CAR_Public/191220.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 254

                            Headlines

3 RIVERS BILLING: Certification of Class Sought in Larsen Suit
A AND A QUALITY: Robinson Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Managers
ADTRAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminded Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline
ALASKA: Class Action Suit Filed to Halt Pioneer Homes Rate Rise
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Certification of Settlement Class Sought

AMAZING HOME: Faces Cedeno Suit in New York Supreme Court
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Math Professor Wins Refunds of Illegal Dues
AMERICAN FEDERATION: State Workers Sue Over Non-Member Fees
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over CR-V Windshield Cracks
AMR STAFFING: Cano Suit Removed to Central District of California

APPLE INC: Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Defects Dismissed
APPLIED SERVICES: Must Answer Interrogatory No. 6 in Thompson Suit
ASSURANCE IQ: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lopez Suit Claims
BASS PRO: $2.4M Attorneys' Fees Award in McKeage Suit Affirmed
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Denial in Titus

BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Probiotic Labeling
BURGER KING: Williams Sues for Misrepresenting Impossible Whopper
BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok App Secretly Collects Data, Hong Alleges
CHICAGO TITLE: Aided Champion-Cain 'Ponzi Scheme', Suit Claims
CLIENT SERVICES: Voeks' Bid for Class Certification Stayed

COORDINATED STAFF: Cano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Panning FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CUADRILLA: Faces Homeowners' Class Action Over Fracking Site
DESH BANGLA: Sarker Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay & Earned Wages
EDDIE BAUER: Remand of Harbers to King County Superior Court Denied

ELDORADO RESORTS: Pawar Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: Class of Maintainers Certified in Belvin
EXTENDICARE: Faces Class Action Over Care Home Resident Neglect
FOX RENT A CAR: Faces Arroyo Wage and Hour Suit in California
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL: Frank's Bid to Certify Class Denied

GOOGLE: English Appeal Court Allows Data Privacy Case to Proceed
GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Szalanski Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Cash Bail Settlement May Get Final Court OK
HINGHAM, MA: Bid to Certify Class in Belezos Suit v. Board Denied
HOME TRUST: Class Suit Certified, Says It Has Valid Defenses

ILLINOIS: Bid for Prelim Injunction/TRO in Inmate's Case Denied
INFOSYS LIMITED: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
INFOSYS: Faces Whistleblower Complaints Amid U.S. Class Action
INTEGRITY EMPLOYEE: Frazier FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
IROBOT CORP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

J.G. WENTWORTH: Man Claims Scam in New Class Action Lawsuit
KAOS CLUB: Former Employee Files Class Action After Closing
KEURIG GREEN: Smith Moves to Certify Class of Coffee Pod Buyers
LAND O'FROST: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Travis Says
MACY'S WEST: Faces Bencomo Class Suit in California Super. Court

MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Lindsey Alleges
MDL 2677: Can't Compel Family Member Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Claims
MDL 2820: Court Allows Baldwin Testimony in Dicamba Herbicide Case
MDL 2820: Milliken Testimony Allowed in Dicamba Herbicide Case
MDL 2875: Richissin v. Camber Over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated

MDL 2913: Ferraro Suit Over JUUL E-Cigarettes Consolidated
MELALEUCA INC: Wainwright Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY: Former Students' Class Action Faces Delay
MIDSPAN TELECOM: Underpays Technicians, Martinez et al. Allege
MONSANTO: Gets Favorable Ruling in Brazil Round Up Class Action

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Moves for Certification of Class
NCAA: Former Villanova Football Player Sues for Athletes' Pay
NOKIA: Failure to Issue Profit Warning Ground for Class Action
ORANGE COUNTY, FL: Tellam Files Proof of Citizenship & Seeks Info
OTTAWA: Commences Talks to Settle First Nations Class Action

PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Plumley Suit Challenges Merger With ArTara
ROBINSON NURSING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Class Action
ROCK COUNTY, WI: Jailing People for Unpaid Fines May Prompt Suit
SCIPLAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit
SCOTT GROSS: Fails to Review Housing Rental Records, Simmons Says

SEQWATER: Queensland Flood Victims Await Class Action Ruling
SKILLED WORKFORCE: Sued for Allegedly Underpaying Casual Workers
STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 2
SUNRISE MEDICAL: Segovia Seeks Overtime Pay for Cytotechnologists
TANDY LEATHER: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit

TARGET CORP: Times Discrimination Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval
TESLA: NHTSA Launches Probe Into Battery Defects Amid Class Suit
TOARMINAS KA INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jones Suit Claims
TOM DOUGLAS: Settles Suits vs. Restaurants for $2.4MM, Gift Cards
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stole Millions From NY Drivers, Suit Claims

UNILEVER: Faces Class Actions Over Anti-Stain Antiperspirants
UNITED AIRLINES: Briefing Sched on Bid to Dismiss Vallarta Revised
UNITED SERVICES: Withholding PIP Benefits Injures Insured, Says Ct.
UNITED STATES: Fed. Cir. Affirms Partial Final Judgment in Haggart
UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Granted in ICE Class Action

UNITED STATES: Suit Challenges Health Insurance for Visa-Seekers
UNITI GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline
UTOPIAN ACADEMY: Williams Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Custodians
WALT DISNEY: Attempts to Stop Potential Pay-Equity Class Action
WE COMPANY: Ex-Employee Files Shareholder Class Action vs. WeWork

