existence of an agency relationship
is a legal conclusion and thus this allegation is not assumed to be
true. Upon review of the amended complaint, the sole factual
allegation that may support the existence of an agency relationship
between the two plaintiffs is that they are husband and wife.
Generally, however, it is settled law that no agency is implied as
between husband and wife from the mere fact of marriage.

Standing

Defendant again argues that Robert does not have standing to bring
his claims, whether under Section1692(e)(11) or under the general
provisions of Section1692(e).  

Standing in the Shoes of the Consumer

A plaintiff has standing to bring a claim if he is the actual
consumer or stands in the shoes of the consumer. To stand in the
shoes of a consumer, a plaintiff must be asserting claims on behalf
of the consumer, defined by the FDPCA as the natural person
obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt and must have some
legal relationship with the consumer that permits him to do so.
Thus, to properly establish standing, Robert must allege that he is
asserting the FDCPA claims on behalf of Chaya, the consumer.

To the contrary, however, Robert is clearly attempting to assert
his own claim and lacks standing to do so, notes the Court.  

Injurious Exposure

The Court finds the allegations in the amended complaint regarding
damages unhelpful, consisting of the conclusory statement that
plaintiffs spent time and money dealing with a debt collector that
they did not wish to deal with. The balance of the allegations does
not support this statement since the it appears only that Robert
listened to the VM Message and returned the call. There are no
allegations that he ever spoke to anyone at Cavalry or made or
received multiple calls. On these facts, an inference that there
was any loss of money or time is implausible. As Robert has failed
to allege any facts that plausibly allege that his exposure to the
VM Message was injurious, he has not established his standing to
bring a claim under Section1692e, rules the Court.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5g2ennz
from Leagle.com.

Robert Grosz & Chaya Grosz, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class
members described below, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Katz,
Lawrence S Katz P A, 9130 S Dadeland Blvd, Ste 1511 Miami, Florida,
331567851 & Tiffany N. Hardy , Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Stromquist  - mstromquist@pilgrimchristakis.com - Pilgrim
Christakis LLP, pro hac vice & Richard J. Perr -
rperr@finemanlawfirm.com - Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C.

CBDMD INC: Sued by Davis for Illegally Selling CBD Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Davis individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CBDMD, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-10241 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019), is brought on behalf of
consumers, who purchased the Defendant's illegal CBD products for
personal use and not for resale.

The Defendant's CBD products include "CBD Tinctures", "CBD
Gummies", "CBD Capsules", "CBD Sleep Aid", and "CBD Topicals," all
of which are promoted as products containing cannabidiol (CBD),
which are illegal to sell, the Plaintiff asserts. She contends that
with knowledge of growing consumer demand for CBD Products, the
Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold illegal CBD
products.

The Defendant's multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of
the Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business
practices that harms the public, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff and each of the Class members have suffered an injury
in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and
misleading practices, and seek compensatory damages and injunctive
relief. The Plaintiff brings  this suit to halt the unlawful sales
and marketing of the CBD  Products by the Defendant and for damages
she sustained as a  result. If the Plaintiff knew the Products were
not legally sold in the United States, the Plaintiff would have not
purchased them, says the complaint.

Cynthia Davis is a citizen of California, who purchased a CBD
Topical product, specifically CBD Inflammation Formula 4oz Tub
750mg, from the Defendant through the Defendant's Web site for
$59.99.

The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the
CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
                 klaukaitis@kohnswift.com


CHARTER COMM: Bid to Continue ENE Conference in Sonico Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN M. SONICO, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19cv1842-BAS-LL (S.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied the Parties' Joint
Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE") Conference.

The Parties requested an extension of the ENE that was set for Oct.
31, 2019 to Dec. 2, 2019.  In support, they assert that the
contours of the case are not sufficiently defined as the Defendant
has contended: (1) the Plaintiff's claims are subject to an
arbitration agreement; and (2) there are potentially earlier-filed
related cases to the instant one.  The Parties state that they are
continuing to meet and confer on these issues and they require more
time to discuss the Defendant's arbitration contentions in
preparation for meaningful participation in an ENE conference.

Magistrate Judge Lopez held that LLocal Rule 16.1(c) requires that
an ENE take place within 45 days of the filing of the first answer.
Conferences held beyond 45 days of the filing of an answer are
contrary to the Civil Local Rules and requests to continue ENEs are
rarely granted.  In the case, she does not find that the Parties'
representations sufficient good cause to continue the ENE.  She is
confident the Parties are capable of proceeding forward with their
meet and confer efforts while simultaneously meeting the deadlines
in the case and having a meaningful settlement discussion at the
ENE.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Lopez denied the Parties' request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/StYEG9 from Leagle.com.

Justin M. Sonico, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory E. Mauro --
greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins, APLC & James R. Hawkins
-- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC.

Charter Communications, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company &
Charter Communication, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Aimee G. Mackay -- aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Max C. Fischer --
max.fischer@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Anahi
Gonzalez -- anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Megan
Darlene McDonough -- megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gennarelli Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications Inc. removed the case captioned as MICHAEL
GENNARELLI, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV3198,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Nov. 7, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09635-FMO-RAO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff has brought the putative class action on behalf of
all current and former non-exempt employees, who worked for the
Defendants in California between September 11, 2015, to September
11, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges violations in four causes of action against
the Defendants, including failure to reimburse necessary business
expenditures, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages due at separation of employment, and unfair
business practices pursuant to the California Labor Code.[BN]

Charter Communications is represented by:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Aimee Mackay, Esq.
          Samson C. Huang, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: 213 612 2500
          Facsimile: 213 612 2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
                  samson.huang@morganlewis.com


CHEMED CORP: Lax Class Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation 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 Roto-Rooter
Services Company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive.

Alfred Lax ("Lax"), a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services
Company ("RRSC"), was hired in the RRSC's Menlo Park branch in
2007. On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide
or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.  

Lax has stated these claims as a representative of a class defined
as all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.  

He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be
maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory
damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated
rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel
time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed
expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  

The lawsuit, Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652, was received by RRSC on December 11, 2018 and RRSC
timely filed its answer denying the claims.

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

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Settlement Underway in 4 Wage-and-Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has
entered into a settlement agreement that, once approved by the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, will resolve state-wide wage and
hour class action claims raised in four separate cases:

     (1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity
unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number BC 642857 ("Seper");

     (2) Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc.,
a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL ("Chhina") (which was subsequently
merged with Seper);

     (3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case
No. 34-2017-0021-2755; and

     (4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 17853886.

The hearing to consider approval of the settlement was set for
December 2, 2019.

These actions were brought by both current and former employees
including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN),
home health aides and a social worker.  

Each action stated multiple claims generally including (1) failure
to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide
overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all
hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5)
failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement
expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  

The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to
include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with
VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of
each lawsuit.  

The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County
Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and
joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28,
2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named
plaintiffs.  

Discovery in the remaining cases was stayed as to class claims and
each court was advised of the pendency of the consolidated
Seper/Chhina action.  

The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in October
2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The settlement
amount, subject to court approval, is $5.75 million plus employment
taxes.  

As of September 30, 2019, $6.0 million was accrued in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is
intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina
matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class
claims in Williams.  

The parties have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice to class members and eventual final approval
and payment.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEVRON USA: Heaster Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for Landmen
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HEASTER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01464-DSC (W.D. Pa., Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Heaster worked for Chevron as a Landman
from November 2018 until October 2019. Heaster and the Putative
Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but these
workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Instead of receiving overtime as required by the FLSA and the PMWA,
Chevron classified Heaster and the Putative Class Members as
independent contractors, and these workers received a flat amount
for each day worked (day rate) without overtime compensation.
Heaster or the Putative Class Members never received a guaranteed
salary.

Chevron provides energy services, offering fuel, chemical, natural
gas, lubricant, and other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: 412 766-1455
          Facsimile: 412 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


CIMA'S LANDSCAPE: Faces Jusuf Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cima's Landscape &
Maintenace, Inc. The case is captioned as Justian Jusuf, Jose
Rodriguez, and Efrain Vasquez, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Tony Cima, Cima's Landscape & Maintenace,
Inc., and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00268638-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Nov. 8, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

Cima's is in the landscape contractors business.[BN]


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Defends N.J. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. still faces a class action lawsuit, as
amended, in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On September 20, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed with the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as a
complaint against the Company, certain current and former executive
officers and directors of the Company and the other defendants
named therein for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Additionally, the complaint
alleges that certain current and former executive officers of the
Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The class consists of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018.  The plaintiff seeks damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

On June 25, 2019, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed
an amended class action complaint.

Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company,
engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral
therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis
viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.


CORTEVA INC: Fails to Provide Rest and Meal Periods, Craig Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Craig and Michael Ross, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees v. CORTEVA, INC.,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, THE DOW
CHEMICAL CO., DOWDUPONT, INC. n/k/a DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., DOW
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07923
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks class-wide relief for the
Defendants' breach of their legal obligations to authorize and
permit rest periods and to provide meal periods pursuant to
California Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order No. 1-2001.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and the putative class members are
responsible for their units throughout their shifts. They are
neither scheduled for 10-minute rest breaks nor provided designated
relief in order to take such breaks. The Defendants, therefore,
have not authorized or permitted the Plaintiffs to take off-duty
rest breaks for every four-hour work period or major fraction
thereof, as required by law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as operators at its
Pittsburg chemical manufacturing plant.

The Defendants operate a chemical manufacturing plant located in
Pittsburg, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN, A LAW CORPORATION
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (323) 938-3000
          Fax: (323) 937-9139
          Email: js@gslaw.org
                 jyoung@gslaw.org

               - and –

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          Elizabeth Song, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
          Phone: (626) 585-9600
          Fax: (626) 577-7079
          Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
                 cdai@hadsellstormer.com
                 esong@hadsellstormer.com


COWEN INC: Fletcher Class Suit Resolved, No Appeal Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that the plaintiffs have not taken an appeal from the
District Court's decision dismissing the case styled, Landol
Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings
LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint has been dismissed and the
case has been resolved.

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group, LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and G-Trade
Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Landol
Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings
LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS).
The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on
behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named
fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex
Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011.

On April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr.,
filed an amended complaint raising materially similar allegations.
This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the Company's
previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group, which was
completed on June 1, 2017.

On February 17, 2016, the District Court granted Convergex's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to
the Second Circuit, and the AARP and Department of Labor filed
amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf.  The appeal was argued on
December 12, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
reversed the District Court, finding that plaintiff has
constitutional standing in a "representative" capacity to sue for
damages to the ERISA defined benefit plan in which he is a
participant, and (2) remanded to the District Court to reconsider,
in light of the Circuit Court's decision, the issue whether
plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of ERISA plans in
which plaintiff is not a participant.  Convergex filed a petition
for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition.

On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice of motion and
memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the proceedings in
the District Court pending resolution of its petition for writ of
certiorari, which the Company intended to file with the U.S.
Supreme Court.

On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of
the Company's petition for writ of certiorari.

On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a petition with the United
States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari requesting review of
the decision of the Court of Appeals.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari.  The previously granted stay of
the proceedings in the District Court was lifted, and the case
proceeded in the District Court.  Status conferences were held on
April 6, 2018, October 12, 2018, and December 4, 2018.

On March 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint.  The District Court granted the
Company's motion on July 2, 2019.  The plaintiffs did not appeal
the District Court's decision.  Accordingly, the plaintiff's
complaint has been dismissed and the case has been resolved.

Cowen Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides alternative investment
management, investment banking, research, and sales and trading
services for its clients.  Cowen Group, Inc. was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in New York, New York with additional offices
in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio,
Dallas, Texas, and San Francisco, California.


CURO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Yellowdog Partners Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. 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 court ruling on its motion seeking dismissal of the
class action suit entitled, Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group
Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W.
Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming
Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer &
Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P.,
and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. as additional defendants. The
complaint alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and that certain defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control persons" of
CURO.

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.

Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on August 15,
2019.

CURO Group said, "While the Company is vigorously contesting this
lawsuit, it cannot determine the final resolution or when it might
be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this
litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an
adverse ruling, management's efforts and attention may be diverted
from the ordinary business operations to address these claims.
Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a material
adverse impact on results because of defense costs, including costs
related to indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and
other factors."

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


DAVID L. LEE: Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Oliver Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaquille Oliver, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. David L. Lee, Trustee of the J.
Paul Getty Trust, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV40123
(Cal. Super., Nov. 7, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed
authorize and make available compliant meal and rest breaks
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Mr. Oliver, a current employee of The Trust having been hired as a
security guard by The Getty in July 2016, also alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide premium pay in lieu of breaks; to pay
at least minimum wages for all time worked; to provide complete and
accurate wage and hour statements; and to pay all wages due upon
termination.

With respect to the Plaintiff and the Class, the Trust implemented
non-compliant meal and rest period policies that discouraged or
prohibited off-premises meal and rest periods. Additionally, the
Defendants failed to release employees of all control during meal
and rest periods. The Plaintiff and the Class were required by
company policy to interrupt their meal and/or rest periods to
respond to visitor queries, questions, or requests.

The Plaintiff asserts that it also not possible for employees to
take a meal or period in designated employee only break rooms
without first passing through public areas of the Museum and being
subject to visitor inquiry. As such, the Plaintiff and the Class
were required to remain under Defendant's control during their meal
and/or rest periods. Finally, the Plaintiff and the Class were
instructed to monitor and respond to radio traffic at all times,
including during their meal and rest periods, placing them
"on-call" for these periods, the lawsuit says.

The Trust owns and operates the J. Paul Getty Museum, known as the
"Getty." The Museum displays exhibits in two primary locations: the
Getty Villa in Malibu and the Getty Center in Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Burns King, Esq.
          Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
          KING & SIEGEL LLP
          724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 465-4802
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
          E-mail: julian@kingsiegel.com
                  elot@kingsiegel.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rittenhouse Smiles is a Medical Group Practice located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

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

The case is styled as RITTENHOUSE SMILES, P.C., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Dental
Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental
Plans Association; Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta
Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of
Arkansas; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado;
Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental
of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental
Insurance Company--Georgia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta
Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky;
Delta Dental Insurance Company--Louisiana; Delta Dental of
Maryland, Inc.; Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta Dental of
Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental Insurance
Company--Mississipp1; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental
Insurance Company--Montana; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental
Insurance Company--Nevada; Delta Dental of New Jersey; Delta Dental
of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York; Delta Dental of North
Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota; Northeast Delta Dental (of
Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta Dental of Ohio; Delta
Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta Dental of Rhode
Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta Dental of South
Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental Insurance
Company--Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company--Utah; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental of West
Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of Wyoming,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07395 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 7, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 940-4000
          E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com


DOORDASH INC: Court Orders Arbitration in Austin Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order allowing Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Compel Arbitration in the case captioned DARNELL
AUSTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12498-IT,
(D. Mass.).

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

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 Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 112 (2001),
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.

Moreover, the first, sixth and eighth factors listed in Lenz v.
Yellow Transp., Inc., 431 F.3d 348, 351 (8th Cir. 2005) 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.

