CAR_Public/191213.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 13, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 249

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Faces Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation
ABBVIE INC: Summary Judgment Ruling under Appeal
ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act
ANIXTER INT'L: Kent Securities Suit Questions Proposed CD&R Sale
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Garner Wage & Hour Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky

BELLACOR.COM INC: Faces Inga Suit Over False Reference Pricing
BLUE POINT AUTO: Violates FLSA, Ozkilinc Suit Asserts
BOB HENRIQUEZ: Sheltair Aviation Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CALERES INC: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Gagliastre Appeals E.D. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir.

CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Roberts Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Thomas Moves for Certification of Class
CORECIVIC INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ndambi FLSA Suit
COTTI FOODS: Blanchard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COTTON COMMERCIAL: Cabre Moves to Certify Class of Laborers

COTY INC: Phillips Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Diehl Class Suit
CYPRESS ENERGY: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors
ELITE EYE CARE: Class of Hourly Employees Certified in Wood Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Guzman FCRA Suit in New York

EXELON CORP: Sellers's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Victorino Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Distributors' OT Wages, Busby Claims
FONTANA & FONTANA: Bardales Moves to Certify Louisiana Class
FORD MOTOR: Sued by Latimer for Interfering Rights Under FMLA

FRONT YARD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 30
GANLEY FORD: Faces Bluford-Curry Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Class of Deaf Persons Certified in NAD Suit
HP PROPERTY: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Files Suit in S.D. California

INVICTUS INC: Refuses to Pay Trainees' OT Wages, Ciavolino Says
JOMAR CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Alvarenga Says
LANPHERE ENTERPRISES: Knecht Sues Over Unfair Car Sales Practices
LENDUP GLOBAL: Faces Alsuliman Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.7MM Gonzalez-Tzita Deal Gets Prelim. Approval

LUCKY BRAND: Issues Inaccurate Wage Statements, Echeverria Claims
LUNA'S RESTAURANT: Illegally Withheld Earned Wages, Flores Claims
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Bodor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Class Partly Okayed
MDL 2797: Final Judgment Entered in Wells Fargo Insurance Suit

MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Ryder Suit
MERCON CONTRACTING: Arriaga Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
METHUEN, MA: Pimentel's Bid to Certify Class of Arrestees Denied
MICHAEL KORS: Hamilton Employee Suit Removed to C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Wensley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Griesch Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kanahaiya Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts
OVINNET INC: Akhramenko Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Overarching Conspiracy Allegation Nixed

PERRIGO CO: Stay in Baton Class Suit Extended Until Feb. 10
PLOMO LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
POWER FUNDING: Faces Abante TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
PRICE CHOPPER: Sued by Fore-Heron for Mislabeling Almond Milk
QRS LLC: Bradford Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

RTA CABINET: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D Pa.
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ragis Fraud Class Suit in Vermont
SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Salvador Says
SISYPHIAN LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers Under FLSA, Doe Says
SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits

SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Employees Class Certified in Huddleston Suit
SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Manual Workers
SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS: Fails to Protect PII and PHI, Condon Claims
SRA ASSOCIATES: Zarczynski Moves for Class Certification
SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Seeks to Certify 3 Classes

TENNESSEE: Atkins Brings Appeals to 6th Circuit
TICKET LIQUIDATOR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRIAD CATALOG: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
TRUE DIALOG: Silvera Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
TRUEACCORD CORP: Peters Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

TRULIEVE INC: Faces Jaslow Suit Over Marketing That Violates TCPA
UNITED STATES: Azar Appeals Order in Philbrick Suit
VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Files ADA Class Action in New York
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Colorado

WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit
WILLIAMS TANK: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
X FINANCIAL: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
XPO PORT SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in Arrellano Suit Withdrawn
ZUMIEZ INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims Still Pending at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,500 Claims at September 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $213.0MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,701 Claims at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Morse TEC Has $0.8BB A&E Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,030 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air Canada Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.9MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $13MM Verdict against Hillshire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Mesothelioma Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 161 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $592MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes $0.5BB Reserves for Zurich
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $245.8MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $233MM Loss Reserves at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $37MM to Honeywell in 3Q 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $805,000 Liability at September 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 113 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Remains in Parsons Class Suit vs. Liggett
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $77.8MM Libby Costs at September 30


                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Faces Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that between March and May 2019,
12 putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
indirect HUMIRA purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with
biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's HUMIRA patent portfolio
violate state and federal antitrust laws.

The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Summary Judgment Ruling under Appeal
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a court order granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action suit
entitled, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., has been
appealed.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies,
health benefit providers, and other third party payers who paid for
TRTs, including AndroGel.

The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and
state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In July
2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

In February 2019, the court granted the defendants' summary
judgment motion, which the plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Seeks 60 Days' Wages Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Gunderson, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-08017 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2019), alleges violation of the
Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act and the California
Labor Code.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf former employees, who worked for
the Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or
as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the
Defendant on October 15, 2019, and within 30 days of that date, and
who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their
terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act, and the
California Labor Code.

As a consequence, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the
Defendant 60 days' wages and ERISA benefits, none of which has been
paid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.

The Defendant was a Delaware corporation located at Sunnyvale,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Reeder, Esq.
          REEDER LAW CORPORATION
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 774-4060
          Fax: (310) 295-2290

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 581-5005
          Fax: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (251) 433-8100
          Fax: (251) 433-8181


ANIXTER INT'L: Kent Securities Suit Questions Proposed CD&R Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., SAMUEL ZELL, LORD JAMES
BLYTH, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA WALKER BYNOE, ROBERT J. ECK,
WILLIAM A. GALVIN, F. PHILIP HANDY, MELVYN N. KLEIN, JAMIE MOFFITT,
GEORGE MUNOZ, SCOTT R. PEPPET, VALARIE L. SHEPPARD, WILLIAM S.
SIMON, and CHARLES M. SWOBODA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02239 (D. Del.,
Dec. 9, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Anixter will be acquired by affiliates of Clayton, Dubilier &
Rice.

On October 30, 2019, Anixter's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CD&R
Arrow Parent, LLC and CD&R Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Anixter's stockholders will receive
$82.50 in cash for each share of Anixter common stock they own.

On December 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

Among other things, the Plaintiff asserts, the Proxy Statement
omits material information regarding the Company's financial
projections, including (i) all line items used to calculate (a)
Adjusted EBITDA and (b) Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement also fails to
disclose whether the Company entered into any confidentiality
agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't
waive" provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties
from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company.

Without this information, stockholders may have the mistaken belief
that, if these potentially interested parties wished to come
forward with a superior offer, they are or were permitted to do so,
when in fact they are or were contractually prohibited from doing
so, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Anixter common stock.

Anixter is a leading global distributor of Network & Security
Solutions, Electrica & Electronic Solutions, and Utility Power
Solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Garner Wage & Hour Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Lynn Garner, Twylia Robbins, and Alisha Recktenwald
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 19-CI-002536, was removed from the
Jefferson Circuit Court, Division 13 of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky on Dec. 9, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00900-CHB to the
proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
improperly classified them, and all other individuals, who have
worked for the Company as "Utilization Management Nurses" or in
other similar job positions in Kentucky since April 24, 2014, as
exempt from the overtime pay requirements under Kentucky Wages and
Hours Act, thereby, depriving them of overtime compensation at a
rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates or pay for all
hours worked above forty hours per workweek.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Calabrese, Esq.
          Steven T. Clark, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC
          500 West Jefferson St., Suite 2000
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 333-6000
          Email: jeff.calabrese@skofirm.com
                 steven.clark@skofirm.com

               - and –

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 elevy@seyfarth.com


BELLACOR.COM INC: Faces Inga Suit Over False Reference Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Inga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BELLACOR.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1- 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10406 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019), seeks
monetary damages and restitution from the Defendant arising from
its deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious prices
and corresponding phantom discounts on merchandise sold in its
e-commerce retail store, Bellacor.com.

The practice of false reference pricing occurs when a retailer
fabricates a fake regular, original, and/or former reference price,
and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price.
The result is a sham price disparity that misleads consumers into
believing they are receiving a good deal and induces them into
making a purchase. In reality, the practice artificially inflates
the true market price for these items by raising consumers'
internal reference price, and, therefore, the value, ascribed to
these products by consumers. Retailers drastically benefit from
employing false reference pricing schemes and experience increased
sales because consumers use advertised reference prices to make
purchase decisions.

Bellacor's merchandise sold through its e-commerce channel was
never offered for sale, nor actually sold, at the advertised
reference prices, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, he points out, the
advertised reference prices were false and used solely to induce
consumers into believing that the merchandise was once sold at the
reference price. Bellacor engaged in this practice knowing full
well that the advertised products were never actually offered or
sold at the advertised reference prices in order to facilitate sham
markdowns and drive sales, thereby deceiving its customers into
believing they were getting a substantial bargain.

Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and
pricing scheme, Bellacor violated California and federal law which
prohibits the advertisement of goods for sale as discounted from
former prices that are false and which prohibits the dissemination
of misleading statements about the existence and amount of price
reductions, the Plaintiffs asserts. Specifically, Bellacor
violated: California's Unfair Competition Law, Business &
Professions Code; California's False Advertising Law, Business &
Professions Code; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which
prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce" and false advertisements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, in reliance on the Defendant's false and deceptive
advertising, purchased a Fill Power White Medium King Down Cotton
Pillow from Bellacor's e-commerce retail store on his computer.

The Defendant sells lighting and home furnishings and more in its
e-commerce store to consumers throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-762-1903
          Facsimile: 619-756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                 sbraden@carlsonlynch.com


BLUE POINT AUTO: Violates FLSA, Ozkilinc Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Point Auto Wash
Realty, LLC. The case is styled as Bedri Ozkilinc, individually and
on behalf of those individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Blue Point Auto Wash Realty, LLC, Richard Doe, Frank Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06903 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bluepoint is a privately held company car wash in Blue Point, New
York, and is a Single Location business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BOB HENRIQUEZ: Sheltair Aviation Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Henriquez. The
case is styled as Sheltair Aviation Tampa LLC, Plaintiff v. Bob
Henriquez, Douglas Belden, Jim Zingale, Defendants, Case No.
19-CA-012350 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Dec. 6, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Declaratory Judgment".

Sheltair Aviation is an International Airport in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]


CALERES INC: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Himelda Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CALERES, INC. D/B/A NATURALIZER, Case No. 1:19-cv-11184
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing
in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendant's store
gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

Naturalizer operates multiple retail locations in the State of New
York, and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 770-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com


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

The appellate case is captioned as Chris Gagliastre, et al. v.
Captain George's of South Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 19-2213, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 4, 2019, the
Defendants appealed a ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is entitled Chris Gagliastre, et al. v. Captain George's of South
Carolina LP, et al., Case No. 19-2170.

The lawsuit was previously transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Carolina to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia and assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-00379-RAJ-RJK.