WEST VIRGINIA: Foster Care Suit Defendants Hire Outside Counsel
WHOLE FOODS: Warren Sues Over False and Misleading Label on Oats
XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
[*] Australian Government Targets Environmental Activist Group
[*] CBD Companies Expect to Face Wave of Consumer Litigation

[*] Data Breach Damages Issues to Remain Contentious in 2020

                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

3 RIVERS BILLING: Certification of Class Sought in Larsen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Larsen moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANDREW LARSEN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 3 RIVERS BILLING,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01845-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
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


A AND A QUALITY: Robinson Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ROBINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. A AND A QUALITY APPLIANCE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03254 (D. Colo, Nov. 18, 2019), seeks relief from
the Defendant's willful misclassification of its "Sales Managers"
as exempt from overtime pay, resulting in the Defendant's violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Order,
and Colorado Wage Claim Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Sales Manager from
February 2019 to June of 2019. The Plaintiff worked at two of the
Defendant's stores in Denver.

A AND A, doing business as Appliance Factory & Mattress Kingdom, is
Colorado's largest independently owned appliance and mattress
retailer and the nation's largest discount appliance and mattress
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          April Rheaume, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  april@sanfordlawfirm.com


ADTRAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminded Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 16, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of ADTRAN, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADTN)
investors who purchased ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019
and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On July 17, 2019, the Company announced "preliminary" earnings for
second quarter 2019 due to its ongoing assessment of the
reasonableness of its current and previously reported excess and
obsolete inventory reserves ("E&O reserves").

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.69 per share, over
23%, to close at $12.13 per share on July 18, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on October 9, 2019, after-market, the Company announced that
its "revenue this quarter has been significantly impacted by a
pause in shipments to a Tier 1 customer in Latin America and the
continued slowdown in the spending at an international Tier 1
customer."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10 per share, over
19%, to close at $8.81 per share on October 10, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there were material
weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting; (2) that, as a result, certain E&O reserves had been
improperly reported; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results for certain periods were misstated; (4) that there would be
a pause in shipments to the Company's Latin American customer; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ADTRAN securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 16,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com

[GN]


ALASKA: Class Action Suit Filed to Halt Pioneer Homes Rate Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Maguire, writing for Web Center 11, reports that two Alaska
attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit in Ketchikan, Alaska,
seeking to reverse a rate rise at Pioneer Homes.

The suit alleges that the Dunleavy administration raised rates too
high and too quickly under state regulations. The attorneys,
appearing on behalf of all approximately 497 Pioneer Homes
residents, are seeking for the rate rise to be halted and
reversed.

According to court documents filed on Nov. 4, 2019, some residents
at Pioneer Homes saw a 140 percent rate rise in one month, leading
to tough financial decisions including bankruptcy and divorce.

The rate rise is said to be illegal as residents signed contracts
believing that rates would only rise gradually.

The Dunleavy administration has repeatedly said that no residents
will be required to move from a Pioneer Home if they don't have the
capacity to pay. The suit alleges that "this representation is
arbitrary and not credible."

The class action lawsuit was filed by Vance Sanders and Elizabeth
Bakalar, a former State of Alaska attorney who is separately suing
the Dunleavy administration for allegedly firing her illegally when
the governor took office. [GN]


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM YATES, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00831-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the parties ask the Court to enter a
proposed Final Order and proposed Final Judgment certifying the
proposed Settlement Class and approving the proposed Settlement as
being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class.

On December 2, 2019 Plaintiffs' counsel received checks from
Defendant Allegheny County which conform in form and amount to
those set forth in the Distribution to the Settlement Class Members
section of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action
Claims and for the incentive fee set forth in the Payment to
Plaintiffs section of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement of Class
Action Claims and the attorney's fees and costs set forth in the
Payment to Plaintiffs' Counsel section of the Joint Stipulation and
Settlement of Class Action Claims, the lawsuit says.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., Esq.
          FIESCHKO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          436 7th Avenue, Suite 2230
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-281-2204
          E-mail: joe@fieschko.com

AMAZING HOME: Faces Cedeno Suit in New York Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazing Home Care
Services, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ROSALIE MORAN
CEDENO, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY AMAZING HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC,
AMAZING HOME CARE PROVIDERS, INC. & INTERGEN HEALTH, LLC, ALONG
WITH OTHER ENTITIES AFFILIATED OR CONTROLLED BY AMAZING HOME CARE
SERVICES, LLC & AMAZING HOME CARE PROVIDERS, INC., Plaintiff v.
AMAZING HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC, AMAZING HOME CARE PROVIDERS, INC.,
INTERGEN HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 42061/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nov. 15, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Julia Rodriguez.

Amazing Home is a home health agency in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9082

The Defendants are represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4000


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Math Professor Wins Refunds of Illegal Dues
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are
fighting nationwide in courts to ensure that public sector
employees from every walk of life can exercise their First
Amendment rights under the Janus v. AFSCME decision, which in 2018
eliminated union dues and fees as a condition of employment for all
public sector workers and permits dues deductions only with the
affirmative consent of an employee.