The court finds that Plaintiff is not a transportation worker
exempted from the FAA. The court notes that the outcome of this
case may well be different if a driver alleged that he crossed
state lines to deliver goods, as might occur where a delivery
driver is stationed close to a state's border. Similarly, the
outcome of this inquiry may also be different for an on-demand
driver who delivers groceries for a store that buys goods in
interstate commerce. Such circumstances, however, are not alleged
by Plaintiff. The court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff is not
a transportation worker exempted by section 1 of the FAA.
Accordingly, the Arbitration Agreement must be enforced.

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.

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Challenges $18.75MM Damages to Strauch Class
------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that it is taking an appeal from a court
judgment awarding US$18.75 million in damages to the plaintiffs in
the Strauch Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action.

On July 1, 2014, several plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of
themselves and a putative nationwide collective of CSC system
administrators, alleging CSC's failure to properly classify these
employees as non-exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  Plaintiffs alleged similar state-law Rule 23 class
claims pursuant to Connecticut and California statutes.  Plaintiffs
claimed double overtime damages, liquidated damages, and other
amounts and remedies.

In 2015 the Court entered an order granting conditional
certification under the FLSA of the collective of over 4,000 system
administrators.  Approximately 1,000 system administrators filed
consents with the Court to participate in the FLSA collective.  The
class/collective action is currently made up of approximately 800
individuals who held the title of associate professional or
professional system administrator.

In June 2017, the Court granted Rule 23 certification of a
Connecticut state-law class and a California state-law class
consisting of professional system administrators and associate
professional system administrators.  Senior professional system
administrators were found not to qualify for Rule 23 certification
under the state-law claims.  CSC sought permission to appeal the
Rule 23 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was
denied.

In December 2017, a jury trial was held and a verdict was returned
in favor of plaintiffs.

On August 6, 2019, the Court issued an order awarding plaintiffs
US$18.75 million in damages.

In September 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking US$14.1
million in attorneys' fees and costs.  The Court has yet to rule on
this motion.

DXC Technology said, "The Company disagrees with the jury verdict
and the damages award and is appealing the judgment of the Court."

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lespiegle Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Jackie Lespiegle, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06794 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 3,
2019).

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

This company is a full service debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDGE FITNESS: Mahoney Files Suit in Pennsylvania under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Edge Fitness, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Edge Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05692-ER (E.D. Pen., Dec. 3, 2019).

The Edge Fitness Clubs is an American gym chain with 14 locations
across Connecticut. The company was formed in 1988 and is based in
Orange, Connecticut. The Edge offers state of the art equipment,
turf, yoga and spinning classes, a daycare, saunas and multiple 24
hour locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


ENDO INT'L: $50MM Deal in Mississippi PERS Case Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval has been granted to the $50 million settlement
reached by the parties in the case, Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc, et al., No.
2017-02081-MJ, in the Court of Common Pleas of the Chester County
Justice Center, Pennsylvania.

The parties agreed to a deal memorialized in a Stipulation of
Settlement executed on June 27, 2019.  Preliminary approval of the
Settlement was granted on July 2.  Final approval was granted on
December 5.

Labaton Sucharow represents lead plaintiff Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi.  The defendants are Endo; Rajiv
Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay, Daniel A.
Rudio, Roger H. Kimmel, Shane M. Cooke, John J. Delucca, Arthur J.
Higgins, Nancy J. Hutson, Ph.D, Michael Hyatt, William P. Montague,
Jill D. Smith, William F. Spengler, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.,
TD Securities (USA) LLC, and MUFG Securities Americas Inc. (f/k/a
Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.).

A Settlement Hearing, originally scheduled for October 21, 2019,
was held on November 25, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable
Edward Griffith, at the Court of Common Pleas of the Chester County
Justice Center, Pennsylvania, Courtroom 11, 201 W. Market Street,
West Chester, PA 19380.

Endo International plc 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 in February 2017,
the class action was filed by an institutional purchaser of shares
in the company's June 2, 2015 public offering.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.

In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, which provides for a $50 million payment to the
investor class in exchange for a release of their claims.

This is an average recovery of approximately $1.80 per allegedly
damaged share, before these deductions.

As a result of the settlement, during the first quarter of 2019,
the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to
its accrual for loss contingencies.

Endo said, "As the Company's insurers agreed to fund the
settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance
receivable of approximately $50 million during the first quarter of
2019, which was recorded as Prepaid expenses and other current
assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company's
insurers funded the settlement during the third quarter of 2019,
resulting in corresponding decreases to the Company's accrual for
loss contingencies and insurance receivable."

Additional information is available at:

     http://www.endointernationalsecuritiessettlement.com/

Class Counsel:

     Serena P. Hallowell, Esq.
     Labaton Sucharow LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005

Defendants' Counsel:

     Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins LLP
     885 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022

The Claims Administrator is AB Data and may be reached at
(877)-307-6170.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Pelletier Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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 motion seeking
dismissal of the case, Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv
Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V.
Campanelli, is still pending.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act relating to the pricing of various generic
pharmaceutical products.

In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in the action.

In August 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In
September 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

That motion remains pending.

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

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Makris Class Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.

The original statement of claim generally sought class
certification, declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs
based on alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act.

The original statement of claim alleged negligent
misrepresentations concerning the Company's revenues, profit
margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a subpoena from the
state of Connecticut regarding doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline
hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and
oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the Company's U.S. generic
pharmaceuticals business.

In January 2019, plaintiff amended her statement of claim to add a
claim on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian
investors who purchased Endo's securities between January 11, 2016
and June 8, 2017.

This additional claim is based on the Company's decision to remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

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

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Defendants in Ohio Opioid-Related Suit Settle
---------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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 first MDL trial
relating to the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs),
was set for October 2019 but did not go forward after most
defendants settled.

Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against
the company and/or certain of its subsidiaries, including Endo
Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), EPI, PPI, Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI),
Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, as well as various other manufacturers,
distributors, pharmacies and/or others, asserting claims relating
to defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution
practices with respect to prescription opioid medications,
including certain of the Company's products.

As of October 29, 2019, the cases of which the company was aware
include, but are not limited to, approximately 18 cases filed by or
on behalf of states; approximately 2,500 cases filed by counties,
cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related
persons or entities; approximately 240 cases filed by hospitals,
health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other
third-party payers and approximately 140 cases filed by
individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class
actions.

In addition to the litigation in the U.S., in August 2018, an
action against Paladin Labs Inc., EPI, the Company and various
other manufacturers and distributors was commenced in British
Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial
and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids.


In May 2019, two putative class actions were filed in Canada,
seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed
opioid medications. One of the actions (filed in Ontario Superior
Court) names Paladin Labs Inc., the Company and EPI along with
several other defendants, and the other action (filed in Quebec
Superior Court) names Paladin Labs Inc. along with several other
defendants.

In the Quebec action, an amended application was filed in October
2019; among other things, the amended application substituted in a
new plaintiff.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (MDL No. 2804). In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) filed a statement of interest in the case, and in April 2018
it filed a motion to participate in settlement discussions as a
friend of the court, which the MDL court granted.

The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders in certain cases.

The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties
(Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go
forward after most defendants settled.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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 discovery is
ongoing in overarching conspiracy claims in the litigation over
generic drug pricing.

In December 2014, the company received a grand jury subpoena from
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued by
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
addressed to Par Pharmaceuticals.

The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily
on product and pricing information relating to the authorized
generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and generic
doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and
others regarding those products. The company is cooperating with
the investigation.

In May 2018, the company and its  subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. (PPCI) each received a civil investigative demands
(CID) from the DOJ in relation to a False Claims Act investigation
concerning whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in
price fixing and market allocation agreements, paid illegal
remuneration and caused the submission of false claims. The company
is cooperating with the investigation.

Similar investigations may be brought by others or the foregoing
matters may be expanded or result in litigation. The company is
unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the
possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to
the company's overall liability accrual may be required in the
future, which could have a material adverse effect on the company's
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys
general have filed cases against the company's subsidiary PPI
and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or PPCI, as well as other pharmaceutical
manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or
individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other
anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical
products.

These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated
and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the caption In re Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages,
treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Some claims are based
on alleged product-specific conspiracies.

The allegations relating to the company's subsidiaries in certain
of the various complaints focus primarily on one or more of the
following products: amitriptyline, baclofen, budesonide, digoxin,
divalproex ER, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate,
entecavir, fluoxetine, flutamide, hydroxyurea, labetalol,
methimazole, nystatin, omega-3-acid ethyl esters, propranolol
and/or zoledronic acid.

Other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies
involving various combinations of these and/or other products.

Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to
hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly
and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged
conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured
and/or sold by a particular defendant.

The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and
discovery is ongoing.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month in "Bier"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a hearing is
scheduled for December 2019 to consider final approval of the $82.5
million settlement in the class action suit entitled, Bier v. Endo
International plc, et al.

In August 2017, an alleged individual shareholder filed a putative
class action entitled Bier v. Endo International plc, et al. in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The original complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act against Endo and four current and former
directors and officers, based on the Company's decision to remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In December 2017, the court appointed SEB Investment Management AB
lead plaintiff in the action. In February 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which added claims alleging violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the
June 2015 offering.

The amended complaint named the Company, EHSI and 20 current and
former directors, officers and employees of Endo as defendants. In
December 2018, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against
four individual defendants.

In May 2019, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims
brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, which
the court accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

In August 2019, the parties entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, which provides for a payment of $82.5 million to
the investor class in exchange for a release of their claims.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement in September 2019
and scheduled a final approval hearing for December 2019.

Endo said, "As a result of the settlement, during the second
quarter of 2019, the Company recorded an increase of approximately
$82.5 million to its accrual for loss contingencies. As the
Company's insurers agreed to fund the settlement, the Company also
recorded a corresponding insurance receivable of approximately
$82.5 million during the second quarter of 2019, which was recorded
as Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company's insurers funded $20.0
million of the settlement amount during the third quarter of 2019,
resulting in corresponding decreases to the Company's accrual for
loss contingencies and insurance receivable. The Company's insurers
funded the remainder in October 2019."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Ontario Superior Court Okays Settlement in Mesh Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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 Ontario
Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement
covering unresolved claims by Canadian women implanted with an AMS
vaginal mesh device.

Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, including
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (subsequently converted to
Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into Astora Women's
Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or Astora), have been
named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state and
federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal multidistrict
litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada
and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic
organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was
filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical
Systems, LLC. In the various class action and individual
complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries,
including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel
function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages, where available.

The company and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing
mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various
Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to resolve
up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or
controlled by the participating counsel.

These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times
between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise
and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by he company or any of its subsidiaries.

All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of QSFs
into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements.

All MSAs have participation requirements regarding the claims
represented by each law firm party to the MSA.

In addition, one agreement gives the company a unilateral right of
approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are
authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in
QSFs are considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash
equivalents.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant is required to represent and warrant
that liens, assignment rights or other claims identified in the
claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the
individual claimant.

Confidentiality provisions apply to the amount of settlement awards
to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlements.

In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a
class action settlement covering unresolved claims by Canadian
women implanted with an AMS vaginal mesh device.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Unit Inks Settlement in Suit over Zetia Sales
---------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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's
subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., has entered into settlement
agreements with both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the
retailer plaintiffs in a consolidated class action related to
Zetia(R).

Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers
filed proposed class actions against Par and other pharmaceutical
companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of their
settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic
version of Zetia(R) (ezetimibe).

The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes
and/or state common law.

Plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief, damages, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2018, these and other related cases, including proposed
direct purchaser class actions in which PPI was not named as a
defendant, were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial
proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia (MDL No. 2836).

In September 2018, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed
their claims against PPI without prejudice.

In May 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave of court to file an amended consolidated class complaint
adding PPI as a defendant in the direct purchaser actions, which
leave was granted in June 2019; certain retailer plaintiffs filed a
similar motion, which was granted in July 2019.

In July 2019, PPI entered into settlement agreements with both the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer plaintiffs. The direct
purchaser settlement is subject to court approval.

The settlement agreements involve no admission of liability and no
monetary payment.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENERSAFE INC: Wise, Chaumont & Jensen Accord w/ EOG Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JON HAMILTON, et al., Plaintiff, v. ENERSAFE, INC.
f/k/a ENERSAFE LLC, et al., Defendants, ALFREDO WISE, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. EOG RESOURCES, INC. (f/k/a ENRON OIL AND GAS
COMPANY), et al., Defendants; BRANDON CHAUMONT, Plaintiff, v. EOG
RESOURCES, INC. (f/k/a ENRON OIL AND GAS COMPANY), et al.,
Defendants; and DAVID M. JENSEN, et al., Plaintiff, v. EOG
RESOURCES, INC. (f/k/a ENRON OIL AND GAS COMPANY), et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 5:15-CV-965-JKP, 5:15-CV-973-JKP,
5:15-CV-1003-JKP, 5:17-CV-0114-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth S. Betsy Chestney of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, granted in part
the Plaintiffs and Defendant EOG Resources, Inc.'s Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement and Dismissal of the Wise, Chaumont, and Jensen
Lawsuits.

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
consists of four consolidated cases -- (1) Hamilton v. EnerSafe,
Inc. et al., No. 5:15-cv-00965-JKP; (2) Wise v. EOG Resources, Inc.
et al., No. 5-15-cv-00973-JKP; (3) Chaumont v. EOG Resources, Inc.
et al., No. 5-15-cv-01003-JKP; and (4) Jensen v. EOG Resources,
Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00114-JKP.  The four cases were filed as
collective actions.  The Plaintiffs are individuals who performed
oil services work in South Texas.

The District Court consolidated the Wise and Chaumont cases into
the Hamilton case on June 17, 2016,  and subsequently conditionally
certified three classes of employees for purposes of the collective
action.  The Jensen case was consolidated with the other
consolidated cases on Feb. 11, 2019.

EOG is a Defendant in three of the cases -- Wise, Chaumont, and
Jensen.  The Plaintiffs in the Wise, Chaumont, and Jensen cases
allege that EOG misclassified certain individuals as independent
contractors and improperly paid them a day rate with no overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA.  There are a total of 45
Plaintiffs in all three cases at issue in the motion -- 34
Plaintiffs in the Wise case, five Plaintiffs in the Chaumont case,
and six Plaintiffs in the Jensen case.  

The parties have actively litigated the case for nearly four years,
engaging in pre-certification discovery in the Wise and Chaumont
cases, which included written discovery and depositions as to the
10 Plaintiffs.  After conditional certification, the parties
engaged in additional discovery as to the 10 additional Plaintiffs,
which included depositions, as well as 13 corporate representative,
expert, and third-party Plaintiff depositions.  The parties have
also attended three separate mediations in an attempt to resolve
the lawsuit.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement
and Dismissal of the Wise, Chaumont, and Jensen Lawsuits. The
parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned for
purposes of conducting a fairness hearing, as needed, and approving
the parties' settlement, and the District Court referred the
approval of any settlement agreement to the Magistrate Judge, while
retaining jurisdiction over any motion to dismiss based upon
settlement.