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRIS GAGLIASTRE, ZACHARY TARRY and OLGA
ZAYNEEVA are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Defendants-Appellees CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA LP, CAPTAIN
GEORGE'SOF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., SHERRY PITSILIDES, GEORGE
PITSILIDES and PITSILIDES MANAGEMENT, LLC, are represented by:

          Christopher Alan Abel, Esq.
          William Andrew McNinch Burke, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5554
          E-mail: cabel@wilsav.com
                  wburke@wilsav.com


CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Roberts Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONNECT AMERICA.COM,
LLC. The case is styled as JOSEPH ROBERTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CONNECT
AMERICA.COM, LLC also known as: MEDICAL ALERT, DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05765-JHS (E.D. Pa., Dec.
6, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Connect America.com, LLC provides mobile medical alert systems. The
Company offers medical alert system kit, as well as alert mobile
unit, plug in battery charger, and instruction manual.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CYNTHIA Z. LEVIN, ESQ.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          1150 FIRST AVENUE STE 501
          KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
          Phone: (888) 595-9111
          Email: czlevin@comcast.net


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Thomas Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Thomas moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled BRANDI THOMAS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01804-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CORECIVIC INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ndambi FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Desmond Ndambi, Mbah Emmanuel Abi and Nkemtoh Moses
Awombang filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Desmond Ndambi, et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-03521-RDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Richard D. Bennett (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Issuance of Notice.

The Plaintiffs are former Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") detainees who were held at the Cibola County Correctional
Facility in New Mexico while awaiting civil immigration
proceedings.  They bring the purported class action against
CoreCivic, who owns and operates the detention facility where
Plaintiffs were held pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service
Agreement between ICE and Cibola County.

The Defendant operates a work program at Cibola where detainees are
permitted to voluntarily perform work duties in the facility.  The
Plaintiffs participated in this work program at Cibola.  They filed
a complaint in the Court based on federal question, diversity, and
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 13311,
13322, and 13673.  They allege they were employees of CoreCivic
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act ("NMMWA") and were paid at a rate below that which is
required by the FLSA and NMMWA and that the Defendant was unjustly
enriched by these alleged violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Desmond Ndambi, et al. v.
CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 19-2207, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Response
Brief is due on January 9, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DESMOND NDAMBI, MBAH EMMANUEL ABI and NKEMTOH
MOSES AWOMBANG, individually and on behalf of all others, are
represented by:

          Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq.
          Robert S. Libman, Esq.
          Nancy L. Maldonado, Esq.
          Matthew Owens, Esq.
          Deanna N. Pihos, Esq.
          MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND PC
          325 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 751-1170
          E-mail: bblustein@lawmbg.com
                  rlibman@lawmbg.com
                  nmaldonado@lawmbg.com
                  mowens@lawmbg.com
                  dpihos@lawmbg.com

               - and -

          Stacy N. Cammarano, Esq.
          Michael Hancock, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: scammarano@cohenmilstein.com
                  mhancoc@cohenmilstein.com
                  jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Robert Andrew Free, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF R. ANDREW FREE
          P. O. Box 90568
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (844) 321-3221
          E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

Defendant-Appellee CORECIVIC, INC., is represented by:

          Matthew D. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Bernas, Esq.
          CARR MALONEY, PC
          2020 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Telephone: (202) 310-5541
          E-mail: matthew.berkowitz@carrmaloney.com
                  maxwell.bernas@carrmaloney.com

               - and -

          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          Rachel N. Love, Esq.
          Daniel Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI AND ACEDO PLC
          3100 West Ray Road
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: jlee@strucklove.com
                  rlove@strucklove.com
                  dstruck@strucklove.com


COTTI FOODS: Blanchard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COTTI FOODS, LLC. The
case is styled as Selena Blanchard individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTTI FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103413 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec.
6, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Cotti Foods Corporation operates a chain of restaurants. The
Company retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premises and
off-premises consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by LAURA G. VAN NOTE, ESQ.
         

COTTON COMMERCIAL: Cabre Moves to Certify Class of Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled PEDRO J. CABRE, et al. v. COTTON COMMERCIAL
USA, INC., SUPERIOR STAFFING & PAYROLL SERVICES, VCDP COMPANIES
INC., and DANIEL PAZ, in his individual capacity, Case No.
4:19-cv-10163-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   (1) authorize their case to proceed as a collective action as
       to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims;

   (2) certify a class under Florida law;

   (3) provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the names, last known
       addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all
       employees, who worked for the Defendants as laborers at
       the Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Windward Pointe and/or
       the Hilton Key Largo Resort in the Fall of 2017; and

   (4) direct the issuance of the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice to
       all prospective collective and class action members.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants Cotton Commercial USA,
Inc. ("Cotton"), Superior Staffing & Payroll Services ("SSPS"),
VCDP Companies Inc., and Daniel Paz to perform manual labor
cleaning up two hotel sites in Florida following Hurricane Irma.
The Plaintiffs pursue this action in part under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), for
violations of minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.  They
also pursue this action under Florida common law for failure to
provide compensation at a promised hourly rate higher than that of
the applicable minimum wage.

In this Motion, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant their
motion and certify an opt-in collective action for their FLSA
claims and an opt-out class action for their state law claims, as
well as appoint class counsel.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a
collective action and class action composed of "all individuals
employed by Defendants on an hourly basis to provide clean-up
services in Florida during 2017 following Hurricane Irma at the
Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Windward Pointe, and/or the Hilton
Key Largo Resort" ("Florida Class").[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Mierzwa, Jr., Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          MIERZWA & FLOYD, P.A.
          3900 Woodlake Blvd., Suite 212
          Lake Worth, FL 33463
          Telephone: (561) 966-1200
          Facsimile: (561) 966-1231
          E-mail: mmierzwa@mierzwalaw.com
                  emedeiros@mierzwalaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                  slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Kerry O'Brien, Esq.
          RESILIENCE FORCE JUSTICE PROJECT
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (202) 316-8049
          Facsimile: (773) 214-0670
          E-mail: kobrien@resilienceforce.org

Defendant Cotton Commercial USA is represented by:

          Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          777 South Flagler Driver, Suite 215-East
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 820-0248
          E-mail: Dale.evans@lockelord.com

               - and -

          J. Michael Rose, Esq.
          Rufino Gaytan III, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          600 Travis Street, Suite 2800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 226-1200
          E-mail: mrose@lockelord.com
                  rufino.gaytan@lockelord.com


COTY INC: Phillips Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case,
Phillips v. Coty, have voluntarily dismissed their complaint with
prejudice.

Two purported stockholder class action complaints concerning the
tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the "Cottage Tender Offer")
and the Schedule 14D-9 were filed by putative stockholders against
the Company and the directors of the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, but have not yet been served.

In both complaints, the plaintiffs allege that the Company's
Schedule 14D-9 omits certain information, including, among other
things, certain financial data and certain analyses underlying the
opinion of Centerview Partners LLC.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

The cases are captioned Phillips v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00628-LPS and Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00650-LPS.

On October 31, 2019, the plaintiffs in Phillips v. Coty voluntarily
dismissed their complaint with prejudice.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Diehl Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DENORA DIEHL, ROBERT COOK, JENNIFER QUEEN,
and LORELEI GORDON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-00122-KRG (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Kim R. Gibson grants the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies as moot the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The case arises out of a train derailment that occurred near
Hyndman, Pennsylvania, in August 2017.  This train was carrying
mixed freight, including propane, molten sulfur, asphalt, and
phosphoric acid residue.  The derailment resulted in a fire that
burned for two days and led to a mandatory evacuation of
approximately 1,000 people from nearby homes for varying lengths of
time.  Emergency management officials set up a mandatory evacuation
zone within a one-mile radius of the derailment and emergency
responders went door to door to ensure the evacuation of all
residents.

The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint alleging that
Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. negligently operated a train,
causing it to derail.  The Plaintiffs aver that they and other
proposed class members were subsequently forced to evacuate their
homes and subjected to inconvenience as the Defendant repaired the
derailment site.

Following the derailment, the Defendant set up community outreach
centers to assist and compensate individuals, who were
inconvenienced, required medical treatment, or suffered financial
setbacks as a result of the derailment.  Each household within the
evacuation zone was entitled to submit a claim to receive an
inconvenience payment.  The Defendant has reimbursed individuals
for expenses, such as costs of food, incidentals, hotel
accommodations, lost wages, and medical expenses.  The Defendant
additionally provided food, bottled water, transportation, and
cleaning services to those affected by the derailment and the
Defendant's outreach program is still open to the Hyndman community
for reimbursement.

In his Memorandum Opinion, Judge Gibson holds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to show physical harm to either their persons or their
property.  Although the Plaintiffs assert they suffer from fear and
anxiety as a result of the derailment, those symptoms have not
physically manifested, Judge Gibson notes.  He adds that there has
been no allegation, nor support in the record, that the fumes from
the derailment were toxic or that they caused any injuries to the
Plaintiffs or anyone else.

Judge Gibson also opines, among other things, that fear and anxiety
without physical manifestation are economic losses that are not
recoverable under Pennsylvania law.[CC]


CYPRESS ENERGY: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Diaz, Vicente Gonzalez, and Paul Martin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CYPRESS ENERGY
MANAGEMENT TIR, LLC and TULSA INSPECTION RESOURCES, LLC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00668-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., Dec. 9, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and the other workers like them
regularly worked for TIR in excess of 40 hours each week, but these
workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA, TIR improperly classified the Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a
daily rate with no overtime compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for TIR throughout the past three years as
inspectors.

TIR is an oil and gas and construction staffing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and –

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 516-7800
          Fax: (405) 516-7859
          Email: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com


ELITE EYE CARE: Class of Hourly Employees Certified in Wood Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DYLAN WOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. ELITE EYE CARE & OPTICAL, LLC, and DR.
CADE M. WILSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00026-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon.
D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies this group:

     All persons who work or worked for Elite Eye Care & Optical,
     LLC, and Dr. Cade Wilson as full-time hourly employees at
     any time since 8 February 2017.

Dylan Wood worked as a medical assistant for Elite Eye Care between
December 2017 and January 2019.  He says he was paid hourly, worked
more than 40 hours a week, and was not paid any extra for his
overtime work.  He moved to conditionally certify a collective
action, and the parties have settled in principle and stipulated to
a group.

The Court agrees that certain Elite Eye Care employees were subject
to a common wage policy and are similarly situated.  As stipulated,
Defendants Elite Eye and Wilson must provide the Plaintiff's
counsel (on an electronic spreadsheet) a list of names, addresses,
and e-mail address of group members.  The stipulated notice,
proposed consent forms, e-mail, and reminder postcard are approved
with tweaks.

Judge Marshall provides these tweaks and a schedule:

   -- Please name the employer in the group description;

   -- Remove "Court" from the subject line of the e-mail;

   -- Delete the dash in "hourly paid" each time that phrase
      appears;

   -- Plaintiff's counsel may send these messages by regular mail
      and e-mail, as agreed by the parties;

   -- There's no need for text messages, too; and

   -- Here's the schedule:

      * Elite Eye Care and Dr. Wilson must produce spreadsheet by
        December 20, 2019;

      * Notice period opens on December 27, 2019;

      * Opt-in period closes on April 10, 2020; and

      * Joint Motion to approve and dismiss or Joint Status
        Report must be filed by March 11, 2020.[CC]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Guzman FCRA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. The case is
styled as Carolina Guzman, on behalf of herself and all individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06891
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019).