Obstinate union bosses have thrown up many roadblocks to prevent
the workers they claim to represent from exercising those rights,
often enforcing illegal "window periods" where workers can only cut
off dues within a tiny, union boss-determined time period once
every year or few years, and refusing to return dues seized in
violation of workers' First Amendment rights before or even after
the Janus decision came down.

In California, Foundation attorneys recently secured a successful
settlement for Michael McCain, a math professor in the Ventura
County Community College District (VCCCD). American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) union officials forcibly took several months' worth
of illegal dues from McCain after he tried to resign his union
membership in the wake of the Janus decision.

The AFT officials argued that McCain had missed the so-called
"window" to resign, even though his dues authorization card made no
mention of this rule. Foundation attorneys countered that the AFT's
restrictive policy constituted a "violation of [McCain's] First
Amendment right not to subsidize union activity without [his]
affirmative consent and known waiver of that . . . right, as
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME."

Citing Janus, Foundation staff attorneys filed a class-action
lawsuit to stop the illegal policy and to secure refunds for McCain
and other VCCCD teachers of "dues deducted . . . without their
affirmative and knowing consent."

Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys and the Janus
precedent in court, VCCCD and AFT officials settled the case. Union
officials will now "fully and unconditionally" refund to McCain and
other teachers who asked to stop paying union dues since Janus was
decided all dues illegally taken since the dates of their requests,
plus interest.

Additionally, AFT and VCCCD are required by the settlement to not
"adopt any policy that restricts to a yearly window period the
time" when an employee can revoke his or her dues authorization.

"Union boss schemes like annual 'escape periods' serve no purpose
other than to continue the flow of illegal dues into union
coffers," observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark
Mix. "All American workers deserve the freedom that Janus
promises."

Though several Foundation lawsuits have yielded favorable
settlements and promises to abide by Janus from union bosses even
in states like California with heavily ingrained forced unionism
laws, Foundation attorneys are fighting for precedents at federal
courts that will wipe out union boss schemes meant to thwart Janus.
[GN]


AMERICAN FEDERATION: State Workers Sue Over Non-Member Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jan Murphy, writing for PennLive Patriot News, reports that a group
of seven current and former commonwealth workers filed a
class-action lawsuit against Pennsylvania's largest state employee
labor union in hopes of recouping some of the non-member fees they
paid to the union.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. Middle District Court on Thursday is
asking for the court to order the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees Council 13 to pay back an estimated
$3 million in mandatory union fees taken out of nearly 10,000 state
workers' paychecks in 2017 and 2018.

It was limited to those two years because that's all the statute of
limitations in Pennsylvania allows, said Brian Kelsey, Esq., a
senior attorney with the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit public
interest law center at a Capitol news conference held to announce
the lawsuit.

"They chose not to join the union yet they were forced to pay these
monthly union fees just so they could continue to work for public
service," Kelsey said. "Think about that. These people were forced
to pay money to a political organization just so they could keep
their jobs. That is wrong."

Kelsey noted the U.S. Supreme Court said as much in its June 2018
ruling in a case brought against AFSCME in Illinois by former child
support specialist Mark Janus, who was on hand for the news
conference. In that case, the court ruled union fees paid by
government workers who were not union members were illegal.

Since then, the Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation have been dropping lawsuits in some of the
22 non-Right-to-Work states affected by that court's decision. That
includes a separate one previously filed against the Service
Employees International Union Local 668 in Pennsylvania.

Dave Fillman, executive director of AFSCME 13, said this lawsuit
comes as no surprise. He is optimistic his union can successfully
defend itself in it.

"The courts have not looked very favorably about this whole
retroactivity," he said. "Even the Supreme Court didn't talk about
retroactivity" in its ruling in the Janus case.

Rather, he said the courts said the unions should stop collecting
fees from non-union members once that ruling was issued and his
union complied with that.

Fillman considers the lawsuit a waste of time and money but he said
that doesn't matter to outfits like the Liberty Justice Center and
other backers of this lawsuit that get their funding from
undisclosed sources who "have no real liking to help the working
folk. It's just to try to stifle us the best they can."

David Schaszberger, a former statistical analyst for the state
Department of Labor & Industry, is the lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit, along with former employee Jeanette Hulse and current
commonwealth employees Bradford Schmittle, Kyle Clouse, Colby
Conner, Gary Landiak and Andrew Malene.

Schaszberger said over the course of his 11 years of commonwealth
service, he estimates about $4,000 was taken out of his paycheck by
the union without his permission. He said he was glad the union
stopped deducting the fees from his paycheck once the Supreme Court
decision was rendered.

"But they also should pay us back what was taken wrongfully," he
said. "That's why I'm part of this lawsuit."

Janus said the court decision that bears his name freed about 5
million public sector workers across America to make a choice as to
whether they want to pay money to a union or not. But this lawsuit
like the others filed in other states are necessary to force the
unions to pay back the money taken from workers like him, he said.

"I never consented to it. I had no voice and I had no choice. And
the money just kept coming out and they treated me very much like
an ATM machine," Janus said.

But all that's changed now as a result of the Supreme Court ruling
in his case.

"The jig is up," Janus said. "Government workers across America
want their money back, money that was illegally seized by
politically powerful labor unions."