By their motion, the Plaintiffs and EOG inform the Court that they
desire to compromise and settle the Wise, Chaumont, and Jensen
lawsuits and ask the Court to approve their confidential settlement
agreement.  The parties submit for the Court's review a sealed copy
of their Settlement Agreement.

The parties assert that the settlement is a fair and reasonable
resolution of a bona fide dispute between the parties over wages
owed to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that EOG failed to
properly pay them overtime compensation by misclassifying them as
independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime
compensation they are due.  EOG denies the Plaintiffs' allegations
and maintains that the Plaintiffs were properly characterized as
independent contractors and, if not, EOG acted in good faith in
making this classification.  

Magitrtae Judge Chestney holds that these contested issues indicate
a bona fide dispute among the parties on multiple issues of law; if
EOG prevailed in the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs would not recover
anything or their recovery would be substantially less than what
the Plaintiffs sought.

The settlement proposed is also fair and reasonable.  The
settlement agreement was negotiated by able attorneys and reflects
an arms' length compromise of the disputed claims and both provides
relief to the Plaintiffs and eliminates the risks all parties would
bear if litigation continued.  The agreement has been approved by
the lead Plaintiffs in the Wise, Chaumont, and Jensen cases, the
Plaintiffs' counsel, EOG, and EOG's counsel.

The parties' agreement that the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to
a total of 40% of the gross settlement amount for fees and costs is
also reasonable.  

In summary, Magistrate Judge Chestney agrees with the parties that
their settlement agreement is a reasonable compromise of the claims
alleged by the Plaintiffs in light of the procedural posture of
these cases, the risks of further litigation, and the costs
applicable to both sides.  Because the proposed settlement is a
fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute between the
parties over wages owed to the Plaintiffs, Magistrate Judge
Chestney granted in part the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and
Dismissal, and approved the parties' settlement.  Their request to
dismiss the action remains pending before the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X8GZlF from Leagle.com.

Jon Hamilton, Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Cody George, Martin W Kolodzire, Jessie T. Rodriguez,
John David Rosales, Cameron Rochester & Barry W. Craigen,
Plaintiffs, represented by Melinda Arbuckle --  marbuckle@eeoc.net
-- Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, Allen R. Vaught, Vaught Firm, LLC &
Glenn Deutsch Levy -- glenn.levy@sfcityatty.org  -- Law Office of
Glenn D. Levy.

D.J. Helpenstill, Scott Wagner, Steven Jeter, Anthony Ramos, Billy
T. Cannon, Jr., Marcus Terry, Marcus Terry, Jr. & John York,
Plaintiffs, represented by Allen R. Vaught, Vaught Firm, LLC &
Glenn Deutsch Levy, Law Office of Glenn D. Levy.

Jason C. Young, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Vaught, Vaught
Firm, LLC.

Alfredo Wise, Micah Cannady, Gerald Arthur Anderson & Ronnie Mack
Armstrong, Jr., Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Melinda Arbuckle,
Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, Allen R. Vaught, Vaught Firm, LLC &
Glenn Deutsch Levy, Law Office of Glenn D. Levy.

D. J. Helpenstill, Cody Richardson, Michael T. Zevecke, Craig l.
White, Josh Odom, Michael Tate, Robert Fields, Richard R. Nava, II,
Jason Ashton, Randy Vidal, Todd Stevens, Joshua Adam Fuller, Jesus
O. Carrasco, Justin Leal, Jesse Ray Fuller, Trent Yanity, Roland
Johnson, Miguel Jimenez, Richard Curtis, Gilbert Bazan, Dale Mills,
Andrew Rodriguez, Kurtis Gibson, Joseph Machado, Drake Grafford,
Cody George, Eugene Alviar, Brandon Chaumont, Daniel Tipton, David
Miller, Felix Rodriguez, Bradley W. Page, Paul Salas, Jr. & Chaise
Bryant, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Allen R. Vaught, Vaught
Firm, LLC & Glenn Deutsch Levy, Law Office of Glenn D. Levy.

David M. Jensen, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
SimilarlySituated, Kody Brown, Michael Gibbons, Eric Pettijohn,
Douglas Battles & Ben Brown, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Allen R. Vaught, Vaught Firm, LLC.

Enersafe, Inc, formerly known as Enersafe LLC, Defendant, pro se.

EOG Resources, Inc., formerly known as Enron Oil & Gas Company,
Defendant, represented by Fazila Issa --
fazila.issa@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Michael Carter Crow -- carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Jesika J. Silva Blanco
-- jesika.blanco@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
U.S. LLP & Kimberly Frances Cheeseman --
kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP.

Michael Chad Cunningham, Individualy and in His Official Capacity,
Jason Anderson, Individualy and in His Official Capacity & C Ryan
McMillan, Individualy and in His Official Capacity, Defendants,
represented by Annette Idalski, Chamberlin Hrdlicka White Williams
& Aughtry & Stephanie M. Gilliam, Chamberlain Hrdlicka White
Williams & Aughtry.

Oaks Group, Defendant, represented by Charles Alfred Sturm, Sturm
Law PLLC.

Gryphon Oil Field Services, Defendant, represented by Annette
Idalski, Chamberlin Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry, Peter N.
Hall, Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry, pro hac vice &
Stephanie M. Gilliam, Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams &
Aughtry.

Cielo Energy Consulting, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by
Benjamin Eliot New, Greenspoon Marder LLP & Larry J. Simmons,
Germer PLLC.

EOG Resources, Inc., formerly known as, Consol Counter Plaintiff,
represented by Jesika J. Silva Blanco, Norton Rose Fulbright U.S.
LLP & Kimberly Frances Cheeseman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.

David M. Jensen, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Consol Counter Defendant, represented by Allen R. Vaught,
Vaught Firm, LLC.

Gloria M. Portela, Neutral, pro se.

EQT CORPORATION: Heaster Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Landmen
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HEASTER, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. EQT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01463-MPK
(W.D. Pa., Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for EQT as a Landman from October 2016 to
April 2018. Heaster and the Putative Class Members regularly worked
more than 40 hours a week but these workers never received overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek,
according to the complaint. Instead of receiving overtime as
required by the FLSA, EQT classified Heaster and the Putative Class
Members as independent contractors, and these workers received a
flat amount for each day worked (day rate) without overtime
compensation.

EQT is a producer of natural gas in the United States with emphasis
in the Appalachian Basin and operations in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible App
----------------------------------------------------------
Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-24964-FAM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Defendant owns, operates and controls an app from which it
sells vitamins, supplements, and other nutritional and fitness
goods.

The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine years.
She contends that the App is inaccessible by blind people.

By continuing to operate its app with discriminatory conditions,
the Defendant contributes to her sense of isolation and segregation
and deprives her full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the
general public, the Plaintiff asserts. By encountering the
discriminatory conditions at the Defendant's App, and knowing that
it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the App unless
she is willing to endure additional discrimination, the Plaintiff
is deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting and
utilizing the same accommodations readily available to the general
public and is deterred and discouraged from doing so.

The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer direct and
indirect injury as a result of the Defendant's discrimination until
the Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the
ADA, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-351-2014
          Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com


GOODMAN NETWORKS: Quinney Seeks OT Wages for Cable Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHANTRY QUINNEY and BRANDON RAY, on Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. GOODMAN
NETWORKS, INC. and MULTIBAND FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-04377 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other Cable Technicians
for all of the hours they worked and also failed to pay them
appropriate overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class of similarly situated employees consists of all cable
technicians, who worked for the Defendants within the last three
years.  The Plaintiffs were hired to work as cable technicians for
Multiband (actually, by its predecessor, Directech Southwest).

The Defendants did not allow the Plaintiffs or the other
technicians to "clock in" until they arrived to their first
customer's home/office--despite the fact that they had started
their workday no less than hour or two.

The Defendants provide cable installation and repair services for
residential and commercial clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          DEBES LAW FIRM
          5909 West Loop South, Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77401
          Telephone: (713) 623-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 623-0951
          E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com


GRUBHUB INC: Faces Azar Suit over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
ROEI AZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. GRUBHUB INC.; MATTHEW MALONEY; and ADAM
DeWITT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07665 (N.D., Ill., Nov. 20,
2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Grubhub between July 30, 2019 and October 28,
2019, seeking to pursue remedies against Grubhub and its most
senior executives under the federal securities laws.

According to the complaint, on October 28, 2019, Grubhub announced
deeply disappointing financial results for its third fiscal quarter
of 2019. The Company revealed an important Company demand metric,
daily average grubs ("DAGs"), had actually fallen 6% sequentially
despite an increase in active diners and the Company's highly
touted demand initiatives. Defendants also slashed Grubhub's 2019
earnings and revenue projections and stated that the Company would
achieve only $100 million in EBITDA for 2020, more than 70% below
market expectations.

Analysts following Grubhub reacted with surprise and indignation to
the abrupt about-face, which contradicted defendants' Class Period
representations. Analyst reports characterized the revelations as,
among other things, "a shocker," "a disaster," "drastic,"
"alarming," "concerning," and "troubling." Numerous analysts
downgraded the stock and slashed price targets, with some even
issuing rare double downgrades. Several questioned the credibility
of management and pointed to evidence that management had long been
internally concerned about the deteriorating market conditions, but
failed to acknowledge these concerns in its discussions with
investors.

On this news, Grubhub stock closed down more than 40% on October
29, 2019 on extremely heavy trading volume.

GrubHub Inc provides food services. The Company offers mobile
platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders, as well as
assists diners in searching for local restaurant, tracking the
order, and re-order for convenience. GrubHub operates within the
United States and the United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP GURI ADEMI
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com


HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Beef removes the case captioned as TIFFANIE SNIDER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND BEEF, INC., an Indiana corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11517, from the Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Nov. 7, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that Heartland required its employees to use
a finger scan to punch in and out of work in a manner that violated
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Heartland allegedly failed to inform the Plaintiff that her
biometric identifiers and information would be collected or stored;
failed to inform the Plaintiff of the specific purpose and length
of time for which her biometric identifiers and information were
being collected, stored, and used; failed to obtain a written
release from the Plaintiff authorizing collection, capture, receipt
through trade or other obtainment and use of the Plaintiff's
biometric identifiers or information; and failed and continues to
fail to establish and maintain a written policy and
publicly-available retention schedule regarding the Plaintiff's
biometric information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  td1@kellerlenkner.com
                  nl@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          Gary M. Miller, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: gmiller@shb.com
                  mwolfe@shb.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Jones, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 684-5000
          E-mail: b.jones@boselaw.com


HELIX ENERGY: Fruge Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Fruge, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-04705 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2019), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
employing the Plaintiff and other nonexempt employees "for a
workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them
for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or
were employed." The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff as
required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a steward from
November 2017 to April 2019.

Helix provides subsea construction, inspection, maintenance, repair
and salvage services to customers in the offshore natural gas and
oil industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


HUDSON THEATRE: Court Dismisses Castillo's Consolidated ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned EVELYN CASTILLO, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON THEATRE,
LLC, d/b/a Hudson Theatre, Defendants; EVELYN CASTILLO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LYRIC
THEATRE OF NEW YORK, INC., d/b/a Lyric Theatre, Defendant, Nos.
18-CV-7931 (JPO), 18-CV-7943 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).

In these consolidated putative class actions, Plaintiff Evelyn
Castillo, alleges that the theaters Hudson Theatre, LLC (Hudson)
and Lyric Theatre of New York, Inc. (Lyric), discriminate against
her and other individuals disabled by diabetes and other metabolic
disorders through the imposition of policies banning outside food
from Defendants' facilities. Castillo alleges that those policies
created an access barrier excluding people with metabolic disorders
from full and equal enjoyment of the services provided by
Defendants' facilities. She asserts claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the New York State Civil Rights Law
(NYSCRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

The Theaters move to dismiss Castillo's complaints for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
plaintiffs must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. A claim is facially plausible when
plaintiffs have pleaded facts that would allow the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Courts must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint, and draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor.

Title III of the ADA governs places of public accommodations. It
guarantees that no individual shall be discriminated against on the
basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases or
leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation.

Thus, to state a claim under Title III, Castillo must adequately
allege that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA (2)
the Theaters own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation
and (3) they discriminated against her within the meaning of the
ADA.

Notice

Notice of the alleged disability is an assumed prerequisite of a
Title III claim for failure to make reasonable accommodations.
Thus, a plaintiff must show that defendants had notice of her
disability and has the initial duty to inform the defendant of a
disability before ADA liability may be triggered for failure to
provide accommodations.

Castillo does not allege that she notified the Theaters that she
needed to bring in outside food due to her metabolic disorder.
Instead, she states that she attempted to purchase tickets and was
deterred from doing so upon reading the Defendants' policies
against bringing outside food into the Theaters. In defense of this
omission, Castillo cites Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, 293 F.3d
1136 (9th Cir. 2002), for the proposition that deterrence from
visiting a place of public accommodation due to access barriers
constitutes injury for the purposes of Title III.  

That opinion, however, pertained to the issue of constitutional
standing, holding that deterrence from visiting a place of public
accommodation can constitute an Article III injury. Though Castillo
may have suffered an actual injury by being deterred from visiting
the Theaters, she has not pleaded facts to show that the injury is
due to the Theaters' refusal to modify their policies to
accommodate her within the meaning of the ADA.

This failure to provide notice of her disability to the Theaters or
to allege some other means by which they might have had an
opportunity to consider her need for accommodations is fatal to
Castillo's claim, notes the Court.

Reasonable Modification

Castillo also fails to allege that she requested a reasonable
modification to Defendants' policies that was subsequently refused.
A plaintiff's request for a reasonable modification is necessary to
determine whether the defendant could reasonably provide such
modification and whether the defendant's subsequent failure to do
so constitutes discrimination.  

Castillo contends that the current policies and procedures on the
Theaters' websites made it clear that the Theaters were unwilling
to accommodate individuals with metabolic disorders. Without her
requesting an actual modification, though, it is impossible to
determine whether the Theaters were actually unwilling to
accommodate Castillo, rendering her allegations merely conclusory.


Futile Gesture Exception

Castillo argues that her failure to notify the Theaters of her
disability and her failure to seek a reasonable modification are
excusable because taking those measures would have been futile
gestures. The ADA does not require a person with a disability to
engage in a futile gesture such as attempting to gain access to an
inaccessible location if such person has actual notice that a
person or organization does not intend to comply with the ADA.

Castillo has not alleged any facts, however, to suggest that she
had actual notice that the Theaters did not intend to comply with
the ADA, says the Court. She has not alleged, for example, that the
Theaters maintained policies against individual exceptions to the
no-outside-food rules or that the Theaters had a pattern of
declining such requests or that an employee or agent of the
Theaters warned her that she would not receive an accommodation if
she requested it.To the contrary, the Theaters' websites contained
several resources regarding ADA compliance, including contact
information for a representative who could be reached regarding ADA
accessibility. The defects in her pleadings therefore cannot be
excused on the basis that notice and a request for an accommodation
would have been futile gestures, rules the Court.