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

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
credit information to financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EXELON CORP: Sellers's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 9, 2019, in the case
styled Gregory Sellers v. Exelon Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-07179 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class for Stage−One
      Conditional Certification is taken under advisement;

   -- Defendants' response shall be filed by January 15, 2020;

   -- Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by January 22, 2020; and

   -- Hearing set for January 29, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.[CC]


FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Victorino Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant FCA US LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Carlos Victorino, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 28, 2019, this
Dodge Dart clutch lawsuit has been certified as a class action, but
only for customers who purchased or leased the cars in California.

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

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Carlos Victorino, et al. v. FCA
US LLC, Case No. 19-80149, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CARLOS VICTORINO, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774-2020
          Facsimile: (844) 774-2020
          E-mail: mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8029
          E-mail: Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Kathy Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6337
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Fails to Pay Distributors' OT Wages, Busby Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Busby, Danny West, Chris Tyra, and John Tyra, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC., FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BIRMINGHAM,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01971-RDP (N.D. Ala., Dec. 6, 2019), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per week and
did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 per week, says the complaint. The Defendants improperly
classified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors, thereby,
denying them compensation and benefits provided by the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Distributors.

The Defendants manufactures, sells, and distributes bakery and
snack products to retail customers using a centralized network of
communication, distribution and warehouse facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 314-0545
          Email: rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com
                 kjent@wigginschilds.com


FONTANA & FONTANA: Bardales Moves to Certify Louisiana Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify their case titled CORNELIA
BARDALES and DONALD RUSSELL v. FONTANA & FONTANA, LLC a Louisiana
limited liability company; DARRYL M. FONTANA, an individual; and
JULES A. FONTANA, III, an individual, Case No.
2:19-cv-00340-WBV-DMD (E.D. La.), to proceed as a class action
against the Defendants for a Louisiana class of persons, who:

     (i) within one year prior to the filing of this action
     (ii) were sent a letter by Defendants in the form of Exhibit
     1 or 2, attached to the Amended Complaint, (iii) in an
     attempt to recover an alleged obligation accruing interest
     and/or fees incurred for personal, family, or household
     purposes; (iv) in which Defendants did not disclose that
     they were continuing to add interest and/or fees to the
     subject account.

On April 23, 2019, this litigation was filed as a class action
alleging that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act had been
violated.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' letters,
attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Amended Complaint, failed to
notify the Plaintiffs that interest and/or fees are continuing to
accrue on the debt.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
          3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 836-2888
          E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued by Latimer for Interfering Rights Under FMLA
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Latimer, on his own behalf and on Behalf of the Class v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-02845 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 9, 2019),
seeks damages from the Defendant for systematically interfering
with rights guaranteed under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

From the time he was approved for leave in 2010, Mr. Latimer
periodically took intermittent FMLA leave. Each time he took
intermittent FMLA leave for his migraines, Ford assessed a full or
partial absence aggregated towards the 35 absence penalty. Most
years, this was not an issue for Mr. Latimer, as he did not
ordinarily reach the 35 aggregated absences to trigger the penalty.
However, in 2018, Latimer suffered an unusually high number of
migraines, requiring him to exercise his FMLA leave more
frequently.

Ordinarily, due to his seniority, Mr. Latimer received a Vacation
Entitlement of four weeks, or 160 paid hours. However, as a result
of his exercise of FMLA leave, combined with other absences, he
exceeded the 35 aggregated absences in 2018. Mr. Latimer was
penalized with a 40-hour reduction in his vacation pay at the time
of his June 1, 2019 vacation eligibility date. Had his FMLA
absences in 2018 properly been categorized as "Excused" and
consistent with the FMLA, his Vacation Entitlement would not have
been reduced, he contends. Ford has willfully enforced this policy
in knowing violation of the FMLA, or reckless disregard of FMLA
requirements, since at least 2015, says the complaint.

John Latimer has been a UAW-member employee at the Lima Engine
Plant since 2000.

Ford Motor Company is in the business of designing and
manufacturing automobiles and employs approximately 191,000 people
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Jake A. Elliott, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 E. Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
          Phone: (419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          Email: dmj@murrayandmurray.com
                 jae@murrayandmurray.com


FRONT YARD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
court overseeing the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential
Corporation et al., has set a hearing to consider final approval of
the parties' settlement for January 30, 2020.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin
v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

The action names as Defendants the Company, its former Chairman,
William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the
Company and alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, making materially false statements
and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen"), Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A., and other third-party entities.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the Defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance
on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and
for selection of lead counsel in the action. On October 7, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be
Lead Plaintiff and denying the other motion to be Lead Plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The Plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a
hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deny the motion to
dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the Defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants'
motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the
Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration had been
denied. Shortly thereafter, discovery commenced.

On October 10, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which added a second Lead Plaintiff to the case. The
allegations and causes of action asserted by the Plaintiffs were
virtually identical to the prior complaint, except that they added
what the Plaintiffs claimed was additional detail in support of
their allegations.

On December 7, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion on December 31, 2018, and Defendants filed
their reply brief on January 24, 2019. On February 21, 2019, Judge
Thompson issued an order that granted Defendants' motion and
dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety.

On February 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 14 days. On March
12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, and on
April 12, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May
13, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion
on May 31, 2019. On June 12, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Judge Thompson granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss any alleged misrepresentation made
after each Plaintiff's final purchase of securities. Judge Thompson
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on the remaining grounds.

On June 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to certify
interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit of Judge Thompson's Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion on July 10, 2019 and Defendants' reply in
support of the motion was filed on July 24, 2019. On August 6,
2019, Judge Thompson denied Defendants' motion to certify
interlocutory appeal.

Separately, on July 5, 2019, Judge Thompson accepted the case
schedule proposed by the parties, and discovery resumed. The
deadline for the completion of fact discovery was November 8, 2019,
the deadline for the completion of expert discovery was January 30,
2020, and the deadline to submit dispositive motions was February
27, 2020.

On October 8, 2019, based on input from a mediator, the company
entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with
Plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $15.5 million in exchange
for, among various other terms, a full release of claims by
Plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of shareholders.

On the same date, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and ancillary documents,
which included the stipulation and agreement of settlement.

On October 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, approving the form and manner of notice
and setting a hearing date for final approval of the settlement for
January 30, 2020. Proceeds from the directors' and officers'
insurance policies will fund $5.5 million of the settlement.

Front Yard said, "We have included the settlement amount, net of
insurance coverage, as a component of other expense within the
interim condensed consolidated statement of operations for the
three months ended September 30, 2019."

Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in
providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in
a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to
metropolitan areas. The company is based in Christiansted, Virgin
Islands.


GANLEY FORD: Faces Bluford-Curry Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Bluford-Curry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GANLEY FORD, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-02833-SL
(N.D. Ohio, Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (224) 218-0882
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Class of Deaf Persons Certified in NAD Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson grants the Plaintiffs'
Assented-to Motion to Certify the Class for Settlement Purposes and
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit
titled NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, et al. v. HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, and the PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Case
No. 3:15-cv-30023-KAR (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"), C. Wayne Dore,
Christy Smith, and Lee Nettles commenced this putative class action
in February 2015.  On behalf of a proposed class of deaf and hard
of hearing individuals, the Plaintiffs asserted that the
Defendants, Harvard University and the President and Fellows of
Harvard College were in violation of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act because of an alleged lack of close captioning or
unintelligible captioning of videos and audio tracks made publicly
available by Harvard.  Following lengthy negotiations, the parties
have reached a settlement and executed a proposed consent decree.

Judge Robertson certified this class for settlement purposes:

     All persons (other than students of Harvard University) who,
     at any time between February 11, 2013 and the date of
     preliminary approval of this settlement, have claimed or
     could have claimed to assert a right under Title III of the
     Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the
     Rehabilitation Act, and/or other federal, state or local
     statutes or regulations that set forth standards or
     obligations coterminous with or equivalent to Title III of
     the Americans with Disabilities Act or any of the rules or
     regulations promulgated thereunder, alleging that they are
     deaf or hard of hearing and that Harvard has failed to make
     accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing online
     content posted and available for the general public that is
     produced, created, hosted, linked to, or embedded by
     Harvard.

The Court appoints Named Plaintiffs C. Wayne Dore, Christy Smith,
and Lee Nettles as class representatives.  The Court appoints these
lawyers as class counsel: Joseph Sellers, Esq., and Shaylyn
Cochran, Esq., of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Thomas P.
Murphy, Esq., Tatum A. Pritchard, Esq., and Caitlin Parton, Esq.,
of the Disability Law Center, Inc.; Amy Farr Robertson, Esq., of
the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center; Arlene Mayerson,
Esq., and Namita Gupta, Esq., of the Disability Rights Education
and Defense Fund, Inc.; and Howard Rosenblum, Esq., of the National
Association of the Deaf.

The proposed Consent Decree is preliminarily approved.  The
proposed notice and the jointly proposed plan for dissemination of
the proposed notice is also approved.

The Court sets these deadlines:

   a. Plaintiffs will issue the notice to the class by
      December 16, 2019;

   b. The deadline to submit objections to the settlement in
      accordance with the instructions in the notice is
      February 10; 2020;

   c. Responses to objections will be submitted by February 17,
      2020; and

   d. A fairness hearing will be held on February 25, 2020, at
      11:00 a.m.[CC]


HP PROPERTY: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, PIONEER ACQUISITIONS LLC,
and ASSA ABLOY INC., Case No. 2019CH14082 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty.,
Dec. 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendants, its subsidiaries
and affiliates, to redress and curtail their unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or pass codes – which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each individual. The
Defendants' use of this technology exposes workers to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendants disregards the Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated individuals' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants have violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the
Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff to
collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by
BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's fingerprints,
as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff to
disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints
to a third party as required by BIPA.

Plaintiff Joe Fisher is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Illinois.

The Defendants manage residential rental properties on the south
side of Chicago and purchase, renovate, and manage multifamily
rental buildings throughout the City of Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Files Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inmediata Health
Group Corp.  The case is styled as Vicki Stasi, Shane White,
Crystal Garcia, individually and on behalf of similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Inmediata Health Group Corp., Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02353-JM-LL (S.D. Cal., Dec.
9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Inmediata is a health care value-added intermediary providing
clearinghouse services. It provides a full suite of software and
business process outsourcing solutions for health plans, hospitals,
IPAs, and independent physicians.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


INVICTUS INC: Refuses to Pay Trainees' OT Wages, Ciavolino Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Ciavolino, Hilario Cruz, Jr., and Ronald Leblanc, for
themselves and others similarly situated v. INVICTUS INC., SPERE,
INC., PHILLIP NOBLIN, and JENNIFER RAMB, Case No. 9:19-cv-81639-RLR
(S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek for
the Defendants by working a total of 144 hours over a consecutive
two-week period of time during the training classes they attended.
The Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated overtime wages calculated at time and one-half
of their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours that they and
others similarly situated worked over 40 hours in a given workweek
during the training classes given by the Defendants, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs was hired by the Defendants to train to become armed
school security guards, or "Guardians," in charter schools in Palm
Beach County, Florida, where they would eventually work as armed
school security guards or "Guardians."