Because it is a class-action lawsuit, Kelsey said if Schaszberger
and the other plaintiffs are successful in getting the court to
side with them, all commonwealth employees who paid non-member fees
to AFSCME 13 in 2017 and 2018 would be entitled to receive money
back. He said they would be notified of that through a card that
would arrive in the mail. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over CR-V Windshield Cracks
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Honda
CR-V windshield crack has caused a class action lawsuit that
alleges the windshields spontaneously crack and shatter without
external impacts to the glass.

The lawsuit alleges 2017-2019 Honda CR-V SUVs are dangerous to
drivers, passengers and all others on the roads because the
structural integrity of the vehicles is compromised.

Another problem with windshield cracks comes in the form of the
Honda Sensing system that requires a clear unobstructed windshield
so the camera can detect other vehicles on the road.

The Honda CR-V windshield crack lawsuit was filed by Illinois
plaintiff Hakeem Hasan who purchased a new 2018 CR-V in January
2019. The plaintiff says he parked his CR-V in the apartment
parking lot in March 2019 when the SUV had less than 5,000 miles on
the odometer.

The next morning Hasan found a large crack in the lower right
section of the windshield but couldn't figure out how the crack
occurred.

The Honda dealership's warranty administrator took photos of the
CR-V that showed the crack, and after performing tests the
administrator determined the windshield damage was not caused by an
external impact.

According to the lawsuit, the administrator said the windshield
showed signs of a stress crack caused by defective construction or
materials.

A request was sent to the local parts and service manager because
the windshield was allegedly still covered by the warranty, but the
plaintiff claims the service manager refused to even look at the
damage. The warranty claim was allegedly rejected without
explanation, so the plaintiff took his CR-V to an auto glass repair
company.

The repair company allegedly found the crack was "non-impact," and
it originated at the edge of the windshield, "indicating a common
vehicle frame issue which exerts excessive pressure on the
windshield's edges, causing stress cracks."

Honda was told about the finding by the repair shop but Hasan says
the automaker again refused to pay for repairs.

The Honda Sensing system referred to earlier is described as a
"suite of features that can assist and help you sense things you
might miss while driving."

The 2018 CR-V Sensing system "employs the use of two distinctly
different kinds of sensors, a radar sensor located in the front
grille and a front sensor camera mounted to the interior side of
the windshield, behind the rear view mirror." But the lawsuit
alleges a cracked windshield interferes with the system, something
customers are warned about in CR-V owner's manuals.

"[S]cratches, nicks, and other damage to the windshield within the
camera's field of vision can cause the system to operate
abnormally. If this occurs, we recommend that you replace the
windshield with a genuine Honda replacement windshield."

According to the plaintiff, the Honda CR-V windshield problems are
ignored by Honda as the automaker continues to refuse warranty
claims related to the windshields.

In addition to the dangers of cracked and shattered CR-V
windshields, the class action points out how customers are left
with driving vehicles that simply don't look good due to glass
damage.

The Honda CR-V windshield crack class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division - Hasan, et al., v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by McGuire Law.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about Honda CR-V
SUVs. [GN]


AMR STAFFING: Cano Suit Removed to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Cayetano Morales Cano,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DOES 1 thru 10, inclusive; AMR Staffing, Inc., an
active California Corporation; SSI Staffing, Inc., an active
California Corporation; FCI Logistics, Ltd., an active California
Corporation; and Yusen Logistics Americas Inc., an active New York
Corporation, Case No. 19STCV29817, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court-Spring Street to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division-Los Angeles) on
Nov. 15, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09826-CAS-FFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder.

The suit alleges violation of job-related laws.

Yusen Logistics is a third-party logistics provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC INC.
          24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030

               - and -

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW APC
          24007 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 210
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
          
Yusen Logistics Americas Inc. is represented by:

          Daniel Chammas, Esq.
          Shanda Yasmin Lowe, Esq.
          FORD AND HARRISON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
          E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                  slowe@fordharrison.com


APPLE INC: Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Defects Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that in October 2019, in the case Ahern v. Apple
Inc., the Northern District of California dismissed a sprawling
14-state, 46-count putative class action in which the plaintiffs
alleged that Apple computers were defective.

The plaintiffs alleged that Apple's computers lacked a filter that
would prevent dust and debris from clouding the computers' screens
and slowing down their processing speed.  According to plaintiffs,
Apple failed to disclose this alleged defect in full and instead
advertised its computers as reliable, durable, high quality, and
with "clear" and "remarkably vivid" screens. Apple also advertised
that its computers underwent "rigorous testing."

The plaintiffs hailed from 14 states and sought to represent a
class of all consumers who purchased Apple computers between March
2011 and April 2018. They alleged fraud and consumer protection law
claims based on Apple's purported misrepresentations about its
computers and alleged concealment of the defect.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims based on three key rulings.
First, it found that the plaintiffs failed to show any affirmative
misrepresentations because most of the statements plaintiffs relied
on relating to quality and durability were non-actionable puffery.
Although the statement concerning rigorous testing was not puffery,
the court found that it was not false because the plaintiffs never
alleged that Apple did not test its products.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead a
viable omission-based theory. It rejected the argument that Apple's
limited disclosure of the defect in a user guide deceived consumers
into thinking that the defect was rare, as the plaintiffs never
alleged that they read the disclosure. The court also found that
the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple knew that the defect would
impact the motherboard, rejecting allegations based on consumer
complaints because those complaints did not identify the specific
filter defect.