Plaintiff's Supplemental Claims

Because Castillo's federal claims have been dismissed, and because
Castillo does not argue this Court should retain jurisdiction over
her remaining state and city law claims, this Court declines to
exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Castillo's
remaining claims are dismissed.

Therefore, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and the
Plaintiffs' complaints in these two actions are DISMISSED, rules
the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2kuku4r from
Leagle.com.

Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig –
anne@leelitigation.com -  Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee –
cklee@leelitigation.com - Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Hudson Theatre, LLC, doing business as Hudson Theatre, Defendant,
represented by Lisa Marie Griffith  - lgriffith@littler.com -
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Daniella Adler - dadler@littler.com -
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
Lyric Theatre Of New York, Inc., doing business as Lyric Theatre,
Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Griffith ,
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Daniella Adler , Littler Mendelson, P.C.

HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Klaus Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Klaus, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. HUMANA PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01025-TSB (S.D. Ohio,
Dec. 3, 2019), arises from the Defendant's practices and policies
of not paying its non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff,
all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not paid
overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at their Springdale,
Ohio call center from December 3, 2018, to October 29, 2019.

The Defendant operates call centers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8 N. Court St. Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Phone: 847/986-5889
          Facsimile: 847/673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


INVO PEO: Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements, Cagle Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KASHIF KUNTA KINTES CAGLE, an individual, Plaintiff v. INVO PEO,
INC. III, a Tennessee corporation; INVO PEO, INC. IV, a Tennessee
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV40410 (Cal. Super., Nov. 8, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
failing to provide accurate wage statements and initial hire
paperwork.

The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees are current and former
non-exempt hourly workers, employed by the Defendants in California
at various locations for the Defendants' customers.

The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee in July 2018. The Plaintiff was
wrongfully terminated by the Defendants on October 14, 2018, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants are professional employer organizations (PEOs) that
operate in Tennessee, California and other states in United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ISOLVED HCM: Villagomez Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO VILLAGOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISOLVED HCM, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12932 (Ill.
Cir., Nov. 7, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

ISolved offers employers a cloud-based time and attendance tracking
system--formally known as TimeForce--including biometric time
clocks that allow businesses to track their employees' time by
using a biometric finger scanner.

When employees first begin their jobs at companies that use
ISolved's system, they are required to scan their fingerprint in
its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law,
iSolved disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights
and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA, the Plaintiff contends.

Specifically, iSolved has violated (and continues to violate) the
BIPA because it did not:

   -- properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in
      writing of the specific purpose and length of-time for
      which their fingerprints were being ollected, stored, and
      used, as required by the BIPA;

   -- provide a publicly available retention schedule and
      guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and
      the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor

   -- receive a written release from the Plaintiff or the members
      of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain their
      fingerprints, as required by the BIPA.

iSolved HCM, LLC designs and develops enterprise software. The
Company offers human capital management (HCM) platform that assists
users to manage a range of workforce challenges including employee
engagement, human resources, payroll, time and attendance, benefits
enrollment, talent acquisition, and compliance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM. P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com


IVERIC BIO: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated NY Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has dismissed some, but not all, of the
allegations in a consolidated amended complaint (CAC).

The order was issued September 18, 2019.  No further updates were
provided in the Company's SEC report.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of the Company's current and
former executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.  These cases were
consolidated on March 13, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the CAC.  The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016.  The CAC generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the Company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.
The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.  The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018.

On September 18, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing some,
but not all, of the allegations in the CAC.

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


LITTLER MENDELSON: Blanco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. removed the case captioned as
WILFREDO BLANCO, An Individual; On Behalf Of Himself and All Other
Similarly Situated NonExempt Current and Former Employees,
Plaintiff v. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.; and MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL
INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 10-cv-9634 (Filed Sept. 10, 2019), from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 8,
2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02172-JGB-SHK to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendant for its failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide
rest breaks, waiting time penalties, failure to pay all hours
worked, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful
business practices under the Business and Professions Code Section
17200.[BN]

Defendant McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. is represented by:

          Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4300
          Facsimile: 213 443 4299
          E-mail: tdarrow@littler.com

               - and -

          Alecia Whitaker Winfield, Esq.
          Alexandria M. Witte, Esq.
          Cassidy C. Veal, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Telephone: 310 553 0308
          Facsimile: 310 553 5583
          E-mail: awinfield@littler.com
                  awitte@littler.com
                  cveal@littler.com


LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Lyft, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend several class action suits alleging violation of securities
laws in connection with its initial public offering.

Beginning in April 2019, several putative class actions were filed
in California state and federal court against the company, its
directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters
named in the company's IPO Registration Statement alleging
violation of securities laws in connection with its IPO.

Lyft said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend against them."

Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the Company has not yet been served with
the putative class action complaint, but believes the claims are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a)
for control person liability) by making misrepresentations about
the Company and its business, including the Company's risk
management and underwriting policies and practices.  Plaintiffs
further claim that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

The Company said, "There exist and the Company expects additional
lawsuits to be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and its
respective officers due to the diminution in value of our
securities as a result of our operating results and financial
condition.  It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such
litigation on our business, operating results and financial
conditions."

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States ("U.S."), Europe and select other
global markets. The company operates internationally providing
branded auto and credit life insurance products through insurer
partners to retail clients in the EU and other global markets
through Maiden Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden Global") and its
subsidiaries. The company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


MARION COUNTY, OR: Ct. Narrows Discovery, Disclosure in Updike Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene
Division issued an Opinion and Order  granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's Motion for Protective Order in the case
captioned DAVID UPDIKE, on behalf of himself, and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARION COUNTY, OREGON,
Defendant. Case No. 6:18-cv-01383-AA, (D. Or.).

Plaintiff David Updike brings this putative class action against
defendant Marion County, alleging two claims: (1) discrimination in
violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and (2) discrimination in violation of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act).

Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition of
Marion County contains 36 paragraphs that designate or describe
specific subject matters for an organizational deposition of the
County. Under Rule 30(b)(6), the County must provide one or more
witnesses to testify on its behalf about the specific subject
matters described in each of the paragraphs. The County seeks a
protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and asks this Court to strike two and limit the
scope of two of these paragraphs.

Rule 26(c)(1)(D) allows any person from whom discovery is sought to
move for a protective order and authorizes the Court, for good
cause, to forbid inquiry into certain matters or limit the scope of
disclosure or discovery to certain matters.

County's Motion to Strike Paragraphs 30 and 36

Paragraph 30 -- Attempts by Other Inmates to Communicate with
Plaintiff

In paragraph 30, plaintiff asks the County to designate a witness
to testify about whether the County knows of any and all attempts
by inmates to communicate with Plaintiff in sign language, writing
or other means since January 1, 2018.

The County argues that it has no way to determine which inmates
attempted to communicate with plaintiff and determine what they
communicated. The County asserts that it would have to review
inmate files to determine whether there are notes of other inmate
contact with plaintiff.

Plaintiff responds that the purpose of this request is to determine
whether the County knows about inmates who communicated with
plaintiff at the jail and is intended to avoid surprise at trial.
Plaintiff asserts that if the County does not know of any inmates
who tried to communicate with plaintiff, then its witness can say
so.

Paragraph 30, however, goes well beyond what plaintiff describes in
his response and is unreasonably burdensome in the context of Rule
30(b)(b).  

The County's objection to paragraph 30 is well-taken and
SUSTAINED.

Paragraph 36 -- Other Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inmates

In paragraph 36, plaintiff seeks testimony about the identity of
all deaf and Hard of Hearing inmates at the jail since January 1,
2016.

The County objects to this request as unduly burdensome and
expensive, since the County does not have a database to identify
each deaf or hard of hearing inmate. The County also argues that
the request would intrude on the privacy and security of third
parties.  

The County's objection to paragraph 36 is well-taken and SUSTAINED.
Document discovery under Rule 34 is a more appropriate way for
plaintiff to obtain this information.  
County's Motion to Limit the Scope of Paragraphs 10 and 29

Paragraph 10 -- Sheriff's Office Policies and Procedures

In paragraph 10, plaintiff seeks testimony about the Sheriff's
office policies, procedures and unwritten procedures in effect
since January 1, 2016 that implement policies regarding deaf and
hard of hearing inmates' access to services as well as reasons the
policies were put in place, any revisions to the original policies,
as well as how the polices have been carried out since January 1,
2016.

The County objects to plaintiff's request to provide testimony on
the reasons for the policies and on how the policies have been
carried out. The County asserts that those requests are vague,
irrelevant, and burdensome. Defendant argues that many of the
policies were implemented years ago, many are nonspecific to deaf
and hard of hearing inmates, and some may have undergone multiple
changes.

The County's objection is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.
The County is relieved of its obligation to ensure that the witness
designated for paragraph 10 is prepared to answer questions about
any changes or reasons for any changes made before January 1, 2016.


Still, plaintiff may ask the witness what, if anything, the witness
knows about the history, changes, or reasons for policies or
procedures on deaf and hard of hearing inmates' access to services
in jail and require the witness to answer to the best of their
knowledge. The County's objection to the topic of how the policies
have been carried out since January 1, 2016 is overruled.  

Paragraph 29 -- Sheriff's Office Employees and Subcontractor
Employees

In paragraph 29, plaintiff seeks testimony about attempts by
Sheriff's office employees and employees of subcontractors who
provide inmate services, programs, or care to communicate with
plaintiff since January 1, 2018.  

The County does not object to providing a witness to testify about
its awareness of its employees' attempts to communicate with
plaintiff but does object to plaintiff's request that the
designated witness testify about the background of these
individuals and the substance of their communications with
plaintiff.  

The County's objection is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.

The County's request to limit this topic to employees is overruled.
The County explained why preparing a witness to testify about
nonemployee backgrounds and the substance of their communications
with defendant would be unduly burdensome but has not explained why
the witness should not have to identify, to the best of the
County's knowledge, non-employees who communicated with plaintiff.

The County's objection regarding the background of the employees
and non-employees who communicated with plaintiff and the substance
of their communications is sustained. The County produced
plaintiff's inmate and medical files, which show the identities of
deputies and healthcare staff who interacted with plaintiff.  

Against this backdrop, the County's Renewed Motion for Protective
Order Limiting Topics of the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Marion
County is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The County's
objections to paragraphs 30 and 36 are sustained. The County's
objections to paragraphs 10 and 29 are sustained in part and
overruled in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2henebk from
Leagle.com.

David Updike, on behalf of himself, and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Snyder , Law Offices
of Daniel Snyder, Carl Lee Post , Law Offices of Daniel Snyder &
John D. Burgess , Law Offices of Daniel Snyder, 1000 S.W. Broadway
Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205
Marion County, Oregon, Defendant, represented by Curtis M. Glaccum
, Marion County Legal Counsel.

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Special Master Recommends Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a
court-appointed special master in the class action suit entitled,
In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, No.
1:17-cv-01580-LGS, has issued a report and recommendation regarding
class certification and appointment of class representatives and
class counsel, recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs'
motion.

On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of CB&I common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from alleged false and
misleading statements made during the class period from October 30,
2013 to June 23, 2015.

The case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS. The defendants in the
case are: CB&I; a former chief executive officer of CB&I; a former
chief financial officer of CB&I; and a former controller and chief
accounting officer of CB&I.

On June 14, 2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead
plaintiff. On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about CB&I's
accounting for the acquisition of The Shaw Group, CB&I's accounting
with respect to the two nuclear projects being constructed by The
Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial reporting and public statements
with respect to those two projects.

On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and
the parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. On
February 4, 2019, lead plaintiff ALSAR Partnership Ltd. and
additional plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 40, 361, & 417 – Union
Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580 – Joint Funds moved for
class certification and appointment as class representatives.

On October 16, 2019, the court-appointed special master issued a
report and recommendation regarding class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel,
recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs' motion.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of September 30, 2019.
We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Tentative Settlement Reached in Cantrell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a tentative
settlement has been reached among the parties in the case, Cantrell
v. Lutech Resources, Inc.

A former employee of one of the company's subsidiaries commenced a
class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards ACT ("FLSA")
entitled Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc., (S.D. Texas 2017) Case
No. 4:17-CV-2679 on or about September 5, 2017, alleging that he
and his fellow class members were not paid one and one half times
their normal hourly wage rates for hours worked that exceeded 40
hours in a work week.

The company's subsidiary has yet to answer the allegations in the
complaint, as agreed by the parties, in order to allow mediation to
take place.

The first mediation session commenced in October 2018, and a
tentative settlement has been reached between the parties.

McDermott said, "We do not believe a risk of material loss is
probable related to this matter, and, accordingly, our reserves for
this matter were not significant as of September 30, 2019."

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

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MDL 2492: Kosminskas Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL KOSMINSKAS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and BELIOT COLLEGE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-4193 (Filed Oct. 11, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Nov. 7, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07359 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of
their reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of student-athletes.

The Kosminskas case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, In Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools, who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes, who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. The Plaintiffs in all
actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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


MDL 2672: 3rd Amended Complaint Redacted Version Filing Due Dec. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal portions of their third
amended class action complaint in IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, PRACTICES, SALES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 5860 Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB,
MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

Consistent with prior Orders in the MDL, Judge Breyer permitted the
Plaintiffs to redact from their complaint the names, job titles,
and departmental designations of non-party Volkswagen and Bosch
employees.  In contrast, he did not permit them to redact from
their complaint quotations, paraphrases, and citations to documents
that the Bosch Defendants produced during discovery and designated
as confidential or highly confidential.  The underlying documents
are approximately one decade old, and the Bosch Defendants have not
made a showing that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if
their contents are not sealed.

The Plaintiffs may file a revised redacted version of their third
amended complaint by Dec. 10, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/u1CCEO from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal from Nixed Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the Plaintiff's appeal from a
court-approved motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit
in North Carolina remains pending.

On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business
combination.  Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division,
naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) (for
purposes of this Contingencies section, "Cempra") and certain of
Cempra's officers as defendants.  Two substantially similar
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Middle
District of North Carolina on November 22, 2016, and December 30,
2016, respectively.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, on July 6, 2017, the court consolidated the three
lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff and
co-lead counsel in the consolidated case.

On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants
between July 7, 2015, and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period").
The plaintiff sought to represent a class comprised of purchasers
of Cempra's common stock during the Class Period and sought
damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by
the court.

On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  After the motion to dismiss was
fully briefed, the court heard oral arguments on July 24, 2018.

On October 26, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety.

On November 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal, and
on December 20, 2018, the Fourth Circuit entered its briefing
schedule.  The appellant filed its brief on January 28, 2019; the
appellee filed its response brief on February 27, 2019; and the
appellant filed its reply brief on March 20, 2019.  The court has
not yet ruled on the appeal.