Invictus Inc. is a sui juris Florida for-profit corporation that
was authorized to conduct and actually conducted its for-profit
security business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305.230.4884
          Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com


JOMAR CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Alvarenga Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO ALVARENGA, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. JOMAR CAR WASH CORP., and JOSE PIRES, as an individual,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06169 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally prescribed
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Bronx, New York, was employed by the
Defendants from November 2011 until January 2019.

Jomar Car Wash Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in Rego Park, New York.
Jose Pires owns and operates Jomar Car Wash.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


LANPHERE ENTERPRISES: Knecht Sues Over Unfair Car Sales Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Knecht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC., a domestic corporation, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01991-AC (D. Ore., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for its unfair or deceptive motor vehicle pricing and
sales practices.

When it extends credit to purchasers, Lanphere regularly and
systematically violates the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and
Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by failing to disclose
required information to consumers concerning third-party products
that it sells to automobile purchasers, who finance their
purchases, the Plaintiff alleges.

Motor vehicle retailers are required by law to (a) itemize any
third-party products purchased in conjunction with the sale of a
vehicle and (b) disclose retention of profits in the sale of these
third-party products. Lanphere does not do either, the Plaintiff
asserts. By failing to make these required disclosures, the
Defendant deprives consumers of informed consent in their purchases
of these third-party products.

The federal Truth in Lending Act protects consumers by requiring
creditors to make certain disclosures in conjunction with the
issuance of credit, including in such situations as when the
Defendant retains a portion of the proceeds of the sales of
third-party products in conjunction with the sale and financing of
a motor vehicle, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Kia Sorento from Lanphere's
Beaverton Kia dealership.

Lanphere is a motor vehicle retailer, which owns and operates five
automobile dealerships in Oregon and routinely extends credit to
automobile purchasers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young Walgenkim, Esq.
          HANSON & WALGENKIM, LLC
          838 Commercial St NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Phone: (503) 383-1496
          Fax: (503) 766-6477
          Email: young@hansonwalgenkim.com

               - and -

          Bonner Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH LLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Phone: 541.359.2827
          Facsimile: 866.503 8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          280 Rt. 35, Suite 304
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com


LENDUP GLOBAL: Faces Alsuliman Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUCINE ALSULIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LENDUP GLOBAL, INC.; DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-09369-PSG-RAO (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31,
2019), alleges that the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

LendUp Global, INC., is a short term lending Web site.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to
the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.7MM Gonzalez-Tzita Deal Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants upon the terms and conditions
set forth in his order the Plaintiffs' Third Revised Motion for
Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
filed in the lawsuit titled LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, et al. v. CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.).

The Court preliminarily (i) certifies the class, as defined in the
Corrected Revised Settlement Agreement for purposes of settlement,
(ii) appoints Plaintiffs Leonardo Gonzalez-Tzita, Esteban Diego
Esteban, and Sidonio Lomeli as class representatives for settlement
purposes, (iii) appoints Donald W. Cook, Esq., as class counsel for
settlement purposes, and (iv) finds that the terms of the
settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties have defined the settlement class as "[a]ny registered
vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized and impounded by the City
at any time from January 11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under
the authority of Cal. Veh. Code Section 21100.4."

Pursuant to the settlement, the City will pay a total monetary
award of $1,700,000, which will be used to pay class members,
attorney's fees and costs, class administration, and incentive
payments for the class representatives.  The attorney's fees and
costs may not exceed $385,000.  Class administrative fees are
estimated to be $17,058, but any amount over $20,000 will be paid
by class counsel.

The Plaintiffs estimate the net settlement fund that will be used
to pay class members will be $1,260,500.

The Court also approves the form, substance, and requirements of
the class Notice, the Opt-Out Form, and the Update Form.  The
proposed manner of notice of the settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement constitutes the best notice practicable under
the circumstances and complies with the requirements of due
process.  JND Legal Administration, the Class Administrator, shall
complete dissemination of class notice, in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, no later than January 17, 2020.

The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for an award of class
representative incentive payments and attorney's fees and costs no
later than February 14, 2020, and notice it for hearing for the
date of the final approval hearing.

Any class member, who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement,
including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive
awards; or (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement must file
his or her objection to the settlement or request for exclusion no
later than March 17, 2020, in accordance with the Notice.

The Plaintiffs shall, no later than April 30, 2020, file and serve
a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any
objections to the settlement.  The motion shall be noticed for
hearing for the date of the final approval hearing.

The Defendants may file and serve a memorandum in support of final
approval of the Settlement Agreement and/or in response to
objections no later than May 7, 2020.

Any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval
(fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or through an
attorney, to object to the settlement, including the requested
attorney's fees, costs or incentive award, shall, no later than May
12, 2020, file with the court a Notice of Intent to Appear at
Fairness Hearing.

A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for May 21, 2020, at
10:00 a.m., to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the Settlement, as well as the award of attorney's fees and
costs to class counsel, and service award to the class
representative.

All proceedings in the Action, other than proceedings necessary to
carry out or enforce the Settlement Agreement or this Order, are
stayed pending the final fairness hearing and the Court's decision
whether to grant final approval of the settlement, Judge Olguin
further rules.[CC]


LUCKY BRAND: Issues Inaccurate Wage Statements, Echeverria Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Echeverria, on behalf of himself and on all other similarly
situated v. LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES STORES USA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; LUCKY BRAND STORES USA LLC, an unknown
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 19CV359734 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 6, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for issuing inaccurate itemized wage
statements, and seeking waiting time penalties under the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights
of all employees in issuing improper form of wage payments to him
and Class Members, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants are limited liability companies, which have numerous
retail stores throughout the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          A Professional Corporation
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
          Phone: (213) 381-1515
          Fax: (213) 465-4885
          Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: (831) 531-4214
          Fax: (831) 634-0333


LUNA'S RESTAURANT: Illegally Withheld Earned Wages, Flores Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Concepcion Flores, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. LUNA'S RESTAURANT INC. (LUNA'S
MEXICAN RESTAURANT) ELVIA LUNA AND IRAIS TELLEZ, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-06886 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2019), seeks
to remedy the Defendants' wrongful withholding of the Plaintiff's
lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation, and failure to
comply with notice and record-keeping requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law

The Plaintiff worked anywhere from 47 to 55 hours per week and was
paid at a flat fee of $35 per day. The Plaintiff was not paid at an
overtime rate of one-and-one-half her regular rate of pay for the
overtime hours that she worked nor was she paid at the minimum
wage, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker
from November 2016 until end of November 2019.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Astoria, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/


MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Bodor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as JAIMARIA BODOR, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-05787-EGS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 9, 2019).

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

MAXIMUS is an American, outsourcing company that provides business
process services to government health and human services agencies
in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the
United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CARY L. FLITTER, ESQ.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101
          NARBERTH, PA 19072
          Phone: (610) 822-0782
          Fax: (610) 667-0552
          Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Class Partly Okayed
--------------------------------------------
The Hon. David M. Lawson granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class action, to certify issue
classes, and set deadlines for submission of proposed notice in the
multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE
ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.).

According to the Court's Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs'
steering committee has identified 39 named individuals from 23
different states asserting a variety of claims on behalf of a
putative class against Defendant FCA US LLC (Chrysler) relating to
their purchase of one of three models of the Defendant's cars and
trucks all equipped with a monostable shifter.  The Plaintiffs seek
to certify a single nationwide class and either 16 or 23 subclasses
(depending on which certification scheme wins approval) under Rule
23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"But because the main thrust of the economic loss component of this
MDL is the recovery of damages, a (b)(2) class cannot be
certified," Judge Lawson opines.  "And the plaintiffs have not
satisfied their burden of establishing the predominance of common
issues over individual issues in either their multi-state or
state-by-state proposals for certification."

However, Judge Lawson explains, there are several discrete issues
that can be litigated on a collective basis to justify a
common-issues class under Rule 23(c)(4).  He says those issues will
efficiently advance the litigation of this multidistrict case, and,
therefore, the Court will certify a common-issues class, granting
in part and denying in part the motion for class certification.

Judge Lawson concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that their proposed national class is certifiable under
Rule 23(b)(2).  They also come up short on establishing that common
issues predominate over individual questions for either
state-by-state or cross-state class certification of any of their
pleaded causes of action.  Nevertheless, there are several common
questions that efficiently may be addressed by means of collective
litigation.  The Court has the discretion under Rule 23(c)(4) to
certify those discrete issues for resolution on a class-wide
basis.

Accordingly, Judge Lawson rules that the motions for class
certification are granted in part and denied in part.  The
Plaintiffs' requests to certify their proposed classes and
subclasses under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) are denied.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and (c)(4), a class is conditionally
certified in this case consisting of all persons or entities who
currently own or lease a class vehicle, which means a 2012-2014
Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand
Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter, where the vehicle
was purchased in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming, for determination of these
issues:

   * Whether the monostable gear shift has a design defect that
     renders the class vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use
     of providing safe transportation;

   * Whether the defendant knew about the defect and concealed
     its knowledge from buyers of the class vehicles; and

   * Whether information about the defect that was concealed
     would be material to a reasonable buyer.

The Plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Consolidated Master
Complaint, except for Plaintiffs Guy (Arizona); Wells (Illinois);
Vosburgh (Pennsylvania); and Craig, Gillespie, and Waggoner
(Texas), are designated as class representatives for their
respective jurisdictions.

The Court also rules that requests for class certification of any
issues or claims pleaded under the laws of Missouri (Counts LV-LVI)
and Wisconsin (Counts CXII-CXV) are denied.  The requests to
designate Plaintiffs Brooks and Hughes as class representatives for
any purpose are denied.  The lead counsel and the Plaintiffs'
steering committee are appointed as class counsel.

Counsel for the parties must meet and confer and present to the
Court on or before December 23, 2019, a proposal for a notice to
class members that complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and a method of
delivering the notice to absent class members.[CC]


MDL 2797: Final Judgment Entered in Wells Fargo Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, has entered a final
judgment in the case, IN RE WELLS FARGO COLLATERAL PROTECTION
INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 8:17-ML-2797-AG-KES (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Judge Guilford held that the Settlement Agreement, the
Final Approval Order, and the Judgment are binding on and have res
judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future lawsuits
or other proceedings encompassed by (1) the Settlement Class
Released Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Settlement Class
Releasors, and (2) the Wells Fargo and National General Released
Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Wells Fargo and National
General Releasors.

He dismissed with prejudice the action and all claims for damages
and, except as otherwise explicitly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement, without costs.  The Settlement Class Releasees are
discharged and released from all the Settlement Class Released
Claims.

The Wells Fargo and National General Releasees are discharged and
released from the Wells Fargo and National General Released
Claims.

The Settlement Class Releasors and/or any other Person are
permanently barred and enjoined from instituting and prosecuting
any and all of the Settlement Class Released Claims.  Wells Fargo
and National General Releasors and/or any other Person are
permanently barred and enjoined from instituting and prosecuting
any and all of the Wells Fargo and National General Released
Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment is available at
https://is.gd/klPfRe from Leagle.com.