Third, the court found that Apple had no duty to disclose the
alleged defect. Under California law, there was no duty to disclose
because the filter defect did not impair the computers' central
function or endanger consumers. Under other states' laws, Apple did
not have a duty to disclose based on superior knowledge, as there
were no allegations concerning what information Apple possessed or
why the plaintiffs could not discover it. Finally, plaintiffs
failed to allege any intentional acts of concealment. [GN]


APPLIED SERVICES: Must Answer Interrogatory No. 6 in Thompson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACK THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED SERVICES
AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:19-CV-127-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery filed on Nov. 1, 2019.

Thompson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
initiated the action with the filing of his Original Complaint on
March 14, 2019.  The Plaintiff later filed his First Amended
Complaint on May 9, 2019.  He alleges that Defendant Applied
Services Augmentation Partners, Inc. ("ASAP") failed to pay him,
and other workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Instead of paying overtime, ASAP pays
Thompson the same hourly rate for the hours he works over 40 in a
work week. The Plaintiff further alleges that ASAP's 'straight time
for overtime' payment scheme violates the FLSA and involves
hundreds of workers.

On Oct. 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge's staff received a call from
the Plaintiff's attorney reporting that the parties had disputes
regarding discovery.  Pursuant to the Case Management Order, the
Magistrate Judge held a telephone conference with the counsel for
the parties on Oct. 17, 2019.  During that telephone conference,
the tMagistrate Judge directed that the Defendant produce its
Master Service Agreement to the Plaintiff, subject to certain
conditions, and that the parties further confer regarding their
other discovery disputes.

Consistent with the Court's direction, the Plaintiff filed the
pending motion to compel.  He requests that the Court compels the
Defendant to: (1) produce pay data for the Putative Class Members,
pursuant to Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2, including names,
last known address, email address, and phone numbers; and (2) fully
answer Interrogatory No. 6 as to the Putative Class as a whole.
The Plaintiff defines Putative Class Members as all current and
former workers employed by, or working on behalf of, ASAP between
March 14, 2016, and the present, who were paid the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, including those hours over 40 in a workweek.
Interrogatory No. 6 seeks the "factual and legal basis" for any
contention by the Defendant of any exemption defense applicable to
one or more claims made by the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members.

Magistrate Judge Keesler was not convinced during the telephone
conference on Oct. 17, 2019, that the requested information at
issue needed to be produced.  Nevertheless, he directed the parties
to confer again, and encouraged them to reach a compromise.  Those
efforts failed, and since then Judge Whitney has denied conditional
certification and declined to involve the Court in any notice or
notice process to Putative Class Members.  Moreover, Judge Whitney
set Dec. 13, 2019, as a revised deadline to add additional parties.
The Court's revised deadline does not seem to suggest that Judge
Whitney intended to allow extensive discovery into the putative
class or that he planned to reconsider conditional certification.

Based on the foregoing, the parties' arguments, and the Court's
previous telephone conference, the Magistrate Judge finds that the
requested discovery of Putative Class Members data in Requests for
Production Nos. 1 and 2 is not proportional to the needs of the
case and should be denied.  However, he is persuaded that the
Defendant should provide response(s) and/or supplement its response
to Interrogatory No. 6 as to any and all the Plaintiffs and the
opt-in Plaintiffs.  The Defendant will provide its responses and/or
supplementations to Interrogatory No. 6 on or before Jan. 7, 2020.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Keesler granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery.  He granted as to
Interrogatory No. 6, as directed, and denied as to Requests for
Production Nos. 1 and 2.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LzVBJE from Leagle.com.

Jack Thompson, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson
Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Robert Strianese --
chris@strilaw.com -- Strianese Huckert LLP & Tamara L. Huckert --
tamara@strilaw.com -- Strianese Huckert, LLP.

Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Edward Norman Boehm, Jr. -- tboehm@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher
Philliips LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin Joseph Dalton --
kdalton@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.

ASSURANCE IQ: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lopez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOVANN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-24913-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 27, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Assurance IQ, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers
insurance platform for protecting and improving the personal and
financial health of all consumers. Assurance IQ operates in the
State of Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


BASS PRO: $2.4M Attorneys' Fees Award in McKeage Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert McKeage, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Janet McKeage, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bass Pro
Outdoor World, LLC; TMBC, LLC; Tracker Marine Retail, LLC
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-3633 (8th Cir.), Judge Jane L.
Kelly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (i)
affirmed the district court's award of $2,398,353.09 in attorney's
fees to be paid by TMBC, and award of up to $700,000 in costs; but
(ii) reversed the district court's decision to award the costs from
the common fund.

Robert and Janet McKeage filed the class action lawsuit in 2009.
They alleged that TMBC's nationwide practice of charging a fee for
preparing legal documents when selling boats and trailers
constituted unauthorized law business in violation of Mo. Rev.
Stat. Sections 484.010 and 484.020.  The district court granted
summary judgment to the class and awarded attorney's fees and costs
from the common fund.

The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but reversed and
remanded the award of attorney's fees and costs, directing the
district court to enforce a contractual fee-shifting provision that
entitled the class to recover all litigation costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees from TMBC.  On remand, the
district court shifted $2,398,353.09 in attorney's fees to TMBC but
awarded $700,000 in costs from the common fund.