The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  It is possible that
similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that
name the same or additional defendants."

Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical
company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various
anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases
in North America. Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2000
and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.


MIAMI AUTO: Ferguson Sues Over Discrepancy in Vehicle's Mileage
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL FERGUSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIAMI AUTO WORLD LLC d/b/a FL AUTO TREND,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-023326 (Fla. Cir., Nov. 8, 2019), seeks
to recover for damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the Defendant's
misrepresentation of mileage of the vehicle that the Plaintiff
bought.

On November 17, 2017, Mr. Ferguson went to the Dealership to look
at vehicles to potentially purchase with relatively low mileage.
The Dealership asked Mr. Ferguson to consider a 2006 Ford F150
bearing Vehicle Identification Number 1FTPX14506FB54297 (the
Vehicle). The Dealership represented to Mr. Ferguson that the
Vehicle had 91,453 miles and such was a true and accurate
representation of the Vehicle's mileage. Mr. Ferguson liked the
Vehicle, and the mileage, but wanted to ensure the Vehicle would be
covered in the future for possible mechanical issues.

The Dealership represented to Mr. Ferguson that if he purchased an
extended vehicle service agreement (VSC), he would be covered for
the future cost of repairs. Based on the Dealership's
representations, Mr. Ferguson agreed to purchase the Vehicle and,
to that end, entered into a Buyer's Order with the Dealership.

Pursuant to the terms of the Buyer's Order, the Vehicle had 91,453
miles as represented by the Dealership as the Vehicle's true
mileage. The Dealership charged Mr. Ferguson a $10,000.00 cash
price for the Vehicle. He was also charged $1,140 for the VSC and
$250 for "License Plate" fee.

Fees for license plates are pass through government charges. In
this case, the actual license plate fee charged by the government
was less than $250. After paying the government the actual cost of
the license plate fee, the Dealership kept the amount of the
overcharge as profit, the Plaintiff asserts.

Mr. Ferguson contends that it is the Dealership's pattern and
practice to charge purchasers greater than the actual license plate
cost and keep the difference as profit. With the addition of taxes
and other fees, the total purchase price of the Vehicle was
$13,007. At the time the transaction was completed, the Dealership
did not have possession of the title to the Vehicle.

Shortly after his purchase, Mr. Ferguson pulled a vehicle history
report and discovered that, contrary to the Dealership's
representations, the mileage represented on the Vehicle's odometer
and Buyer's Order was in fact not the true mileage and as the
Vehicle was over 140,000 in 2016. Thereafter, Mr. Ferguson returned
to the Dealership and advised what he saw regarding the odometer
discrepancy. A Dealership representative retrieved and provided Mr.
Ferguson a copy of the Dealership's, Carfax which revealed that the
Dealership knew or should have known about the Vehicle's odometer
discrepancy.

Based on the Dealership's misrepresentations, Mr. Ferguson says he
has been damaged. Because the Vehicle delivered to him did not
comply with the Dealership's representations and the Buyer's Order,
he argues that the Vehicle's value is diminished.

Mr. Ferguson never would have agreed to purchase the Vehicle had he
known the existence of the Vehicle's mileage discrepancy, or bad
the Dealership not expressly represented to him that the Vehicle's
true and accurate mileage was 91,453, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
          Jessica Schwieterman, Esq.
          Autumn Tolar, Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
          4610 Central Ave., Suite B
          Saint Petersburg, FL 33711
          Telephone: (813) 304-2131
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
                  jschwieterman@flautolawyer.com
                  atolar@flautolawyer.com


MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Dismissal of Semerena Suit w/ Prejudice Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Wade K. Semerena, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. The District
Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College, et al., Appellees, Case
No. 3D19-376 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Eric W. Hendon of the
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed the
trial court's order dismissing Semerena's first amended complaint
against MDC with prejudice.

In 2003, when Semerena retired from MDC after 34 years of
employment as a philosophy professor, he enrolled in Medicare Part
B and elected to continue his health insurance coverage under MDC's
group plan, as a "supplemental" insurance policy to Medicare.  The
monthly premiums for any insurance Semerena chose would be deducted
from his Florida Retirement System ("FRS") pension.  The record
indicates that Semerena made several choices from the menu of
retirement benefits, and he opted to continue group health
insurance with United HealthCare, as a supplemental policy to
Medicare.  Because the group insurance option was offered through
MDC as a result of his many years of state employment, Semerena
could take advantage of the $150 subsidy provided by the FRS that
would be applied towards any monthly insurance premium and deducted
from his monthly pension income.

In 2008, Aetna took over as the insurance provider for the health
care insurance Semerena chose.  His coverage would continue unless
he chose to opt out and lose the FRS subsidy.  Semerena alleges
that in 2014 he discovered that the Aetna policy was a more
expensive secondary health insurance plan for which he had been
paying higher premiums since 2008.

Semerena filed a putative class action complaint against MDC and
Aetna.  The order on appeal dismissed the complaint with prejudice
as to MDC.  In the appeal, Semerena alleges: 1) MDC, as Semerena's
agent, negligently failed to enroll him and others similarly
situated in a group health insurance plan appropriate for retirees
enrolled in Medicare; 2) MDC breached its fiduciary duty to
Semerena by failing to ensure that the money taken out of his
pension to pay the insurance premium was not grossly expensive; 3)
MDC was unjustly enriched by its actions by having Semerena pay
full price for a secondary health insurance policy, thereby
lowering MDC's risk pool; 4) MDC behaved unconscionably by binding
Semerena to a non-negotiable insurance policy and by charging him
and other retired Medicare recipients excessive premiums; 5) MDC
negligently misrepresented the insurance options available to
Semerena and induced him to choose the more expensive group health
insurance to his detriment.

After a thorough review of the record, Judge Hendon finds no merit
in any of Semerena's claims against MDC.  Semerena argues that MDC
was negligent and breached its duty to provide him and others
similarly situated with an appropriate retirement health insurance
package.  MDC, however, has no statutory or common law duty to
ensure that Semerena was enrolled in "suitable" healthcare
insurance.  MDC negotiates with Aetna and other insurers to allow
MDC to offer various group-rate insurance options to its retirees,
should those retirees so choose.  MDC does not manage the policies
or take into account its retirees' individual financial needs.  MDC
had no duty to Semerena to ensure that he was enrolled in the most
financially appropriate insurance contract for him.  As there was
no duty, it follows there is no cause of action against MDC for
negligence.

The causes of action for unjust enrichment and unconscionability
similarly fail.  The Judge holds that MDC is not an agent for any
of the health insurers that provide insurance for its retirees.
The contract between MDC and Aetna specifically states that neither
entity is an agent of the other.  MDC does not collect any premiums
or reap any financial benefit from the insurers its retirees choose
to do business with, and MDC does not manage any of the insurance
policies its retirees choose.  MDC did not deceive Semerena, did
not lure him into a bad bargain, and the record reveals no
substantive or procedural unconscionability on MDC's part.

Semerena admits he was on annual notice of any changes in benefits
or premiums, but argues that the policy was too lengthy and the
language too complicated for him to understand.  MDC negotiates
with a variety of insurance companies, which in turn provide a menu
of insurance options to MDC employees and retirees.  Although MDC
makes these options available, the Judge finds that MDC does not
endorse or recommend any specific policies.  The bottom line is
that Semerena always had the ability to shop for insurance outside
of the choices provided by MDC, or to choose an option within the
MDC menu.  If he had questions about the various provisions of the
group health policy, he had the responsibility and opportunity to
educate himself and choose accordingly.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Hendon accordingly affirmed the trial
court's order dismissing Semerena's complaint against MDC with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ghN16k from Leagle.com.

Lyons & Farrar, P.A., and Douglas S. Lyons , Marsha L. Lyons --
marsha.lyons@lyonsandfarrar.com -- and Aaron Brock --
aaron@vanvalerlaw.com -- (Tallahassee); Barbara C. McCauley, for
appellants.

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and Joshua D. Lerner --
jlerner@rumberger.com -- for appellee District Board of Trustees of
Miami Dade College.


NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Charvat Suit Settlement Gets Final Ct. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division issued a Report and Recommendation granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of a Proposed Settlement in the case
captioned PHILIP J. CHARVAT on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
d/b/a NATIONAL SECURITIES, Defendant; PHILIP J. CHARVAT on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHAMPAN
LAMPORT LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 2:14-cv-02205, 2:16-cv-00120
(S.D. Ohio).

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and
entered the Preliminary Approval Order on May 24, 2019, and notice
was given to all members of the Settlement Class under the terms of
the Preliminary Approval Order.

With respect to the Settlement Class, Chief Magistrate Judge
Deavers finds that the prerequisites for a class action under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) have been met,
including that the Settlement Class is sufficiently numerous, that
there are questions of law and fact common to members of the
Settlement Class that predominate, that the claims of Plaintiff are
typical of the claims of the Settlement Class, that Plaintiff and
Class Counsel adequately represent the interests of the Settlement
Class, and a settlement class action is a superior method of
adjudicating this Action.

Thus, the Chief Magistrate Judge recommends certification of, for
settlement purposes only, the following "Settlement Class:" All
persons residing in the United States (i) to whom a registered
representative of National Securities affiliated with Sharpco
International, Inc. made more than one call within a 12-month
period to solicit the purchase of any product or service sold or
offered by National Securities (ii) to a residential phone number
(iii) that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for
at least 31 days (iv) from November 11, 2010 through May 24, 2019,
and (v) limited to calls to telephone numbers on the Class List,
excluding Class Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and any judge before
whom the Action is assigned and members of the immediate family of
such judge.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Phillip J. Charvat is
appointed as Class Representative and the following are appointed
as Class Counsel: Brian K. Murphy Jonathan P. Misny Murray Murphy
Moul + Basil LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614)
488-0400 -- murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com -- Edward A. Broderick
Broderick Law, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 (617)
738-7080-- ted@broderick-law.com -- Matthew P. McCue Law Office of
Matthew P. McCue 1 South Ave., Third Floor Natick, MA 01760 (508)
655-1415 -- mmccue@massattorneys.net.

All persons whose names were included on the list supplied by Class
Counsel, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of the Settlement
Administrator, as having made timely and valid requests for
exclusion are excluded from the Settlement Class and are not bound
by this Report and Recommendation or any subsequent Order by the
Court adopting it.

The Chief Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this Action with
prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided herein
and in the Settlement Agreement) as to Plaintiff and all Settlement
Class Members. She recommends adjudgment that the Releasing
Parties, and each of them, have fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against
the Released Parties.

The Chief Magistrate Judge recommends approval of the payment of
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $108,333.00 plus
their costs and expenses of $37,154.71. This amount shall be paid
from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. The Chief Magistrate Judge, having considered
the materials submitted by Class Counsel in support of final
approval of the Settlement and their request for attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses, and in response to any filed objections
thereto, finds the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
appropriate and reasonable, and she notes that the class notice
specifically and clearly advised the class that Class Counsel would
seek the award. Defendants shall not be responsible for and shall
have no liability with respect to allocation among Class Counsel,
and/or any person who may assert a claim thereto, of attorneys'
fees and expenses awarded by the Court.

The Chief Magistrate Judge recommends approval of the incentive fee
payment of $10,000 for Plaintiff Phillip J. Charvat and
specifically finds such amount to be reasonable in light of the
service performed by Plaintiff for the class. This amount shall be
paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Report
and Recommendation  is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6bd4muf
from Leagle.com.

Philip J. Charvat, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Murphy -
murphy@mmmb.com - Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP, James B. Hadden ,
Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP, 1114 Dublin Rd Columbus, OH
43215-1039, Edward A. Broderick  - ted@broderick-law.com -
Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Geoffrey J. Moul -
moul@mmmb.com - Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP, Jennifer A.
Hemenway - hemenway@mmmb.com - Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP,
Joseph F. Murray- murray@mmmb.com - Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
& Matthew P. McCue - mmccue@massattorneys.net - Law Office of
Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice.

National Holdings Corporation, doing business as National
Securities, Defendant, represented by Rand L. McClellan -
rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler LLP, Andrew Evan
Samuels - asamuels@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler LLP & Douglas
A. Vonderhaar - dvonderhaar@bakerlaw.com - Baker Hostetler.

NEW DEAL LLC: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
New Deal LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. New Deal LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05691-AB
(E.D. Pen., Dec. 3, 2019).

New Deal LLC is an information technology and services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


NEW YORK CITY: Camacho Sues Over False Arrests and Accusations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Camacho, Justine Rodriguez, Derick Mason, Nicole Fludd, and
Cynthia Neat on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK; PAUL SMITH, Correction Officer, in
his individual capacity; A. REED, Correction Officer, Shield #
12988, in her individual capacity; SCOTT AMBROSE, Correction
Officer, in his individual capacity; CECIL PHILLIPS, Correction
Officer, in his individual capacity; EPIFANO VASQUEZ, Correction
Officer, in his individual capacity; CHRISTINA BREWLEY, Correction
Officer, in her individual capacity; D. SPRY, Correction Officer,
Shield # 1507, in his individual capacity, CO COSICO, Correction
Officer, Shield # 1123, in his individual capacity; CO GOLLUB,
Correction Officer, in his individual capacity; and JOHN/JANE DOES
1-30 Correction Officers, in their individual capacities, Case No.
1:19-cv-11096-DLC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to remedy the
violations of the Plaintiffs' rights secured by New York law and
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.

The Plaintiffs says they are five of the unlucky visitors, who
brought books with them to Rikers Island, either as gifts for the
inmates whom they were visiting or to read themselves while they
waited. In some cases, these books were wet or stained, either due
to inclement weather or due to normal wear and tear. In one case,
the book was new. In all cases, the Individual Defendants assumed,
with no cause whatsoever, that the books contained synthetic
marijuana, or "K2," and branded these innocent visitors as drug
smugglers.

The Plaintiffs all spent hours, if not a full day, detained for
nothing more than bringing a book to prison. They were criminally
charged with felonies before having their charges dismissed at
their initial court appearances following their arraignments.  The
Plaintiffs contend that even after their criminal charges were
dropped, they continued to be punished for crimes they did not
commit. The Plaintiffs were all banned from visiting their loved
ones--in some cases their significant other or their child--at
Rikers Island as a result of these false arrests and false
accusations.

Making matters worse, the Plaintiffs assert, their loved ones were
punished as well. The inmates, who were being visited at the time
of these arrests were all banned from future contact visits--all
because a friend or loved one came to visit them with a book in
hand. The Plaintiffs committed no crime, but languished in prison
cells and faced life-altering criminal charges. Even when the
criminal process concluded with their exoneration, they were
prevented from visiting close friends and family at all New York
City jail facilities. They now must live with the ongoing trauma,
distress, and fear from these encounters, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents of New York.

City of New York is a municipal corporation that, through its
Department of Correction, operates the various correctional
facilities located on Rikers Island.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
          Earl Ward, Esq.
          David B. Berman, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 763-5000

               - and –

          Julia P. Kuan, Esq.
          ROMANO & KUAN, PLLC
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 763-5075


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Barney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the federal putative class action suit initiated
by George Barney has been fully briefed and the Company is waiting
for a decision from the Court.