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs & Adriana Avila, Plaintiffs,
represented by Roland K. Tellis -- info@baronbudd.com -- Baron and
Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin -- ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr.,
Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M.
Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier
Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims -- ssims@lawfss.com
-- Frank Sims and Stolper LLP.

Brian Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain, Rosman and
Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check
LLP, Peter A. Muhic, LEVAN LAW GROUP, LLC, pro hac vice, Roland K.
Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Benjamin Steinberg,
Robins Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr.,
Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M.
Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier
Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Michael L. Schrag, Gibbs Law Group &
Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP.

Charles Heiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Misty Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Blaine Boone, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L.
Germain, Rosman and Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron
M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and
Stolper LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr.,
Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M.
Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier
Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and
Stolper LLP.

Dianne Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Robert Neal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Germain,
Rosman and Germain LLP, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check LLP, Macy D. Hanson, The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson
PLLC, pro hac vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Aaron M.
Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, Andrew D. Stolper, Frank Sims and
Stolper LLP, David Seabold Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David Brian Fernandes, Jr.,
Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jason M.
Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael Stephen Dampier, Dampier
Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims, Frank Sims and
Stolper LLP.

Mitchell Headline, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roland K. Tellis, Baron and
Budd PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Robins Kaplan LLP, David Seabold Casey,
Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, David
Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron and Budd PC, David Martinez, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Jason M. Frank, Frank Sims and Stolper LLP, Michael R.
Cashman, Hellmuth and Johnson PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael Stephen
Dampier, Dampier Law Firm PC, pro hac vice & Scott Howard Sims,
Frank Sims and Stolper LLP.

Wells Fargo and Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David C. Powell -- dpowell@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Aaron Robert Marienthal --
amarienthal@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Carolee A. Hoover
-- choover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Joshua D. Davey,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice & William C. Mayberry --
bmayberry@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services,
Inc., A. South Dakota Corporation & Wells Fargo Bank NA, a South
Dakota Corporation doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Carolee A. Hoover, McGuireWoods
LLP, David C. Powell, McGuireWoods LLP, Jason D. Evans,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Davey, McGuireWoods LLP,
pro hac vice & William C. Mayberry, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac
vice.

National General Insurance Company, individually and as
successor-in-interest to GMAC Insurance, A. North Carolina
Corporation & National General Holdings Corp, Defendants,
represented by Jane M. Byrne, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP & Richard Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice.

National General Insurance Company, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Balboa Insurance Company & National
General Insurance Company, individually and as
successor-in-interest to GMAC Insurance and QBE Insurance,
Defendants, represented by Richard Corey Worcester, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice.

Balboa Insurance Company, a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Richard Corey Worcester, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP.


MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Ryder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Ryder moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint titled JENNY RYDER, Individually and as successor in
interest to ANGELINE KOSTMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHANTS' CREDIT GUIDE COMPANY and
COLONY BRANDS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01807-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


MERCON CONTRACTING: Arriaga Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Arriaga, Leopoldo Maldonado and Raul Simbana individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mercon Contracting
Corp. (d/b/a Mercon) and Serge Pisman, Case No. 1:19-cv-06887
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the
Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, seeking to recover overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and
breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages for the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs allege that they regularly work for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked. The
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants, who were
ostensibly employed as Plumbers and Assistants to Plumbers.

The Defendants operate a construction contracting company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/


METHUEN, MA: Pimentel's Bid to Certify Class of Arrestees Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, denies the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA PIMENTEL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF
METHUEN, et al., Defendants, and JONATHAN W. BLODGETT, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR ESSEX COUNTY, in his official capacity, Necessary
Party, Case No. 1:17-cv-11921-FDS (D. Mass.).

The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging civil rights
violations due to the use of an incorrect Spanish-language
advice-of-rights form by the Methuen Police.  Plaintiff Patricia
Pimentel was arrested for drunk driving on October 21, 2014.  After
she was arrested, she was given an advice-of-rights form in
Spanish, her native language, which incorrectly stated her rights.

Specifically, the form contained errors about the legal blood
alcohol content level under Massachusetts law; the admissibility
and significance of the results of a breathalyzer test; and the
consequences of refusing such a test.  She consented to a
breathalyzer test and was prosecuted for operating under the
influence of liquor ("OUI").  Ms. Pimentel sued the City of Methuen
and state officials under federal and Massachusetts law, alleging
multiple violations of her rights under the United States
Constitution, federal and state civil rights acts, and state common
law.

She has now moved to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The putative class consists of
"all Spanish-speaking Hispanic persons who have been arrested by
the Methuen Police Department and prosecuted for OUI matters after
receiving the unlawfully coercive Spanish advice of rights form."
She seeks to certify a liability-only class, with individual
damages trials to follow.

In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Saylor wrote that the City's use
of an incorrect Spanish-speaking language form--indeed, using it
for many years after the mistakes in it were first brought to the
City's attention--is troublesome, to say the least.  Nonetheless,
he opines, the requirements of Rule 23 have not been satisfied, and
class treatment of the claims is not appropriate.  Accordingly, the
Motion is denied.

Among other things, Judge Saylor opines that the Plaintiff has not
carried her burden to establish commonality under Rule 23(a)
because her issues are not likely to be common to all class
members.[CC]


MICHAEL KORS: Hamilton Employee Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Jason Hamilton, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA),
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 19STCV37061, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 6, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10387 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: (1) Failure To
Pay Overtime; (2) Failure To Pay Due Wages At Termination; (3)
Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (4) Failure To
Reimburse Expenses; (5) Violation of Labor Code Section 1198.5; (6)
Violation of Labor Code Section 226(c); and (7) Unfair
Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 elevy@seyfarth.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Wensley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Wensley, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06883
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Sanders Law, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com



NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Griesch Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Griesch, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. NEXTGEN LEADS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02342-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 9, 2019), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful
actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully placing unsolicited automated text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection.

The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior
express written consent, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant did
not have the Plaintiff's prior express consent to place automated
text messages to her on her cellular telephone, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the State of
California.

NextGen is a lead generation company that sells consumers'
information to insurance companies so that they can market to those
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 yana@kazlg.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kanahaiya Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Fnu Alok Kanahaiya,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,,
Plaintiff v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06904 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaline Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY INSTITUTE, PLLC, Case No.
19-CIV-62290-RAR (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights,
the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's telemarketing consists of
sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase
goods and/or services.

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

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Broward
County, Florida.

The Defendant offers rehabilitation services, including
Platelet-Rich-Plasma and Adult Mesenchymal Stem cell
therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.533.4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and –

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


OVINNET INC: Akhramenko Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Akhramenko, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. OVINNET, INC., a Florida Corporation f/k/a OVERSEAS TRAVEL OF
FLORIDA, INC., OVERSEAS TRAVEL OF FLORIDA LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, all doing business as OVERSEAS LEISURE GROUP,
and FELIX BRAMBILLA, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-25027-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week for the Defendants while performing non-exempt primary
duties for the benefit of the Defendants. However, the Defendants
have failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours
worked by the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Travel
Agents, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a Travel Agent in
April 2019.

The Defendants owned and operated a travel agency business
providing travel services to individuals and businesses throughout
the United States and other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERRIGO CO: Bid to Dismiss Overarching Conspiracy Allegation Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the Court has
denied the defendants' joint motions to dismiss  overarching
conspiracy allegations in the class action suit entitled, In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2724.

The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging that the company and other manufacturers of the same
product engaged in anti-competitive behavior to fix or raise the
prices of certain drugs and/or allocate customers starting, in some
instances, as early as June 2013.

The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers.

The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole. The same class plaintiffs have filed complaints naming
the company as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers,
alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15
generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011.
Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin
cream and Nystatin ointment.

The company has also been named a co-defendant along with 35 other
manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains
alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic
prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. The only
allegations specific to the company relates to Clobetasol,
Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment.

On August 3, 2018, a large managed care organization filed a
complaint against the company alleging price-fixing and customer
allocation concerning 17 different products among 27 manufacturers
including Perrigo. The only allegations specific to the company
concerns Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and
Nystatin ointment.

On January 16, 2019, a similar suit was brought by a health
insurance carrier in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of 30 products among
30 defendants. The only allegations specific to the company
concerns Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and
Nystatin ointment.

Certain complaints listed above were amended in December 2017,
January 2018, and April 2019. All of the above complaints have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings, along with complaints filed
against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more
than two dozen other drugs, as part of a case captioned In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Pursuant to the court's schedule staging various cases in phases,
the company moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol
and Econazole. The court issued a decision denying the motions in
part in October 2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019
dismissing various state law claims, but allowing other state law
claims to proceed. The company filed answers to the Clobetasol gel
complaints on December 31, 2018. The company filed answers to the
Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019.

Motions to dismiss certain other complaints listed above were filed
on February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs' oppositions were due on May 2,
2019 and defendants’ replies were filed on June 13, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the Defendants' joint motions
to dismiss the overarching conspiracy allegations. Certain
deposition discovery is allowed to proceed as of the Court's July
15, 2019 order in all cases and documentary discovery is also
proceeding.

On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of
Summons in Pennsylvania state court to commence an action against
53 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and 17 individuals,
alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical
drugs.

While Perrigo was named as a defendant, no complaint has been
filed. A stipulation is currently being drafted to defer further
action pending developments in the Generics Antitrust MDL described
above.

Perrigo said, "At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the
outcome of the liability, if any, associated with these claims."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Stay in Baton Class Suit Extended Until Feb. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that court in Baton v.
Perrigo Company plc, et. al., extended the stay of the case to
February 10, 2020.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald
Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company
plc, et. al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an
estimate of class damages.

The company  filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in
part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to
update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019.

The defendants updated the court and sought a further extension of
the stay, which was unopposed. The court extended the stay to
February 10, 2020.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PLOMO LLC: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Javier A. Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
PLOMO, LLC a/k/a PLOMO TEQUILA & TACO BAR, IOANNIS SOTIROPOULOS,
and EFTHYMIOS PALIOURAS, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-25040-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for
half-time unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60
hours weekly and was unable to take bonafide lunchtime periods. The
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at the
rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he
worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook.

The Defendant is a retail business operating as a Mexican
restaurant and bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


POWER FUNDING: Faces Abante TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. POWER FUNDING LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07186 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019),
accuses the Defendant of contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading
the Plaintiff's privacy.

Abante Rooter is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California.

Power Funding LLC is an entity in the business finance services
industry.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRICE CHOPPER: Sued by Fore-Heron for Mislabeling Almond Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Fore-Heron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Price Chopper, Inc., Case No.
7:19-cv-11224 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading
representations on their vanilla almond milk products' packaging.

The Product's front label and advertising makes direct
representations with respect to its primary recognizable and
characterizing flavor by the word Vanilla. In the context of
vanilla, vanillin has always been an "artificial flavor" regardless
of it is labeled "natural vanillin." The front label of a product
with added vanillin is required to disclose this material fact by
the designation "Artificially Flavored Vanilla Almondmilk."