The McKeages appeal.  They contend that the district court erred in
awarding costs from the common fund, in denying as "speculative"
$18,633.56 in future costs, and in declining to award additional
attorney's fees from the common fund.  TMBC counters that the class
members lack standing to bring the action.

The McKeages have not contested the district court's lodestar
calculation, and Judge Kelly finds no abuse of discretion in the
district court's decision to award only that amount --
$2,398,353.09 in attorney's fees.  The decision of whether to award
additional fees from the common fund was discretionary.

As for the costs, the McKeages challenge the district court's
decisions to award the costs from the common fund and to limit the
award to $700,000.  The Judge finds no abuse of discretion in the
district court's decision to limit the award, including future
costs, to $700,000.  The district court reasonably found that the
plaintiffs did not establish that they were entitled to the full
amount of costs they requested, as the future costs had not been
incurred and the plaintiffs' estimates were based, in part, on
assumptions about future behavior.

However, the Judge concludes that the district court erred in
awarding the Plaintiffs' costs from the common fund rather than
shifting them to TMBC.  The class members' contracts entitled them
to have all litigation costs and expenses paid by TMBC.  Neither
party argued that the non-speculative costs should not be shifted
to TMBC, and the district court's sua sponte decision to instead
award them from the common fund deprived the class members of the
benefit of their contractual bargain.

Accordingly, Judge Kelly affirmed the district court's award of
$2,398,353.09 in attorney's fees to be paid by TMBC.  She also
affirmed the district court's award of up to $700,000 in costs.
But she reversed the district court's decision to award these costs
from the common fund.  They are instead shifted to TMBC pursuant to
the parties' contracts.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Apew3u from Leagle.com.

Steve Bret Garner -- sgarner@stronglaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David L. Baylard -- dbaylard@bbd-law.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ashley Charles Parrish, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jason C. Smith, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael W. Youtt -- myoutt@kslaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Derek A. Ankrom -- dankrom@spencerfane.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Chandler Gregg, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Craig M. Warner -- cwarner@kslaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

William R. Burns -- bburns@kslaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Denial in Titus
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESA TITUS, an individual and as a representative of
the class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLUECHIP FINANCIAL,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-35940 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order
denying the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed BlueChip
Financial's appeal as moot.

Titus moves to dismiss BlueChip Financial's appeal of the district
court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration.  The Court
granted the motion.  It holds that because Titus voluntarily
dismissed her claims against BlueChip with prejudice before
BlueChip served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment,
the case is no longer proceeding, and deciding the appeal would
have no effect within the confines of the case itself.  Therefore,
this appeal is moot.

BlueChip's arguments to the contrary lack merit, the Court finds.
BlueChip's contentions that Titus acted improperly by failing to
inform the district court that similar class actions were pending
against BlueChip and failing to inform the district court and the
Court of the terms of Titus' settlement agreement with other
defendants do not change the fact that the action is no longer
proceeding.  Nor has BlueChip cited any authority for the
proposition that it was improper for Titus to dismiss her action
without explanation after the district court issued a stay order,
and the Court has found none.  Finally, because BlueChip failed to
assert its counterclaims in an answer which would have barred
Titus's voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)), BlueChip's
assertions that it could have raised counterclaims against Titus
are unavailing.

The Court also rejects BlueChip's argument that there remains a
live controversy between the parties.  It is irrelevant that Titus'
counsel have filed putative class actions against BlueChip in other
cases with other plaintiffs, because the Court may not look beyond
the confines of the case itself in assessing mootness.  Therefore,
even if BlueChip is correct that Titus's attorneys engaged in
"strategic voluntary cessation," such conduct does not affect the
mootness analysis.

Finally, because Titus' unilateral action caused the case to become
moot, the Court vacated the district court's order denying the
motion to compel arbitration.  It also dismissed the appeal as
moot.  Although the Court declines to designate future appeals
regarding the enforceability of BlueChip's arbitration provision as
comeback cases, its decision is without prejudice to any future
motion to assign an appeal raising the same legal issues to the
panel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/L71kq2 from Leagle.com.


BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Probiotic Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessi Devenyns, writing for Food Dive, reports that a second class
action lawsuit was filed against Brew Dr. Kombucha alleging that
its products falsely advertised the levels of probiotic bacteria
that was in each beverage. According to lab tests, the "Clear Mind"
kombucha drink contains 50,000 CFUs of probiotic bacteria per
bottle, which is 20,000 times less than the billions advertised.

Although the lawsuit claims that the kombucha company advertised
its product based on the "probiotic bacteria" in each bottle, the
labels in the lawsuit filing state that "each bottle hosts billions
of beneficial bacteria, yeast and organic acids" and that it "hosts
billions of live and active cultures."

The suit calls it "telling" that the company recently changed its
labeling to remove all reference to the probiotic content of its
drinks. In the first case, which is still ongoing, the plaintiff
leveled the similar claims that the advertised probiotic content
did not match what was actually in the bottle.