On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the
"Barney Action").

Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal
securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through
December 20, 2018.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's
planned US$460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company
inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two
major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon a blog
appearing in Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018 in which it was
claimed that an investigation of the Company failed to confirm the
existence of several entities identified as significant customers,
Plaintiffs purported to verify some of the information alleged in
the Seeking Alpha blog.  The Company denies the material
allegations of the Amended Complaint and plans to defend the action
vigorously.  

On August 2, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  Defendants argued that the Seeking Alpha blog was not a
sufficiently reliable source to serve as the basis of a federal
securities claim, that plaintiffs used the wrong company names in
seeking to locate the Company's customers, plaintiffs could not
establish loss causation, and plaintiffs did not adequately allege
intentional or reckless misrepresentations.  This Motion has been
fully briefed and the Company said it is waiting for a decision
from the Court.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Appellate Brief Filed in DEXTENZA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs/appellants in the
consolidated class action suit related to DEXTENZA drug filed their
opening brief on the appeal on October 23, 2019.

Defendants'/appellees' response brief was due on November 22, 2019,
and plaintiffs'/appellants' reply brief is due December 13, 2019.  


On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05011.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.  The
complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued
by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company's manufacturing
operations for DEXTENZA.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.  

On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made
in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.  The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.  

On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704.  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.  The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.  

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the Gallagher, Caraker, and Kim
litigations to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  These matters were assigned the following docket
numbers in the District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288
(Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146 (Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the
consolidated action.  

On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.  The amended complaint makes allegations
similar to those in the original complaints, against the same
defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 10, 2016 and
July 11, 2017.  The amended complaint generally alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On July 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018, and defendants filed a
reply on October 4, 2018.  The court held oral argument on the
motion to dismiss on February 6, 2019.  By order dated April 30,
2019, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.  

On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the
District Court's opinion and order of dismissal of the Complaint.
The plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief on the appeal
on October 23, 2019.  Defendants'/appellees' response brief is due
on November 22, 2019, and plaintiffs'/appellants' reply brief is
due on December 13, 2019.   

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the formulation, development, and commercialization of therapies
for diseases and conditions of the eye using its bioresorbable
hydrogel platform technology. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Health Club, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania Health Club, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05694-MAK (E.D. Pen., Dec. 3, 2019).

Pennsylvania Health Club, Inc. offers a total fitness gym
experience with an indoor pool, group fitness classes, personal
training and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



PENNSYLVANIA: Wardlow Sues PHEAA Over Issues With Student Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE WARDLOW, CHRIS STEVENS, MEGAN MUSSER a/k/a MEGAN HOLLAND,
ADELE TURNAGE, BRITTANY KING, YANNET LATHROP, SENIQUA JOHNSON, SETH
SHELLEY, TANUJA GOULET ARANY, AMANDA LEONE, HEATHER PRUESS, MEAGAN
PRYOR, LAURA BRADY, JAMIE COLEMAN a/k/a JAMIE MCFARLAND, ADELA
LEVIS, ANDREA DAVIS, KATIE BONHAM, AMANDA MILLER, NATHAN HARIG,
NICHOLE WOLFF, and GARIMA GUPTA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY d/b/a FEDLOAN SERVICING and d/b/a
AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
and ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of
Education, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05278-CDJ (E.D. Pa.,
Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to enjoin the unlawful and deceptive acts and
practices of PHEAA.

The Plaintiffs assert that PHEAA distributed false and misleading
information regarding borrowers' loans, distributed incorrect
process of borrowers' payments, and delayed applications for Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Teacher Education Assistance for
College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant, and Income Driven
Repayment Plan (IDR) programs.

According to the complaint, student loan debt is the largest
category of non-housing related consumer debt in the United States,
with more than $1.34 trillion outstanding at the end of June 2017.
The overwhelming majority of student loans in the United States are
owned by the federal government through the Department and its
secretary, Elisabeth DeVos.

Since June 2009, PHEAA has served as one of four primary servicers
of federal student loan debt. PHEAA's loan servicing business
operates as FedLoan Servicing (FedLoan) and manages a loan
portfolio worth approximately $330 billion. The Department pays
PHEAA an average monthly fee of $2.09 for each of the approximately
7.5 million unique borrowers PHEAA services. PHEAA also earns
interest on student loans in its portfolio, in addition to
receiving subsidies and special allowance payments from the
Department of Education.

In exchange, PHEAA acts as a middleman between the Department and
the borrowers of federally-owned loans. PHEAA is responsible for
not only collecting loan payments, but also offering payment plans,
providing advice, and administering federal programs designed to
help borrowers effectively manage the increasing cost of higher
education. This includes several IDRs, which provide qualifying
borrowers with relief from student loan debt by adjusting their
payments to a reasonably affordable amount based on their income,
occupation, and family size. Borrowers enrolled in an IDR can also
apply to have their federal loans forgiven after a certain number
of payments and/or meeting other criteria.

However, helping borrowers discharge their debt sooner directly
conflicts with PHEAA's own financial interest in keeping loans
active for as long as possible to continue collecting monthly
servicing fees, the Plaintiffs allege. In order to maximize fees,
the Plaintiffs assert, PHEAA implemented a scheme during the Class
Period to boost revenue by extending the duration of loans in its
portfolio through at least three unlawful means, including PHEAA
delaying or failing to process original applications and annual
certification paperwork under the PSLF and TEACH programs. By
delaying or failing to process borrowers' application and
re-certification paperwork, PHEAA extended the duration of loans in
the PSLF and TEACH programs, allowing PHEAA to collect more in
monthly servicing fees.

As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class have either: lost out on
months or years of qualifying loan payments that would have brought
them closer to loan forgiveness under the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR
programs; incurred thousands of dollars in additional student debt
when their TEACH Grants were converted into loans; been
overcharged; or otherwise disadvantaged when they were unable to
utilize federal programs designed to make their education more
affordable.

Created in 1963 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) has evolved
into one of the nation's leading student aid organizations. Today,
PHEAA is a national provider of student financial aid services,
serving millions of students and thousands of schools through its
loan guaranty, loan servicing, financial aid processing, outreach,
and other student aid programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura K. Mummert, Esq.
          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399 4770
          E-mail: lmmumert@lowey.com
                  achristina@lowey.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 15222
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  ktucker@carlsonlynch.com


POINT LOMA: Veal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Veal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POINT LOMA NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, a California Non-Profit
Corporation, Case No. 37-2019-00064165-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks damages for unpaid wages and
unpaid premium pay under the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order,
and restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were non-exempt employees and were
paid on a piece-rate basis or "Course Rate"--a set amount for each
course taught during an academic quarter. However, the Defendant
failed to pay Class Members at least minimum wage for
non-productive work outside the classroom teaching time in
violation of Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an adjunct
instructor since August 2017.

Point Loma is a non-profit postsecondary education institution with
its main campus located in San Diego, and regional centers in
Bakersfield and San Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Phone: (310) 601-6766
          Fax: (310) 295-2385
          Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                 pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                 acherniak@hammondlawpc.com


PREFERRED LICENSING: Greene Seeks OT Wages for Security Experts
---------------------------------------------------------------
JARIUS GREENE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. PREFERRED LICENSING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00331-SPB (W.D. Pa., Nov. 8, 2019), alleges that
Preferred Licensing failed to pay Mr. Greene and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that PLS paid him and other workers the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek. He worked for PLS as a Nuclear Cyber Security
Expert.

PLS provides engineering services and major project support to meet
the needs of utilities in the areas of nuclear plant engineering;
nuclear safety & licensing; and operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


PREMIER EMPLOYEE: Gordon BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shavel Gordon and Andre Houston, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PREMIER EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 2019CH12672, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Dec. 3, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07917 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and the
putative class under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Wolfe, Esq.
          Patrick R. Grady, Esq.
          WOLFE & JACOBSON, Ltd
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 855-0500
          Email: pgrady@wj-attorneys.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Richmond, Warren Counties Sue Over Sale of Opioids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHMOND COUNTY, VIRGINIA; WARREN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA
INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; DEPOMED, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.;
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC:; ALLERGAN PLC. f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC;
ACTAVIS, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMA, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN
DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; McKESSON CORPORATION;
WALMART, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICAL
CORP.; and RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-op-45993-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 7, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants aggressively pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids
and falsely represented to practitioners that patients would only
rarely succumb to drug addiction.

The Defendants, which are pharmaceutical companies manufacturing
prescription opioids, aggressively advertised to and persuaded
practitioners to prescribe highly addictive, dangerous opioids, and
turned patients into drug addicts or dependents for their own
corporate profit, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary losses that have been
incurred, and will continue to be incurred, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

Opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the
widespread abuse of opioids has resulted in a national epidemic of
opioid overdose deaths, addictions, and dependencies. The opioid
epidemic is "directly related to the increasingly widespread misuse
of powerful opioid pain medications."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Chapman Petersen, Esq.
          David L. Amos, Esq.
          CHAP PETERSEN & ASSOCIATES, PLC
          3970 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: 571 459 2512
          Facsimile: 571 459 2307
          E-mail: jcp@petersenfirm.com
                  dla@petersenfirm

               - and -

          Jon Ward, Esq.
          Paul D. Coates, Esq.
          PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC
          3203 Brassfield Road
          Greensboro, NC 27410
          Telephone: 336 282 8848
          Facsimile: 336 282 8409
          E-mail: jward@pckb-law.com
                  pcoates@pckb-law.com

               - and -

          Jacob B. Daniel, Esq.
          DANIEL THOMAS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          139 E. Main Street, P.O. Box 999
          Yanceyville, NC 27379
          Telephone: 336 694 4363
          Facsimile: 336 694 6601
          E-mail: jdaniel@danielthomaslaw.com

               - and -

          John S. Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS LAW FIRM
          Seven-0-Seven Building
          707 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 310
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: 540 985 8625
          Facsimile: 540 345 9950
          E-mail: jselaw@edwardsva.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Vaughan, Esq.
          DONALD R. VAUGHAN & ASSOCIATES
          612 W. Friendly Avenue
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: 336 273 1415
          Facsimile: 866 903 1301
          E-mail: don.vaughan@vaughanlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Anderson Davis, Esq.
          Samuel L. Lucas, Esq.
          Lee B. Carter, Esq.
          BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER, RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
          P.O. Box 5007
          Rome, GA 30162-5007
          Telephone: 706 291 8853
          E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com
                  slucas@brinson-askew.com
                  lcarter@brinson-askew.com

               - and -

          Robert H. Smalley, Esq.
          McCAMY, PHILLIPS, TUGGLE & FORDHAM, LLP
          P.O. Box 1105
          Dalton, GA 30720-1105
          Telephone: 706 508 4292
          Facsimile: 706 278 5002
          E-mail: rsmalley@mccamylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Finnell, Esq.
          THE FINNELL FIRM
          1 West Fourth Ave., Suite 200
          Rome, GA 30162-0063
          Telephone: 706 235 7272
          Facsimile: 706 235 9461
          E-mail: bob@finnellfirm.com

               - and -

          John W. Crongeyer, Esq.
          CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, PC
          2170 Defoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, Georgia 30318
          Telephone: 404 542 6205
          Facsimile: 404 872 3745
          E-mail: jyw552020@gmail.com

               - and -

          William Q. Bird, Esq.
          Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq.
          BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2170 Defoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: 404 873 4696
          Facsimile: 404 872 3745
          E-mail: billbird@birdlawgroup.com
                  pih@birdlawgroup.com


REPP SPORTS: Court Dismisses Ringsmuth Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed the case
captioned MATTHEW C RINGSMUTH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REPP SPORTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-752-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla.), without
prejudice.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's complaint on sua sponte review.
Ringsmuth brings the class action suit against the Defendant for
unfair marketing, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment over
the nutritional content of Repp Sports' RAZE branded energy drinks.
Ringsmuth pleads diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA") as the basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.


Beginning with diversity, Judge Chappell finds that Ringsmuth
pleads that he is a Florida citizen but fails to adequately plead
Repp Sports' citizenship.  Instead, he alleges that Repp Sports is
a Florida LLC with a principal place of business in Longwood,
Florida.  But an LLC is a citizen in every state where one of its
members is a citizen.  Ringsmuth has not provided any information
about where Repp Sports' members are domiciled, so the Judge cannot
determine whether the parties are minimally diverse.  Nor does
Ringsmuth adequately allege the citizenship of the unnamed class
members.  The citizenship of unnamed potential class members can
get a complaint over the diversity hump.  But Ringsmuth does not
allege that any of the potential Plaintiffs in the case are
citizens of a diverse state.  And Ringsmuth limits his allegations
to Florida, stating that RAZE is sold across Lee County and in
thousands of Florida locations.

Ringsmuth also fails to adequately plead the amount in controversy.
The Judge finds that the sole allegation on amount in controversy
is that the total claims are well in excess of $5 million in the
aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs -- —parroting the
language of the statute.  Ringsmith provides no insight as to how
he arrives at five million dollars. A ll he tells the Court is that
he bought a "12-pack of RAZE Phantom Freeze" for an unspecified
price and that there are potentially "thousands" of other class
members.  The Judge needs more facts to determine whether Ringsmuth
claims a good-faith amount of damages.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Chappell dismissed without prejudice
Ringsmuth's Complaint without prejudice.  Ringsmuth will have the
opportunity to allege federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1653.  The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to correct the
deficiencies addressed in the Order.  Failure to do so will result
in the Court closing the case without further notice.

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

Matthew C Ringsmuth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC, Stephen
Cohen, Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC & Jordan L. Chaikin --
jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com -- Chaikin Law Firm PLLC.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: $6.9MM Accord in Kent Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered a final
judgment and an order finally approving a US$6.9 million settlement
in the derivative and class action styled Kent v. Stoelting et al
(Case No. 17-cv-00893).

The order was issued September 26, 2019.

On June 28, 2017, Jesse Kent filed a complaint alleging derivative
claims on the Company's behalf and class action claims in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

On December 22, 2017, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund
filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the Company's
behalf in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.

On March 21, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Kent and Chester County actions under the caption Kent v. Stoelting
et al (Case No. 17-cv-00893) (the "Federal Derivative Action").

On March 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated
Shareholder Derivative Complaint alleging claims on behalf of the
Company against Peter Armbruster, Mark DiBlasi, Scott Dobak,
Christopher Doerr, Ivor Evans, Brian van Helden, John Kennedy III,
Ralph Kittle, Brian Murray, Scott Rued, James Staley, Curtis
Stoelting, William Urkiel, Chad Utrup, Judith Vijums, and Michael
Ward.  The Complaint asserted claims arising out to the Company's
January 2017 announcement that it would be restating its prior
period financial statements.  The Complaint sought monetary
damages, improvements to the Company's corporate governance and
internal procedures, an accounting from defendants of the damages
allegedly caused by them and the improper amounts the defendants
allegedly obtained, and punitive damages.