The Defendant's Product is misleading because it is represented as
identical to another product, which contains more, and a greater
percentage, of the valuable ingredients, which causes consumers to
be misled, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that the
representations are misleading because the Product does not contain
the amount, type and/or percentage of vanilla as a component of its
flavoring, which is required by law and consistent with consumer
expectations.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Product
contains other representations, which are misleading and deceptive.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price of approximately $4.49 per 64 FL OZ,
excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

The Price Chopper, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by
and containing flavor only from vanilla under their brand.[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
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


QRS LLC: Bradford Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian H. Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QRS, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-02364 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 7, 2019), is seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other workers like
him regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 hours
in a week, but they do not receive proper overtime pay for these
hours. Instead of paying them overtime in accordance with
California and federal law, the Defendant pays these workers the
same hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Moreover, instead of paying the Plaintiff overtime in accordance
with California law, the Defendant pays him and other workers the
same hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day
and 40 in a workweek or within seven consecutive days, says the
complaint.

Brian H. Bradford works for the Defendant as a Technologist.

QRS is a staffing company and provides workers in various
industries to its clientele.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Fax: 713 999 1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


RTA CABINET: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D Pa.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTA CABINET STORE,
LLC. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. RTA CABINET STORE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05756-CMR (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2019).

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

RTA Cabinet Store is a retail startup that specializes in
customizing and selling of kitchen cabinets online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
          Phone: (215) 981-5400
          Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ragis Fraud Class Suit in Vermont
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC. The case is styled as Eric Ragis, Lisa Ragis, Ronald Ragis, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00231-wks (D. Vt., Dec. 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Bredice , Esq.
          Law Office of Steven A. Bredice
          17 GW Tatro Drive
          P.O. Box 519
          Jeffersonville, VT 05464-0519
          Phone: (802) 644-6610
          Fax: (802) 644-2920
          Email: sbredice@poblaw.net


SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Salvador Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gonzalez Salvador, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SHOOTER'S TIKI BAR & GRILL INC. and EDWARD
MIGLIACCIO, Case No. 2:19-cv-06877 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 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 Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed
the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA, says the
complaint. This policy and pattern or practice includes, inter
alia, failing to compensate employees with minimum wages for all
hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer and
dishwasher from September 2010 until June 21, 2019.

Shooter's Tiki Bar is a sports bar and grill.[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


SISYPHIAN LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers Under FLSA, Doe Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe aka Athena, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. SISYPHIAN, LLC dba XPOSED GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, a
California Limited Liability Company; BRAD BARNES, an individual;
DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10414
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019), accuses the Defendants of evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.

The Plaintiff contends that she was denied minimum wage payments
and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify
the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants also required the Plaintiff to share
her tips with the Defendants and other non-service employees, who
do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc
jockeys, and the bouncers.

As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2011
through 2017.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at Canoga Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Fax: (310) 507-7906
          Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
                 jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                 jacob@kristensenlaw.com


SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cortese, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC. and SKANSKA USA INC, Case No.
1:19-cv-11189 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
Commissioner of Labor's Wage Orders to recover wages and benefits.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class are statutorily and contractually entitled to
receive these wages and benefits for work they performed on the
public works project, which the Defendants contracted with the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey for the George Washington
Bridge rehabilitation and upgrade project.

Despite working in the New York City jurisdiction of the Project
for the first three weeks, the Plaintiff says he was only paid the
statutory New Jersey prevailing wage rate for his work within the
New York City territory rather than the New York City prevailing
wage for crane operators, as required by NYLL. Upon discovering
that he was not being paid the New York City prevailing wage for
his work performed on the New York side of the GWB span, the
Plaintiff complained to both Michael McCue, the Defendants' agent,
representative and/or employee, and Eric Gallowitz of Ruzow &
Associates, Inc., the third-party payroll administrator and liaison
for the PANY.

Following his complaint to the Defendants regarding their failure
to pay Plaintiff his statutorily entitled NYC Prevailing Wage, the
Defendants unlawfully retaliated against him by ostracizing him and
relegating him to exclusively operating the hoist located on the
New Jersey side of the GWB span, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result
of the Defendants' retaliation, Plaintiff has been intentionally
deprived of sharing overtime work with two other New York union
crane operators, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a crane operator on
the Project.

The Defendants are full-service construction contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Kasolas, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER LLC
          101 Eisenhower Pkwy.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 403-3139
          Facsimile: (973) 618-5539
          E-mail: bkasolas@bracheichler.com


SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Employees Class Certified in Huddleston Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Leitman grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit styled JERRY HUDDLESTON,
III v. SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-12364-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective of all current and
former hourly employees who worked for Sloan Environmental
Services, Inc. at any time in the past three years.

The Court appoints Mr. Huddleston's counsel, Jesse L. Young, Esq.,
Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq., and the law firm of Kreis Enderle, P.C., as
counsel for the collective.  The Court approves Mr. Huddleston's
proposed form of notice and authorizes him to disseminate that
notice to each member of the collective by mail and e-mail;

Judge Leitman directs Sloan to produce to Mr. Huddleston the names,
last known phone numbers, last known addresses, and last known
e-mail addresses of all proposed collective members in a
computer-readable format by December 30, 2019.  Members of the
proposed collective shall have 45 days from the date the notice is
mailed to join this action if they so choose.

In this putative collective action, Plaintiff Jerry Huddleston, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, alleges
that Defendants Sloan Environmental Services, Inc. and Eric Sloan
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201 when Sloan failed to pay required overtime.[CC]


SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Manual Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abram McDonald, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Specialty Parking, L.L.C., Case No. 718511/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., Queens Cty., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime and minimum wages, under the New York
Labor Law.

Specialty Parking, L.L.C., was a for-profit Limited liability
company, which operated at several locations including at 135-30
140th Street, in Jamaica, New York, where the Plaintiff was
employed as a manual worker until July 9, 2019.

The Defendant was engaged in the business of operating parking
garage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS: Fails to Protect PII and PHI, Condon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Condon, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS OF ILLINOIS, LLC, f/k/a
WELLGROUP HEALTHPARTNERS, LLC; FRANCISCAN PHYSICIAN NETWORK OF
ILLINOIS; FRANSCISCAN HEAL TH, INC.; and FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.,
Case No. 2019CH14111 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 9, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for their failure to safeguard and
protect the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and
protected health information.

On December 8, 2017, SPI notified the Plaintiff and 22,000 other
patients of a data breach involving her "patient payment records"
containing personal and private financial information. The
Plaintiff discovered that SPI was negligent by violating its duty
to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's PII and PHI.

As a direct and/or proximate result of the Defendants' failure to
secure and protect the Plaintiff's PII and PHI, the Plaintiff has
suffered damages in the form of improper disclosure of PII and PHI;
loss of privacy; out-of-pocket expenses incurred to mitigate the
increased risk of identity theft and/or identify fraud press upon
her by the Data Breach; the value of her time spent mitigating
identify theft and/or identify fraud and/or the increased risk of
identity theft and/or identity fraud; deprivation of the value of
her PII and PHI, for which there is a well-established national and
international market; and anxiety and emotional distress--for which
she is entitled compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois and lives in Homewood, Cook
County, Illinois.

SPI owned, operated, managed and maintained a storage facility
located at Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William T. Gibbs, Esq.
          CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C.
          33 North Dearborn Street, 21st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-3191
          Email: ccfiling@corboydemetrio.com


SRA ASSOCIATES: Zarczynski Moves for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zarczynski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SRA ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01799-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled NANCY SCHLIESER, an individual, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-00443-JAK-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, asks the
Court to certify this class:

   * Regular Rate Class A - Stipulated by the Plaintiff and
     Defendant:

     All persons who were employed in the positions of Director
     of Sales and Associate Director of Sales in California from
     July 1, 2016 through the present and who did not execute a
     Sunrise Senior Living Dispute Resolution Agreement.

Certification of the Regular Rate Class A is sought pursuant to
stipulation by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the Plaintiff's
causes of action for: (1) failure to properly include certain
commission payments within employees' regular rate of pay for
purpose of calculating overtime wages, (2) failure to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees; (3) failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; and (4) unfair and unlawful
business practices.

Ms. Schlieser also asks the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not subject
to the stipulation of the parties, to certify these classes:

   * Regular Rate Class B:

     All persons who work or worked for Defendant in the
     positions of Director of Sales, Associate Director of Sales,
     and Director of Sales & Marketing in California from July 1,
     2016 through the present.

     Certification of this class is for the Plaintiff's Third
     Cause of Action for failure to pay overtime; Fifth Cause of
     Action for failure to pay wages upon discharge; Sixth Cause
     of Action for failure to maintain required records; Seventh
     Cause of Action for failure to provide accurate wage
     statements; and Ninth Cause of Action for violation of
     California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
     et seq; and

   * Regular Rate Class C:

     All persons who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly
     employees of Defendant at one or more of its locations in
     California at any time from July 1, 2016 through the present
     who were paid Incentive Pay which was earned during one or
     more pay periods in which they were also paid overtime
     wages.

     Incentive Pay means pay pursuant to the following plans and
     policies: Spot Bonuses; Director of Sales Commission &
     Incentive Plan; Director of Sales Commission & Bonus Plan
     --Pre-Open Assisted Living (AL)/Reminiscence (REM); All
     Hands on Deck (Sales Support Bonus); Department Coordinator
     Plan; Sign On Bonus; Retention Bonus; Team Member Referral
     Bonus; Resident Referral Bonus Program aka "Friends and
     Family Program,"; Healthy Living Incentive; Incentive Based
     Bonus; Race to the Finish Bonus; and Shift and Schedule
     Incentive.

     Certification of this class is for the Plaintiff's Third
     Cause of Action for failure to pay overtime; Fifth Cause of
     Action for failure to pay wages upon discharge; Sixth Cause
     of Action for failure to maintain required records; Seventh
     Cause of Action for failure to provide accurate wage
     statements; and Ninth Cause of Action for violation of
     California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
     et seq.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court appoint her as
representative for the proposed classes, and appoint Matern Law
Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Esq., Dalia Khalili, Esq., and Scott
A. Brooks, Esq., as Class Counsel for the proposed classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Scott A. Brooks, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
                  sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com


TENNESSEE: Atkins Brings Appeals to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gregory Atkins, Christopher Gooch, Kevin Proffitt and
Thomas Rollins, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
their lawsuit titled Charles Graham, a/k/a Charles Stevenson, and
Russell L. Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Tony C. Parker, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01954, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at
Nashville.

The appellate case is captioned as Gregory Atkins, et al. v. Tony
Parker, et al., Case No. 19-6243, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants
Doctor Marina Cadreche, Tony Parker and Doctor Kenneth Williams
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is entitled In re: Tony Parker, et al., Case No. 17-506.

The civil rights lawsuit is brought against Tony Parker, the
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, and other
Officers of the Department.