This case is just the the latest in recent years against several
kombucha companies alleging that their labeling does not match what
is actually in the bottle.  In addition to the original lawsuit
against Brew Dr. Kombucha filed in May last year, Health-Ade
recently agreed to pay $4 million to settle two lawsuits citing
inconsistencies between the sugar and alcohol levels in the
beverage and what was stated on the label. Likewise, O Organics,
Better Booch, The Bu and Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha have all faced
similar lawsuits. Although cumbersome for the companies, all these
suits have all been dismissed.

For companies that settle, there are ramifications including
financial compensation as well as reformulations and labeling
corrections that can alter the brands in a noticeable fashion.

Although not as damaging as a guilty verdict in court, a settlement
and even a dismissal can cause consumers to develop trust issues
with brands for which they previously patrons. Not only can
multiple lawsuits cause consumers to become wary, but it can also
force companies to change their brands in ways that can damage
their carefully crafted images.

In the case of Brew Dr. Kombucha, removing any mention of probiotic
content prevents the company from touting health benefits that were
previously part of its image and could affect sales. At the same
time, this particular brand has pursued packaging changes of its
own accord as it looks for ways to stand out from the pack. The
company could spin this new labeling as an effort to further
differentiate itself and play up other attributes like its
antioxidant content from tea or the functional benefits associated
with its individual flavors.

Still, the wild popularity of kombucha is based primarily on the
drink's probiotic content and so the industry may wnat to consider
coming up with standards of identity to give consistency to
manufacturers producing the beverage. By doing so, it could provide
some level of protection because then consumers will know what to
expect in a beverage and manufacturers will have greater guidelines
to avoid misleading claims on their labels.

As the kombucha market matures, its sales are beginning to level
off, potentially making it harder to weather repeated lawsuits as
when it was a nascent, hot category. Food Navigator reported sales
for the year ending February 24 of refrigerated kombucha and other
fermented beverages rose 21% to $728.8 million. Compared with a
year before, sale velocities of the beverage were down, meaning
more places are carrying kombucha, but may not be selling it as
fast as before. [GN]


BURGER KING: Williams Sues for Misrepresenting Impossible Whopper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BURGER KING
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-24755-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to put a stop
to the Defendant's misleading practice of selling and marketing its
"Impossible" Whopper burger as a meat-free food option.

Despite Burger King's representations that the Impossible Whopper
uses the trademarked "Impossible Meat" that is well known as a
meat-free and vegan meat alternative, Burger King cooks these vegan
patties on the same grills as its traditional meat products, thus,
covering the outside of the Impossible Whopper's meat-free patties
with meat by-product, the Plaintiff alleges.

"Impossible" meat is a trademarked product that is owned
independently from Burger King that is widely known across the
country as a vegan meat substitute.

Mr. Williams brings this action to obtain redress for all persons
injured by Defendant Burger King's deceptive and unlawful conduct
pursuant to the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation with its
headquarters located in Miami, Florida, from where it manages the
operations of thousands of Burger King fast-food restaurants
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Healy, Esq.
          DUDLEY, SELLERS, HEALY, HEATH & DESMOND, PLLC
          SunTrust Financial Center
          3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 222-5400
          Facsimile: (850) 222-7339
          E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok App Secretly Collects Data, Hong Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MISTY HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; TIKTOK, INC.; BEIJING
BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD; and MUSICAL.LY, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-07792 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for violating the Plaintiff's data privacy and security
through its app, TikTok.

According to the complaint, TikTok is one of the most popular
entertainment apps for mobile devices in the U.S. It has acquired
one of the largest installed user bases in the country on the
strength of its popular 15-second videos of fun activities like
dancing, lip-syncing, and stunts. Unknown to its users, however, is
that TikTok also includes Chinese surveillance software. TikTok
clandestinely has vacuumed up and transferred to servers in China
vast quantities of private and personally-identifiable user data
that can be employed to identify, profile and track the location
and activities of users in the United States now and in the future.
TikTok also has surreptitiously taken user content, such as draft
videos never intended for publication, without user knowledge or
consent. In short, TikTok's lighthearted fun comes at a heavy cost.
Meanwhile, TikTok unjustly profits from its secret harvesting of
private and personally-identifiable user data by, among other
things, using such data to derive vast targeted-advertising
revenues and profits. Its conduct violates statutory,
Constitutional, and common law privacy, data, and consumer
protections.

Bytedance Limited. provides online information and contents. The
Company develops short video platforms, original short video
community, news platforms, and other related products. Bytedance
offers services worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
          Thomas R. Freeman, Esq.
          Marc E. Masters, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM
             DROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

               - and -

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


CHICAGO TITLE: Aided Champion-Cain 'Ponzi Scheme', Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Weisberg, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that a class-action lawsuit filed against Chicago Title in
connection with a federal fraud case against Gina Champion-Cain
alleges that the company was complicit in what it claims was a
"Ponzi scheme" to defraud investors who believed they were making
high-interest loans to liquor license applicants.

The suit is the second in less than a month to target Chicago Title
Company as an alleged co-conspirator in the Securities and Exchange
Commission's fraud case filed in August against Champion-Cain, a
well-known San Diego businesswoman, and her company, American
National Investments. Among others also named in the lawsuit are
Champion-Cain and two senior escrow officers with Chicago Title.

Champion-Cain has been cooperating with the SEC and has voluntarily
ceded control of American National Investments and its subsidiary,
ANI Development, to a court-appointed receiver. While the SEC has
filed fraud charges against Champion-Cain, so far no criminal
charges have been brought against her and ANI. Legal experts
following the case believe a criminal indictment is likely.