On March 28, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement, which provides for certain corporate governance changes
and a US$6.9 million payment, US$4.8 million of which will be paid
by the Company's D&O carriers into an escrow account to be used by
the Company to settle the class action styled In re Roadrunner
Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
17-cv-00144) and US$2.1 million of which will be paid by the
Company's D&O carriers to cover plaintiffs attorney's fees and
expenses.

On September 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order finally approving
the settlement and a final judgment.  

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Court Okays Wisconsin Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has granted final
approval to a US$20 million settlement and a final judgment in a
consolidated class action case captioned, In re Roadrunner
Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
17-cv-00144).

The final order was entered September 26, 2019.

In 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against
the Company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R.
Armbruster.

On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 14, 2013 and
January 30, 2017, inclusive.  The CAC asserted claims arising out
to the Company's January 2017 announcement that it would be
restating its prior period financial statements and sought
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On March 29, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement agreeing to settle the action for US$20 million, US$17.9
million of which will be funded by the Company's D&O carriers
(US$4.8 million of which is by way of a pass through of the D&O
carriers' payment to the Company in connection with the settlement
of the Federal Derivative Action initiated by Jesse Kent).

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Gomez Class Suit in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it intends to
"vigorously defend" against the claims asserted in the class suit
brought by Fernando Gomez.

The class action lawsuit was brought in December 2018 against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California by
Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, alleging violation of California labor laws.

Roadrunner Transportation said, "The Company is currently
determining the effects of this lawsuit and intends to vigorously
defend against such claims; however, there can be no assurance that
it will be able to prevail.  In light of the relatively early stage
of the proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential
costs or range of costs at this time."

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


ROSE GROUP LLC: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
The Rose Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Gaynell Colburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Rose Group, LLC, Rose Casual Dining,
L.P. and Delaware Valley Rose, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03454-ADC (D. Md., Dec. 3, 2019).

The Rose Group, LLC is a general contracting firm in Jacksonville,
FL, for complete design-build construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E David Hoskins, Esq.
   The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC
   16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 662-6500
   Fax: (410) 662-7800
   Email: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com

     - and -

   Kathleen Hyland
   Hyland Law Firm, LLC
   16 E Lombard Street, Suite 400
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 777-5396
   Fax: (410) 777-8237
   Email: kat@lawhyland.com

     - and -

   R Bruce Carlson , Jr, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela& Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


RW DIRECT: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH PATTERSON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RW DIRECT, INC., POSITEC
USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-CV-00055 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, (i) dismissed the Plaintiff's individual claims
with prejudice, and (ii) dismissed the putative class claims
without prejudice to the class members.

On Jan. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a proposed class action
against the Defendants involving the WORX WG782 14-Inch 24 Volt
Cordless Mower, alleging claims for (1) Breach of Express Warranty,
(2) Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Breach of Express Warranty
(Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) (4) Declaratory Judgment Act, (5)
Breach of Express Warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act),
(6) Breach of Implied Warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act), (7) Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (8) Unfair Competition Law,
(9) Breach of Express Warranty Under Cal. U. Com. Code Section
2313), and (10) Breach of Implied Warranty Under Cal. U. Com. Code
Section 2314.

The proposed class is not certified in the matter and no motion for
certification has been made or is pending.

Based on the limited exposure of the case in the press, it is
highly unlikely that any putative class member has relied on the
filing of the action.  Furthermore, no putative class members have
filed any other action, or contacted any of the parties, or sought
to intervene in the action.

The class counsel is unaware of the identities of any putative
class members and therefore, cannot notify the unnamed class
members of the dismissal if required to do so.  The class counsel
is not aware of any danger that absent class members will be
prejudiced by a rapidly approaching statute of limitations.  The
filing of a class action on both federal and state law claims tolls
the applicable statute of limitations for members of the putative
clas.

The interests of the putative class members are not being
compromised by the Plaintiff's individual settlement as it was
reached after testing conducted on the Plaintiff's WORX mower by
his expert did not substantiate the alleged defect claims.

The parties have agreed to, and Judge Chhabria approves, the
dismissal of the action on the following terms (i) dismissal of the
Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice, (ii) dismissal of the
putative class claims without prejudice to class members, and (iii)
for the parties to each bear their respective attorney's fees and
costs of suit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RSDg4a from Leagle.com.

Keith Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, John Lewis
Holcomb, Jr. -- JHOLCOMB@KHSLAW.COM -- Kramer Holcomb Sheik LLP,
Stephanie Elyse Charlin , Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP & Christopher
B. Noyes -- cn@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck LLP.

RW Direct, INC, Defendant, represented by Eric Y. Kizirian --
Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith, Evan Margosian Sauda -- evan.sauda@nelsonmullins.com --
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Fred M. Wood, Jr. --
fred.wood@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough
LLP, Michael K. Grimaldi -- mgrimaldi@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis
Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & William Harding Latham --
bill.latham@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough,
LLP.

POSITEC USA, INC., Defendant, represented by Eric Y. Kizirian,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, Michael K. Grimaldi, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & William Harding Latham, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough, LLP.


SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Removes Charles Suit to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOHN CHARLES; AMY POOLE; JAMES
POPPENHOUSE; and JASON KUKLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC.,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Judicial
Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Sangamon (Case
No. 2019-L-217) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois on November 20, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Central District of Illinois assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03266-SEM-TSH. The case is assigned to Judge Sue E
Myerscough and referred to Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins.

Scheels All Sports Inc. provides sporting goods. The Company offers
equipment for hunting, fishing, camping, water sports, winter
sports, football, soccer, basketball, baseball, softball, and
volleyball. Scheels All Sports operates throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Mise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@pwcklegal.com

               - and -

           Jonathan T. Nessler, Esq.
           THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK W. NESSLER
              & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
           536 North Bruns Lane, Suite 1
           Springfield, IL 62702
           Telephone: (217) 698-0202
           E-mail: jtnessler@nesslerlaw.com


SHOE SHOW: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Shoe Show, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Shoe Show, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05690-JS
(E.D. Pen., Dec. 3, 2019).

Shoe Show, Inc. is an American footwear retailer based in Concord,
North Carolina. It operates shoe stores throughout the United
States under the brands Shoe Show, The Shoe Dept., The Shoe Dept.
Encore, Shoebilee!, Burlington Shoes, and Shoe Show Mega.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



SI-BONE INC: Still Faces Fromer Chiropractic TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that it believes that it has "meritorious defenses"
against the claims in the class action, styled Eric B. Fromer
Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc.  The Company also stated that
it intends to continue to defend itself in the action.

On February 6, 2019, a putative class action captioned Eric B.
Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil Action No.
5:19-cv-633-SVK), was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and putative
classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.  The complaint
alleges that the Company sent invitations to an educational dinner
event to health care providers by way of facsimile transmission.

The TCPA prohibits using a fax machine to send unsolicited
advertisements not including proper opt-out instructions or to send
unsolicited advertisements to persons with whom the sender did not
have an established business relationship.

On August 5, 2019, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the case.

SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant
system in the United States and Internationally. It offers iFuse,
an implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint to treat sacroiliac
joint dysfunction that causes lower back pain. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


SIXTH GEAR: Harlow Sues Over Misleading Claims on CBD Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Harlow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIXTH GEAR DISTRIBUTION, a South Carolina limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-13568-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich., Dec.
3, 2019), is brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased the
Defendant's Experience CBD Products, including CBD Gummies, for
personal use and not for resale.

With knowledge of growing consumer demand for products containing
cannabidiol (CBD), the Defendant has intentionally created a
marketing scheme designed to target these consumers, says the
complaint.

The Defendant makes numerous false and misleading claims on the
front label of its CBD Products, as well as on the retail Web site
selling its CBD Products to illustrate and convey to consumers the
level of potency associated with benefits that consumers can expect
to receive through their consumption, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiff adds that the Defendant's multiple and prominent
systematic misrepresentations regarding the amount of CBD in the
Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices
that harm the public.

Accordingly, Plaintiff and each of the Class members have suffered
an injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive, and misleading practices. The Plaintiff brings this
lawsuit based on the Defendant's unlawful and unconscionable
consumer practices under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, as
well as the Defendant's breach of express warranty or alternatively
breach under common law warranty and contract law, breach of
implied warranty, and breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Commerce Township,
Michigan, who purchased Experience CBD Assorted Gummies 900mg
strength, 30 pack, at a cost of $31.99.

The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the
CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State
of Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Phone: 313.303.3472
          Email:nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
                 klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and –

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Justin Day, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 justin@gregcolemanlaw.com


SSK DONUTS: Joell Seeks to Recover Damages Under NYLL and NYWTPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KOVAN JOELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SSK DONUTS LLC and SSK DONUTS 2 LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 615609/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 7, 2019), seeks to
recover damages and other legal and equitable relief against the
Defendants under the New York State Labor Law and the New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was throughout his entire
employment with the Defendants, a covered, nonexempt employee,
entitled to be paid in full for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from July 2017 through
October 6, 2019.

The Defendants own and operate Dunkin' Donuts restaurants. The
Defendants are Fast Food Establishments as is defined in the New
York Hospitality Industry Wage Order.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Awaits Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement entered by the
parties in the class action suit entitled, Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco,
et al., remains subject to court approval.

On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of HNH
challenging the Company's acquisition, through a subsidiary, of all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of HNH not already owned
by the Company or any of its affiliates.  The action names as
defendants the former members of the HNH board of directors, the
Company and SPH GP, and alleges, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the former public
stockholders of HNH in connection with the aforementioned
acquisition.  The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement of the case,
solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to resolve each of the
plaintiff's claims as against the defendant parties.  In the
settlement, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff class
US$30,000, but denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or
committed any violation of law or breach of duty and stated that
they believe they acted properly, in good faith, and in a manner
consistent with their legal duties.  The settlement is subject to
court approval.

Steel Partners said, "Our insurance carriers have agreed to
contribute an aggregate of US$17,500 toward the settlement amount.
The Company recorded a charge of US$12,500 in Selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of income for
the nine months ended September 30, 2019, which consisted of the
legal settlement of US$30,000 (included in Accrued liabilities at
September 30, 2019), reduced by US$17,500 of insurance recoveries
(included in Trade and other receivables) at September 30, 2019.
The Company made a demand of an aggregate of US$10,000 in further
contributions from two insurance carriers, which the carriers
declined, and we are pursuing claims in court to endeavor to
recover this sum, although there can be no assurance as to the
outcome of this litigation."

Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide. It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation 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
plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, Maderazo, et al. v.
VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et
al., have not requested further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including the
company's Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio
regional hospitals violated Section §1 of the federal Sherman Act
by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging
compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that
reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses.

The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In January 2019, the district court issued an opinion denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs'
subsequent appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied in March 2019.

In April 2019, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' request
for additional review of the district court's ruling, and the
company learned in August 2019 that the plaintiffs did not request
further review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are now
proceeding on behalf of the three named individuals.

Tenet said, "We will continue to vigorously defend against the
plaintiffs’ allegations."

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.


TILE SHOP: Faces Class Action over Decision to Delist from NASDAQ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, that
on November 5, 2019, a class action and derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company and its directors by a plaintiff's law firm with K-Bar
Holdings LLC listed as plaintiff.  The complaint was filed again by
the same law firm on November 7, 2019 with Wynnefield Capital, Inc.
as the plaintiff.  The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty
in connection with the Company's decision to delist from Nasdaq and
deregister its common stock under the Exchange Act and directors'
purchases of common stock.  The complaint includes derivative
claims and seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Company from
deregistering its common stock, injunctive relief to prevent
additional stock purchases, and unspecified damages.  A temporary
restraining order (the "TRO") was entered on November 8, 2019 that
prohibits the Company from filing a Form 15 to complete the
proposed deregistration and additional stock purchases by
directors.  The Company expects that a full preliminary injunction
hearing will be held within 30 days to determine if the
prohibitions set forth in the TRO will be continued.

Due to the litigation, the Company will not file the Form 15 as
scheduled.

In its November 12, 2019 Form 8-K filing, the Company provided an
update regarding its delisting from The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
("Nasdaq") and proposed deregistration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

On November 1, 2019, the Company filed a Form 25 with the SEC to
delist its common stock from Nasdaq and deregister its common stock
under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The Company has been informed by Nasdaq that the last
trading day of the Company's common stock on the Nasdaq market is
expected to be November 8, 2019.  The Company expects that its
common stock will be quoted on the Pink tier of the OTC Markets,
subject to the continued commitment of market makers to making a
market in the Company's stock.

The Company previously announced that it intended to file a Form 15
with the SEC on or about November 12, 2019, at which time the
Company's obligations to file periodic reports under the Exchange
Act, including annual, quarterly and current reports on Form 10-K,
Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, respectively, would be suspended, and all
requirements associated with being an Exchange Act-registered
company, including the requirement to file current and periodic
reports, would terminate 90 days thereafter.

A temporary restraining order (the "TRO") was entered on November
8, 2019 that prohibits the Company from filing a Form 15 to
complete the proposed deregistration and additional stock purchases
by directors.

The Company believes that the complaint contains numerous false and
misleading statements that create a narrative regarding the
Company's delisting and proposed deregistration that is untrue.
The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and
intends to contest the litigation vigorously.

The delay in filing the Form 15 will require the Company to
continue to file periodic reports with the SEC and comply with SEC
regulations but will have no impact on the termination of trading
of the Company's common stock on Nasdaq.  If the TRO expires or is
lifted, the Company will be required to reassess if it is eligible
to file the Form 15 at that time.

The Company continues to believe that the delisting and proposed
deregistration are in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders.  The Company believes that it is unfortunate that the
ability of the Company to achieve the expected cost savings from
the deregistration has been impeded by the litigation.

The Company does not expect the litigation to have any impact on
the day-to-day operation of the Company's business and its retail
stores.  The Company remains fully open for business.


TILE SHOP: Wynnefield Capital Seeks to Enjoin Go-Dark Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
WYNNEFIELD CAPITAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TILE SHOP HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff v. ROBERT A. RUCKER, PETER
J. JACULLO III, PETER H. KAMIN, CABELL LOLMAUGH, TODD KRASNOW, and
PHILIP B. LIVINGSTON, the Defendants; and TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2019-0897
(Del. Ch., Nov. 7, 2019), seeks to enjoin Tile Shop and its Board
of Directors from going dark.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to:

   -- enjoin Defendants Rucker, Jacullo, and Kamin and anyone
      acting with them, from purchasing more Tile Shop stock on
      the open market;

   -- compel the Board to adopt a poison pill or negotiate a
      standstill agreement to stop Defendants Rucker, Jacullo,
      and Kamin and their affiliates from buying more Tile Shop
      stock absent a deal providing the Company's public
      stockholders a proper control premium above the Company's
      October 21, 2019 market price;

   -- impose a constructive trust over the shares that Defendants
      Rucker, Jacullo, and Kamin acquired through their Delisting
      Scheme; and

   -- award monetary resulting from the Tile Shop Board's
      breaches of fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the case involves a board that is
purposely letting half of its members--including the known repeat
fraudster who founded the company--buy a controlling stake in the
company through open market purchases at depressed prices, without
paying a fair price, much less a control premium. Instead of
adopting a poison pill or taking other defensive measures to
protect public stockholders in the face of a change of control
transaction executed in the open market, this board helped turn a
slowly developing creeping takeover into a modern street sweep.