The Tennessee Department of Correction is a Cabinet-level agency
within the Tennessee state government responsible for the oversight
of more than 20,000 convicted offenders in Tennessee.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants GREGORY ATKINS, CHRISTOPHER GOOCH, KEVIN
PROFFITT and THOMAS ROLLINS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Joseph Wall, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: michaelw@bsjfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees DR. KENNETH WILLIAMS, Medical Director,
Tennessee Department of Corrections, in their official capacities,
and TONY PARKER, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Corrections,
are represented by:

          Pamela Sue Lorch, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 20207
          Nashville, TN 37202-0207
          Telephone: (615) 532-2549
          E-mail: pam.lorch@state.tn.us


TICKET LIQUIDATOR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ticket Liquidator,
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ticket Liquidator,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11204 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019).

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

Ticket Liquidator is an online marketplace for live entertainment
tickets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIAD CATALOG: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRIAD CATALOG CO.,
L.L.C. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. TRIAD CATALOG CO.,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05758-AB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6,
2019).

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

Triad Catalog Co., L.L.C., doing business as Soft Surroundings,
operates as a multi-channel retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
          Phone: (215) 981-5400
          Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


TRUE DIALOG: Silvera Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Dialog, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Silvera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. True Dialog, Inc. also
known as: 3seventy, Inc. a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01189-RP (W.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

TrueDialog is a text service provider delivering dialog text
messages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Ave, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com



TRUEACCORD CORP: Peters Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The
case is styled as Nikirah Peters, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp., LVNV
Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-02322
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019).

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

TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency based in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          Zeig Law Firm, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


TRULIEVE INC: Faces Jaslow Suit Over Marketing That Violates TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mats Jaslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRULIEVE, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
4:19-cv-00592-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the
complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Shelby
County, Tennessee.

The Defendant is a Florida licensed medical cannabis provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


UNITED STATES: Azar Appeals Order in Philbrick Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alex M. Azar, II, et al., filed an appeal seeking review
of a decision by the District Court in the lawsuit entitled Samuel
Philbrick, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00773-JEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Samuel Philbrick, et al. v. Alex
Azar, II, et al., Case No. 19-5293, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
challenges the ongoing efforts of the Executive Branch to bypass
the legislative process and act unilaterally to fundamentally
transform Medicaid, a cornerstone of the social safety net.

The Medicaid Act establishes a health insurance program that
provides coverage to more than 75 million people in the United
States. Medicaid enables states to provide a range of federally
specified preventive, acute, and long-term health care services to
individuals "whose income and resources are insufficient to meet
the costs of necessary medical services".

The Social Security Act, of which the Medicaid Act is a part, does
permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive certain
federal Medicaid requirements, but only in narrow
circumstances--when necessary to allow a state to carry out an
experimental or pilot program that is likely to promote the
objectives of the Medicaid Act.  New Hampshire obtained such a
waiver to change the way that the State provided coverage to the
Medicaid expansion population group.

While this request was pending, HHS announced a new Medicaid waiver
policy in a January 2018 letter to State Medicaid Directors.  On
May 7, 2018, citing the State Medicaid Letter, the Secretary
approved the NHHPP Premium Assistance Program Amendment, adding
work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility.

The complaint asserts that the approved waiver will harm the
Plaintiffs and individuals throughout the State who need a range of
health services, including check-ups, mental health services,
insomnia treatments, vision services, surgeries, and medications.
Without access to Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs will be forced to
forgo treatment for their conditions or will incur significant
medical debt when their conditions become so severe that they have
no choice but to seek treatment in acute care and emergency
department settings.  Without retroactive coverage, when Plaintiffs
experience gaps in coverage, they will be forced to skip medical
treatment or incur out of pocket expenses and medical debt, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are enrolled in the New Hampshire Medicaid program.

Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services and is sued in his official
capacity.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Samuel Philbrick, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; Ian Ludders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Karin Vlk, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and Joshua Vlk, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Catherine A. McKee, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          200 North Greensboro Street, Suite D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: mckee@healthlaw.org

Defendants-Appellants Alex M. Azar, II, Secretary, United States
Department of Health and Human Services; Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; United
States Department of Health and Human Services; and Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services are represented by:

          DOJ Appellate Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

Intervenor for Defendant-Appellee New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services is represented by:

          Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
          33 Capitol Street
          Concord, NH 03301-6397
          Telephone: (603) 271-3658
          E-mail:  anthony.galdieri@doj.nh.gov


VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vineyard Vines, LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vineyard Vines, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11228 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2019).

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

Vineyard Vines, LLC designs, manufactures, and retails apparel and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com



VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that company continues
to defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance
Company, in Minnesota.

A putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the
Company's universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality
experience to establish the cost of insurance, and that as
projected mortality experience improved, the policy language
required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against a cost of insurance litigation
entitled,  Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security
Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897)
(filed July 26, 2018).

A putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two
specific types of universal life insurance policies only permitted
the Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future
mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of
insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed
factors not only in the administration of the policies over time,
but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in
approximately October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract
and seeks class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Zarczynski Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zarczynski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WEBCOLLEX LLC
d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL, Case No. 2:19-cv-01803-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


WILLIAMS TANK: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WILLIAMS TANK LINES.
The case is styled as Douglas Vasquez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS TANK LINES, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-103433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 9, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Williams Tanks Lines delivers petroleum products from pipeline
storage tanks and refineries to trucking companies, airports and
gasoline stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by ROMAN SHKODNIK, ESQ.
    


X FINANCIAL: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xiangdong Chen, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. X FINANCIAL, YUE TANG, JIE ZHANG, SHAOYONG CHENG, DING
GAO, SHENGWEN RONG, ZHENG XUE, LONGGEN ZHANG, RICHARD ARTHUR,
COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-06908
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired X Financial American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
September 19, 2018 initial public offering seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

On August 28, 2018, X Financial filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the
IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on
September 18, 2018. The next day, the Company filed a prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of
the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to
sell to the investing public more than 11.7 million X Financial
ADSs (including the exercise of the underwriters' overallotment
option) at $9.50 per ADS. The Defendants generated more than $111
million in gross offering proceeds from their sale of X Financial
ADSs in the IPO.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company's total loan facilitation amount was not growing, but
rather was contracting; the number of investors actively using X
Financial's platform was shrinking; demand from SMEs for the
Company's preferred loans was plummeting; and more.

On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS.
This price represented an 81.68% decline from the $9.50 per share
price at which X Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing
public in the IPO. As of the date this complaint was filed, X
Financial's ADSs continue to trade below the $9.50 per share IPO
price.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of X Financial's share
price, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired X Financial ADSs at artificially inflated
prices pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement.

X Financial is a finance technology company based in Shenzhen,
China. The Company operates a peer-to-peer platform that matches
borrowers and lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


XPO PORT SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in Arrellano Suit Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. S. James Otero entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
VICTOR CORTEZ ARRELLANO, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL UNNAMED PLAINTIFFS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. XPO PORT SERVICE INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-08220-SJO-E (C.D. Cal.), ruling that:

   -- the Arrellano Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Motion for
      Class Certification;

   -- the Arrellano Plaintiffs may file their Fourth Amended
      Complaint, in the form attached to the Parties' Stipulation
      Regarding Plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Class Certification
      Motion and Filing of an Amended Complaint, by December 10,
      2019, and that the Defendants may file their responsive
      pleading to the Arrellano Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended
      Complaint by January 7, 2020; and

   -- the Parties, including the Alvarez Plaintiffs and Arrellano
      Plaintiffs, shall file joint proposed Class Certification
      briefing schedules by January 7, 2020.

The lawsuit is consolidated with Case Nos. 2:18-cv-03736-SJO-E,
2:18-cv-06175-SJO-E and 2:18-cv-09144-SJO-E.[CC]

Defendants XPO Port Services Inc., XPO Logistics Port Services,
LLC, XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC, and XPO Logistics, Inc., are
represented by:

          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          Alexander J. Larro, Esq.
          Christianna Kyriacou Mantas, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: svoelz@omm.com
                  alarro@omm.com
                  ckyriacou@omm.com


ZUMIEZ INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zumiez Inc. The case
is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zumiez Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11186 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019).

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

Zumiez Inc. is an American multinational specialty clothing store
founded by Tom Campion and Gary Haakenson in 1978, and publicly
traded since 2005. The company is a specialty retailer of apparel,
footwear, accessories and hardgoods for young men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims Still Pending at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion 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 there are 6,461 unresolved asbestos claims
related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business at September 30,
2019.

The Company also reported that within the nine months ended
September 30, 2019, there were 1,996 new claims filed and 1,744
claims resolved.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

The Company states, "For the periods prior to the Spin-Off, these
Consolidated and Combined Interim Financial Statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future
asbestos-related and environmental liabilities primarily related to
the Bendix legacy Honeywell business, calculated as if we were
responsible for 100% of the Bendix asbestos-liability payments.
However, this recognition model differs from the recognition model
applied subsequent to the Spin-Off.  In periods subsequent to the
Spin-Off, the accounting for the majority of our asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable reflect the terms of the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell entered
into on September 12, 2018, under which we are required to make
payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily
related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as
certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts
payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments
and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of
the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving
such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts
and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with
such liabilities.  The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement
provides that the agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x)
December 31, 2048 or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive
year during which certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each
such year were less than US$25 million as converted into Euros in
accordance with the terms of the agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Yi1C84


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,500 Claims at September 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2019, that approximately 46,500 claims naming
American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending as of
September 29, 2019, in various federal and state courts seeking
damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and
other allegedly hazardous materials.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing.  In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
As of September 29, 2019, approximately 46,500 claims naming
American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.  Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is
actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore
various means of resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8FPkzt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $213.0MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$212,953,000 reserve at
September 30, 2019, for the total costs, including defense costs,
for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2052, 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.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated
since that time.  In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.  The methodology used by
Nathan in its projection in 2018 of the operating subsidiaries'
liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for
Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the
methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and
included the following factors:

   * interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population
likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2016, to August 19, 2018;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2016,
to August 19, 2018, to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2052, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2052.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liability.  In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection
of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to
indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in
effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions
regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior
impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products.  In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability.  Based
upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking
into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was
US$227,922,000.  The reserve at September 30, 2019, was
US$212,953,000.  Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement
costs.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$141,032,000 at September 30,
2019)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TtiZPm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,701 Claims at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,701 asbestos-related claims
pending at September 30, 2019, 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.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation ("Air & Liquid"), and in some cases the Corporation,
are defendants (among a number of defendants) in cases filed in
various state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 729 and 678 claims in
2019 and 2018, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TtiZPm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Morse TEC Has $0.8BB A&E Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group 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 BorgWarner Morse TEC ("Morse TEC")
holds approximately US$0.8 billion in liabilities associated with
personal injury asbestos claims and environmental claims arising
from BorgWarner Inc.'s legacy manufacturing operations.