The board of directors of a Delaware corporation has a fundamental
duty and obligation to "protect the corporation enterprise," and to
defend stockholders "from harm reasonably perceived, irrespective
of its source."

In late 2017, the Board abruptly replaced a skilled and effective
Chief Executive Officer with the Company's founder despite the
founder's history of prior malfeasance. Putting the proverbial fox
back in the henhouse helped drive the stock price down, but not
quickly (or sharply) enough to let the founder and his allied
directors buy control on the open market.

On October 18, 2019, the Board made the bad faith and disloyal
decision to delist and deregister its common stock, then listed on
NASDAQ, triggering an immediate fire sale of the shares because,
among other things, many institutional investors cannot hold
unlisted shares, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff argues that
the Board knew that the Go-Dark Scheme would cause the market value
of the Company's stock to plummet, particularly because many of the
Company's institutional investors are prohibited from holding
unlisted and unregistered stock and would effectively force other
long-term stockholders to sell rather than watch their investments
dwindle.

When the Company announced that it was going dark on October 22,
2019, the Company's stock plummeted by 66%, to below $2 per share.
Immediately thereafter, Defendants Rucker, Jacullo, and Kamin began
to rapidly purchase the Company's stock at deflated market prices,
purchasing over 6.57 million shares and bringing their collective
stake to over 40% of the Company's stock as of this filing's date.

The Board has done and is doing nothing to prevent Defendants
Rucker, Jacullo, and Kamin from buying more stock and gaining
absolute control of the Company, the Plaintiff notes. To the
contrary, at the same time that it sits idly by while half its
members buy outright control in the market, the Board is moving
expeditiously to finalize its Go-Dark Scheme.

The Company has already filed a Form 25 with the SEC requesting the
delisting of its common stock, with November 8, 2019, as its last
day of trading on the NASDAQ. The Company intended to file, on
November 12, 2019, a Form 15 formally requesting the suspension of
its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act and resulting
deregistration of its common stock under Section 12(g), the lawsuit
says.

The Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of
manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance
materials, and related accessories in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch Wilmington, Esq.
          Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
          Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Ave., Suite 901
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          Jonathan Kass, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN P.A.
          44th Floor 1201 North Orange Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (302) 351-0919


TRADER JOE'S: Chau Sues over Mislabeled Oatmeal Products
--------------------------------------------------------
NORA CHAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRADER JOE'S EAST INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06596 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its oatmeal products.

Trader Joe's East Inc. ("defendant") manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells instant oatmeal containing oats and flax,
under their Trader Joe's brand ("Products"). The Products are
available to consumers from defendant's retail stores and
defendant's website and are sold in boxes containing 8 packets of
40g (320g).

The relevant front labels representations include "Instant
Oatmeal," "Oats & Flax," "Low Fat," "Low Sodium," "Whole Grain,"
"Heart Healthy," "USDA Organic" and "Organic" and include a hot,
heaping spoonful of the Product.

The Product's representations – containing a lesser amount or
lower quantity of an ingredient consumers want less of, sugar –
has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the
Products because foods with less sugar are accepted and known to be
more compatible with a healthy diet and lifestyle and the avoidance
of ailments such as diabetes and overweight. The Products are
misleading because they actually contain a greater amount or
quantity of the less desired ingredient, sugar.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the
Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it.

Trader Joe's East Inc. retails food products. The Company offers
bakery, beverages, cheese, frozen, grocery, snacks, and sweet
products. Trader Joe's East serves clients in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Ave.
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


TRUSTED MEDIA: Jones Files Suit under American Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trusted Media Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Trusted Media
Brands, Inc. and RDA Enthusiast Brands, LLC doing business as:
Tasteofhome.com, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06783 (E.D. N.Y.,
Dec. 3, 2019).

Trusted Media Brands, Inc., formerly known as the Reader's Digest
Association, Inc., is an American multi-platform media and
publishing company that is co-headquartered in New York City and
White Plains, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Voluntary Dismissal Notice in Diva Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD., Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05546-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiff Diva Limousine, Ltd.'s
Notice of Voluntarily Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Oct. 7, 2019, Plaintiff Diva Limousine filed a Notice of
Voluntarily Dismissal.  That Notice included dismissal of all
individual claims with prejudice and dismissal of all class claims
without prejudice, with each side to bear its own fees and costs.

That same day, the Court issued an Order Requesting Information
from the Parties.  Specifically, it requested that the parties
provide information about the scope and nature of the publicity
associated with the putative class action, so that it might
appropriately safeguard the interests of the absent Plaintiffs.

Shortly thereafter, the counsel for the Defendants lodged a letter
with the Court challenging the Court's jurisdiction to issue such
an order.  The Counsel stated that the Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal had been filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), which permits voluntary dismissal
by the Plaintiff without a court order before the opposing party
servers either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
However, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) also states that it is subject to Rule
23(e).

Rule 23(e), in turn, states that the claims of a certified clas may
be voluntarily dismissed only with the Court's approval.  The
Counsel relies on the language to conclude that -- because teh
Defendant never filed an answer and because the proposed class was
never certified -- court approvalnot required for the Plaintiff's
voluntary dismissal.

As noted in the Court's previous order, in Diaz v. Trust Territory
of Pac. Islands, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 23(e) is
applicable to precertification class actions.  The Counsel is
correct in noting that Diaz predates the 2003 and 2007 amendments
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  However, courts in the
Northern District have continued to apply Diaz to cases such as the
instant one.  More specifically, courts have noted some uncertainty
about whether Rule 23(e) still applies to pre-certification
settlement proposals but have generally assumed that it does apply.
Pre-certification review is appropriate because it affords a
safeguard against any significant reliance interest of putative
class members who received notice of the action but not its
dismissal, and are thus unaware of, e.g., statute of limitation
issues consequential to dismissal.  It also safeguards against any
potential abuse of the class action process.  

Following the general practice of the district, Judge Chen finds
that the Court does have jurisdiction to inquire into the publicity
associated with the putative class action, and that doing so is
appropriate.  As a result, he turns to the responses provided by
the parties.

The response provided by the Plaintiff's counsel notes that
publicity associated with the case has principally appeared in
legal press and that The Daily Journal has referenced the case only
three times.  It further observes that coverage in the popular
press has been "modest" and principally concerned with the filing
of the complaint and the disqualification of the Keller Lenkner
firm.

With respect to information shared with the putative class members,
the letter alleges that the counsel has communicated with less than
a half dozen putative class representatives/class members and no
information about the case has been shared with the public or
putative class members other than the information, whether verbatim
or in summary, that appears as a matter of record in the action,
and strategic matters covered by the work product doctrine
concerning the suitability of certain individual and types of
entities to serve as class representatives.

Based on the foergoing, Judge Chen granted the Plaintiff's Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal.  His Order disposes of Docket No. 139.  The
Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/G5PLld from Leagle.com.

Diva Limousine, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Geibelson
-- mgeibelson@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Aaron M.
Sheanin -ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Ashley
Conrad Keller -- ack@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC, pro
hac vice, Seth Adam Meyer -- sam@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller
Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice, Thomas Kayes -- tk@kellerlenkner.com --
Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice, Travis Lenkner --
tdl@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice & Warren
D. Postman -- wdp@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner, pro hac
vice.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA,
LLC
& UATC, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian C. Rocca --
brian.rocca@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kent
Michael Roger -kroger@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Minna L. Naranjo -- minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius & Sujal Shah -- sujal.shah@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Universal Athletic Club, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Universal Athletic Club, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05693-CDJ (E.D. Pen., Dec. 3, 2019).

Universal Athletic Club in Lancaster, PA offers a total fitness gym
experience with an indoor pool, group fitness classes, personal
training and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Suit Over Unlawful Termination Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerrie Dekker, Karen Barajas, as executor of the estate of Thompson
Bryson, Marlene Rogers, Daniel Thompson, Jae Chong, Marci Hulsey,
Cindy Piini, Phyllis Runyon, Gennie Hilliard, and Juan Bautista
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., VIVINT SOLAR
DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC, DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-07918 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019), arises
from certain misrepresented termination fees imposed by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that these termination fees constitute
unlawful penalties that are void and unenforceable under California
Civil Code; unlawful and unfair under California's Unfair
Competition Law; and unconscionable under California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, at consumers' front doors and around
their kitchen tables, Vivint Solar sales representatives falsely
promise consumers they will only pay for the energy they use.
Touting the simplicity of a single, lower energy bill, sales
representatives boast about the ease of transferring the Solar
System if a consumer sells her home, which is also false. Further,
claiming the Solar System will actually increase property value,
and they assure consumers installation and customer service is
their forte. It most certainly is not, the Plaintiffs assert.

Vivint Solar advertises and represents that it will design,
install, and maintain these Solar Systems "for free." What
consumers learn later is that in exchange for "free" Solar Systems
and the promised energy savings, consumers are obligated to
purchase all of the power produced by the Solar System installed on
their homes leading to multiple energy bills and higher costs. Even
when a Solar System is offline or broken, regardless of the cause,
the Vivint Solar can still charge the consumer estimated monthly
rates under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

Contrary to Vivint Solar's representations, the PPAs contain
onerous terms regarding early termination or transfer of the
agreement, the Plaintiffs allege. Specifically, the contracts
contain "buy out payments," "prepayment prices," and "default
payments" that consumers will be required to pay in the event of
early termination of their contract. These termination fees
generate substantial revenues and profits for Vivint Solar, but
pose grave financial danger to consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of California, who are consumers of the
Defendants.

Vivint Solar, Inc. is a limited liability corporation formed under
the laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                 jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and –

          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 428
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 227-3998
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          Email: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com


WELLS FARGO: Cornelius Sues over Unlawful Banking Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CAMPBELL CORNELIUS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-mc-00541 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2019) is an action
seeking redress for the Defendant's unfair and deceptive  practice
of restraining out-of-state bank accounts to enforce default
judgments arising from fraudulent leases assigned to the
Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated are some of the thousands of victims of Northern Leasing
Systems, Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates, including but not
limited to Lease Finance Group LLC, MBF Leasing LLC, Lease
Source-LSI, LLC, Golden Eagle Leasing LLC, and Pushpin Holdings LLC
(collectively, "Northern Leasing"). Northern Leasing traps small
businesses into non-cancellable lease agreements for over-priced
credit card processing equipment, and then abuses judicial process
by obtaining default judgments based on these leases in the Civil
Court of the City of New York.

Wells Fargo conspired with Northern Leasing against the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated account holders to illegally restrain
funds in their deposit accounts located in jurisdictions other than
the jurisdiction from which the restraining notice or equivalent
process issued (the "Restraining Jurisdiction"). Wells Fargo
restrained funds deposited in Plaintiff's South Carolina savings
account based on a New York restraining notice, on information and
belief served in New York, and funds in similarly situated account
holders' accounts located in jurisdictions other than the
Restraining Jurisdiction, despite knowing such acts to be contrary
to law.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and
institutional customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
          Phillip D. Barber, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
          1410 Laurel Street
          Post Office Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
                  cpk@harpootlianlaw.com
                  pdb@harpootlianlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Failed to Properly Reply to RFIs & NOEs, Tanner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY TANNER, MAXIMILIANO OLIVERA, and DON McCOY, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02611 (N.D. Ohio,
Nov. 7, 2019), accuses the Defendant of failing to properly respond
to requests for information and to correct any of the errors
asserted in notices of error.

According to the complaint, Wells Fargo failed to provide a
substantive written response to the Plaintiffs' and Subclass
members' Requests for Information (RFI) and/or failed to correct
any of the errors asserted in their Notices of Error (NOE) within
the applicable timeframes of 10 or 30 business days of receipt,
that is, within 10 or 30 business days of arrival at the Designated
Address. Instead, Wells Fargo replied to their RFIs and NOEs with
Active Litigation Letters.

The Plaintiffs' and Subclass members' RFIs and NOEs requested
specific information related to their loans, and/or asserted that
Wells Fargo committed specific errors related to the servicing of
their loans.

As a result of Wells Fargo's assertion of an erroneous "active
litigation" exception to its obligations under Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and Regulation X, the Plaintiffs and
Subclass members were required to send additional "qualified
written requests" in the form of NOEs, the Plaintiffs contend. Had
Wells Fargo adequately responded to the Plaintiffs' and Subclass
members' initial RFIs and/or NOEs, they would not have needed to
send additional NOEs regarding Wells Fargo's erroneous assertion of
an "active litigation" exception to its obligations under RESPA and
Regulation X.

The Plaintiffs and Subclass members were harmed by Wells Fargo's
failure to adequately respond to their RFIs and/or NOEs because it
required them to incur the time and expenses associated with
sending the subsequent NOEs after receiving Active Litigation
Letters from Wells Fargo. As a result of Wells Fargo's actions,
Wells Fargo is liable to the Plaintiffs and Subclass members for
actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees, the
lawsuit says.

Wells Fargo is a federal depository institution.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
          Matthew C. De Re, Jr.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, PC
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com


YANGTZE RIVER: Bid to Nix Behrendsen Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by
Michael Behrendsen is pending.  The motion has been fully briefed.

On January 2, 2019 a class action complaint has been filed with the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York on
behalf of Michael Behrendsen against the Company, Xiangyao Liu, Xin
Zheng and Tsz-Kit Chan (the "Complaint").  The two-count Complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The Court recently entered an Order approving of
lead counsel and lead plaintiff.

On June 3, 2019, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, asserting the same two causes of action, albeit with
greater verbosity.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company's purported lease of the Wuhan Yangtze River Newport
Logistics Center, the Company's main asset, was a fabrication; (2)
the Company's only operating subsidiary, Wuhan Newport, was
declared insolvent in China due to a number of default judgments
against it; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The class action seeks to recover damages against the defendants'
actions.

On July 17, 2019, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim.  That motion is still
pending, though it has been fully briefed.  Finally, as of the date
of the Form 10-Q report, no class has yet to be certified.

Yangtze River said, "Management believes that the Company will
prevail this lawsuit, and any resolution will not have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition or results of operations
of the Company."

Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited, formerly Yangtze River
Development Limited, incorporated on December 23, 2009, is a
holding company. The Company conducts its operations through its
subsidiary Energetic Mind Limited (Energetic Mind), which operates
through its subsidiary Ricofeliz Capital (HK) Ltd (Ricofeliz
Capital), which operates through its subsidiary Wuhan Yangtze River
Newport Logistics Co., Ltd (Wuhan Newport), an enterprise that
primarily engages in the business of real estate and
infrastructural development with a port logistics center located in
Wuhan, Hubei Province of China. The company is based in New York,
New York.



                            *********

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 ***