The Company states, "On October 30, 2019, we completed the
acquisition of BorgWarner Morse TEC ("Morse TEC") from BorgWarner
Inc ("BorgWarner") through our subsidiary, Enstar Holdings (US)
LLC.  Morse TEC holds approximately US$0.8 billion in liabilities
associated with personal injury asbestos claims and environmental
claims arising from BorgWarner's legacy manufacturing operations.
We will disclose further information on this transaction in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8uTiWB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,030 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 31,030 pending asbestos claims as
of September 30, 2019, 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.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.  The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with
turbines.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment.  As of September 30, 2019, the Company had pending
approximately 31,030 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 31,570 as of December 31, 2018 and 31,500 as of
September 30, 2018.  During the third quarter of 2019, the Company
received approximately 850 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 1,940 claims.  The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors.  The Company's total costs for the
years 2018 and 2017 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$45
million and US$57 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease.  The predominant number of pending claims
against the Company are non-cancer claims.  The Company believes
that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos
liabilities.  This belief is based upon many factors and
assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims.  While the number of asbestos claims filed
against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur, including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/khWSZo



ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, 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 Company, CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are
from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants
in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials.  The Registrants are from
time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that
additional claims may be asserted in the future.  Although their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants
do not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/SfFBN6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air Canada Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation 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 could be required to pay substantial
damages for asbestos claims involving its Canadian subsidiaries,
although the possibility is remote.

The Company states, "In November 2004, the Company's Canadian
subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been
named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General
of Canada, et al. (File No. CI4-1-39818), pending in the Manitoba
Court of Queen's Bench.  Grace and W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. were
also named as defendants.  The plaintiff brought the claim as a
putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries
suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of
employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing,
manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or
asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac
Transaction.  A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005
in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants.  The latter proceeding, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI5-1-41069), sought
the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly
provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class
of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

"In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class
proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal
courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well
as other defendants including W.R. Grace & Co. and W.R. Grace & Co.
— Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one
of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling,
manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos
or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac
transaction.  Grace and W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. agreed to
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates
in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

"In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of
America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and
other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act.  That order was renewed repeatedly.

"In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying
all of the Canadian actions.  The parties finalized a global
settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the
Canadian government).  That settlement, which has subsequently been
amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be entirely funded by
Grace.  The Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009
approving the Canadian Settlement.  We do not have any positive
obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but we are a beneficiary
of the release of claims.  The release in favor of the Grace
parties (including us) became operative upon the effective date of
a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter
11bankruptcy proceeding.  As filed, the Plan contemplates that the
claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to
injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The
Confirmation Orders with respect to the Plan were entered by the
Bankruptcy Court on January 31, 2011 and February 15, 2011 and the
District Court on January 30, 2012 and on June 11, 2012.  The
Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and
giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in
all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.

"The Plan became effective on February 3, 2014.  In accordance with
the December 13, 2009 order of the Canadian court, on the Effective
Date the actions became permanently stayed until they were amended
to remove the Grace parties as named defendants.  The actions in
the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench were dismissed by the Manitoba
court as against the Grace parties on February 19, 2014.  The
remaining actions were either dismissed or discontinued with
prejudice by the Canadian courts as against the Grace parties in
May and June 2015, but for two actions in the Province of Quebec,
which were discontinued by order of the Quebec court in February
2016.  Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages,
which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6uuzxr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.9MM Liability at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$4,914,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of September
30, 2019, 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.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
December 31, 2018.  The Company's estimation of its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles approximates US$4,914,000, which is included in the
accrued general and product liability costs in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2019.  The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable
federal legislation.  This liability will fluctuate based on the
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and
the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a
number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.  Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months.  Because
payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years,
management believes that the potential additional costs for claims
will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the
Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
The Company received settlement payments of US$0 and US$120,000
during the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018,
respectively, and US$290,000 and US$129,000 during the six months
ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, net of legal fees,
from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for
asbestos-related expenses.  These partial payments have been
recorded as a reduction of cost of products sold in the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The Company is continuing
its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future
costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kGbIJp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $13MM Verdict against Hillshire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 28, 2019, that the appellate court has
affirmed the trial court's US$13 million verdict in an
asbestos-related case against a subsidiary.

The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a
defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May
2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.  Mr.
Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now
deceased.  Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises
liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez's
alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant
in Betteravia, California.  The plant, which was sold in 1986, was
owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The
Hillshire Brands Company.

"In August 2017, the jury returned a verdict of approximately US$13
million in favor of the plaintiffs, and a judgment was entered.  We
appealed the judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the trial
court's judgment in full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FWgPaL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Mesothelioma Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. still defends itself against lawsuits related
to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three
lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374, styled Charles
Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 and styled
Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et
al. No. 18-L-2.

"All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or
the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by us.  Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a
tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases.  We have
denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are
unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this
time.

"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D.  Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F.  Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special
closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all
remaining defendants.

"In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson,
Deceased vs.  3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without
prejudice.

"In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela
Atkins, Pltfs., vs.  Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was
dismissed without prejudice."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uoHdO3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 161 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 161 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure as of September 30, 2019, according to
Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of
September 30, 2019, there were 121 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$32
million, and 40 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative
relief sought of up to US$13 million.  Based on Duke Energy
Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution
of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount
claimed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1DMuuC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $592MM Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves
of US$592 million at September 30, 2019, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$592 million at September 30, 2019,
and US$630 million at December 31, 2018.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best
estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2038 and
are recorded on an undiscounted basis.  In light of the
uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does
not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical
costs that might be incurred after 2038 related to such potential
claims.  It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos
liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in
2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$747 million in excess of the self-insured
retention.  Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$722
million at September 30, 2019, and US$739 million at December 31,
2018.  These amounts are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas is
not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of
insurance claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance
recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier
continues to have a strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1DMuuC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes $0.5BB Reserves for Zurich
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited 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 assumed approximately US$0.5 billion of
gross reserves related to reinsurance of certain of Zurich
Insurance Group s U.S. asbestos and environmental liability
insurance portfolios.

The Company states, "On October 1, 2019, we completed the
previously announced reinsurance transaction with Zurich Insurance
Group ("Zurich"), pursuant to which we reinsured certain of
Zurich's U.S. asbestos and environmental liability insurance
portfolios.  In the transaction, we assumed approximately US$0.5
billion of gross reserves, relating to 1986 and prior year
business."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8uTiWB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $245.8MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded Direct Asbestos Liabilities of
US$245,787,000 as of September 30, 2019, 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.

The Company states, "We acquired DCo LLC ("DCo") on December 30,
2016.  DCo continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in
the normal course of business and is separately managed.

"Other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets include
amounts for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future
claims, determined using standard actuarial techniques for
asbestos-related exposures.  Other liabilities also include amounts
for environmental liabilities associated with DCo's properties.

"Other assets on our consolidated balance sheets include estimated
insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities.  The recorded
asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance
agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and
indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands.
The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of
the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the
financial strength of the insurers.  The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and
defense costs were paid in full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8uTiWB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $233MM Loss Reserves at September 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of $233.0
million, or 96.4%, of total net A&E reserves, at September 30,
2019, all of which was for assumed business, 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.

The Company states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we entered into
a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater.  Per the
retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3
million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing
date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded,
US$100.5 million were related to A&E business.  The maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3
million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.
We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques.  We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.6 years at September 30,
2019.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/atXKfQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $37MM to Honeywell in 3Q 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion 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 it paid Honeywell International Inc. the
Euro-equivalent of US$37 million in connection with the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement during the three months
ended September 30, 2019.

In the nine months ended September 30, 2019, the Company paid the
Euro-equivalent of US$113 million.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix
friction materials ("Bendix") business.  The Bendix business
manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either
performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed
brake replacements.  Certain operations that were part of the
Bendix business were transferred to Garrett.

"In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into an
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on
September 12, 2018.  As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we
are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90%
of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities.  Pursuant to the terms
of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an
amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by
Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date
of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175
million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given
calendar year.  The payments that we are required to make to
Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be
deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

"The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the
agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048
or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which
certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less
than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the
terms of the agreement.  During the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2019, we paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$37
million and US$113 million, respectively, in connection with the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Yi1C84


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, 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 costs to resolve
asbestos-related cases during the nine months ended September 30,
2019 and 2018, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII.  The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis,
cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related
conditions.  In some cases, several of HII's former executive
officers are also named as defendants.  In some instances, partial
or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its
liability and that of its former executive officers.  The costs to
resolve cases during the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and
2018, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate.  The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous
variables that are inherently difficult to predict.  Key variables
include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or
federal tort reform legislation.  Although the Company believes the
ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised
claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might
come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the
ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KO45aJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation still defends itself against asbestos lawsuits
related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, 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.

IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of
other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the discontinued
heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005.  Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZWzhXW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $805,000 Liability at September 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$805,000 for asbestos-related liability as of
September 30, 2019, 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.

The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned.  During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products.  For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations.  The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos-related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$805,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet at September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kGbIJp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at September 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, 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 has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits.     

Manitex states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified
by a former owner of the product line in question.  In the
remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6rSUnp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 113 Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is still a co-defendant in approximately
113 asbestos-related personal injury cases, 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.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 113
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 217 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2n4aYP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. still defends itself against a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8FPkzt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products 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 is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises.  While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.  These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses.  However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements.  Certain cases, including cases
that were scheduled in March 2019, were settled without any
material impact in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fgsfsD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019, that "currently there are a few thousand
claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims.
Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.  But
in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with
our products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we
have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims.  We believe these
arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense
and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.  The uncertainties of
asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately
the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.  That uncertainty is
increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation
affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.
Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience
defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JV2zYJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Remains in Parsons Class Suit vs. Liggett
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 asbestos-related class action case
Parsons v. AC & S Inc., which subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is still
a defendant, is still stayed.

The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a
purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.  The operative complaint seeks
to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of the putative class.  The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/InB8tg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of September 30, 2019, 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.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through September 30, 2019.  In many cases these claims
involved more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims settled, the
average settlement was less than US$3,000.  There remained
approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2019.

"BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail.  BNS Sub has insurance policies
covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through
1988.  BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits
from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates
of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are
revised.  As of both September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, BNS
Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open and active claims
against BNS Sub.  This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fL3okb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $77.8MM Libby Costs at September 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$77.8 million
at September 30, 2019, for response costs related to a vermiculite
mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, 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.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state, and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  The RI/FS will determine the specific
areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.

"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3.  Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed.  It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million.  Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized.  Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is expected to be issued by the EPA
during 2021.  Costs associated with the more active remedial
alternatives would be expected to be incurred over a decade or
more.  Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as remedial
alternatives evolve based on further work by the engineering and
consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the RI/FS process
moves toward a ROD.  Depending on the remedial alternatives that
the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of remediating OU3 may
exceed Grace's current estimate by material amounts.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these investigation
and remediation activities and has recorded a liability to the
extent that its review has indicated that a probable liability has
been incurred and the cost is estimable.  These liabilities cover
the estimated cost of investigations and, to the extent an
assessment has indicated that remediation is necessary, the
estimated cost of response actions.  Response actions typically
involve soil excavation and removal, and replacement with clean
fill.  The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future
at other sites that processed Libby vermiculite, but Grace does not
believe, based on its knowledge of prior and current operations and
site conditions, that liability for remediation at such other sites
is probable.

"Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are
currently estimable for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby at September 30, 2019, and December 31, 2018, was
US$77.8 million and US$81.7 million, respectively.  It is possible
that Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related
matters will exceed current estimates by material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/malKcC



                            *********

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 ***