Filed on behalf of the more than 50 investors who are believed to
have been victimized in the alcohol license lending program, the
suit alleges total losses of $140 million and accuses the
defendants of fraud and violation of racketeering laws. The lead
plaintiffs in the suit are Blake and Melissa Allred, a married
couple from Fillmore, Calif., who invested $125,000 in the ANI
lending scheme.

"Beginning in 2012 and continuing until September 2019, Defendants
defrauded Plaintiffs and other investors of hundreds of millions of
dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme in which Defendants falsely
represented that Plaintiffs' investment funds were being used to
make high-interest short-term loans to California liquor license
applicants through a special lending 'program,'" the suit alleges.

Key to the success of the scheme, says the lawsuit, was Chicago
Title, a widely known financial institution where secure escrow
accounts were supposed to be created for holding the money lent for
the alcohol license applicants. At least two escrow officers there
helped perpetrate the fraud, the suit alleges, providing lists of
"purported" liquor license applications and fielding telephone and
email inquiries from investors.

In exchange for their assistance, the suit claims the escrow
officers were rewarded with at least $29,000 in gifts, plus
"lavish" meals, a vacation and Padres baseball tickets.

San Diego attorney Benjamin Galdston said Thursday, November 7, he
had begun looking into the liquor license operation before the SEC
filed its case after receiving an inquiry from a San Diego business
owner.

"We recognize these are very serious charges against an established
household name, Chicago Title, a respected fiduciary," said
Galdston, whose class- action law firm, Berger Montague, began
advertising in early September to recruit potential investor
victims. "In our investigation, we focused on what other parties
could be involved in this fraudulent scheme because it was unlikely
that Miss Cain could pull this off without the complicity of
another actor. Our investigation included interviews with numerous
former Chicago Title and ANI employees and investors as to what was
Chicago Title's role in perpetuating the scheme."

Attorney Steve Strauss, Esq. -- sms@cooley.com --  of the Cooley
law firm, which is representing Chicago Title, said Thursday that
the Berger Montague suit appears to differ little from the
complaint filed last month against Chicago Title by Banc of
California, a Santa Ana-based bank, and investment firms Ovation
Finance Holdings and Ovation Fund Management.

"Chicago Title takes these allegations very seriously and is
investigating them internally," said Strauss. "But we don't think
this is an appropriate class action. The class has to be so
numerous that it wouldn't be feasible for individuals to be
represented, and already many of the investor lenders have been
identified by counsel. In addition, individual issues are not
appropriate for class certification."

A number of the allegations in the suit are in fact quite similar
to the previously filed Chicago Title suit, although, in some
instances, there is more detail contained in the class-action
complaint.

For instance, the suit alleges that one of the Chicago Title escrow
officers, Adelle DuCharme, persuaded Champion-Cain to pay for a
vacation to San Jose del Cabo in Baja California, which included
first-class tickets on United Airlines. DuCharme, the suit further
claims, demanded that Champion-Cain subsidize an overseas trip for
her son, which was paid for with 172,500 airline miles from
Champion-Cain.

More broadly, the suit asserts that Chicago Title and its agents
failed to notify investors or law enforcement authorities of the
purported fraud.

While it could take considerable time to resolve the growing number
of legal claims in the liquor license lending scheme,
court-appointed receiver Krista Freitag is sorting through a morass
of bank accounts and properties once controlled by Champion-Cain.
In a recent report, she said the business assets have an estimated
value of $12 million to $14 million, although that could change as
Freitag continues her work.

Meanwhile the four remaining restaurants in Champion-Cain's once
robust dining empire are now being operated by the Cohn Restaurant
Group at the request of Freitag. [GN]


CLIENT SERVICES: Voeks' Bid for Class Certification Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman stayed the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned MEGAN VOEKS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01832-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  To prevent
the Defendant from mooting the action, the Plaintiff moves for
class certification and to stay that motion.  See Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016).

The Plaintiff also moves for relief from local rules requiring
every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and
imposing a briefing schedule.

"I will grant these requests and stay the motion for Damasco
protective purposes," Judge Adelman rules.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to stay the class certification
motion and motion for relief from the local rules are granted.  The
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stayed.  No briefing
schedule is imposed.[CC]


COORDINATED STAFF: Cano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc. removes the case captioned as
CAYETANO MORALES CANO, Plaintiff v. COORDINATED STAFF, INC.; SSI
STAFFING, INC.; F.C.L. LOGISTICS, LTD.; YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS)
INC. and DOES 1 thru 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV29817 (Filed Aug. 26, 2019), 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 Nov. 18, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09826-CAS-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent persons, who are employed or have
been employed as a non-exempt, hourly employee by  the Defendants
in the State of California at any time from four years immediately
preceding the filing of the lawsuit to the present.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages;
failed to provide paid rest periods; failed to timely pay wages
upon termination/separation; and violated California Business &
Professions Code.

Yusen Logistics is a third-party logistics provider.[BN]

Yusen is represented by:

          Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
          Shanda Lowe, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
          E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                  slower@fordharrison.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Panning FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Chase Panning, an individual, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cox Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-02019-01100799-CU-BT-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on
Nov. 15, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-02248-JVS-JDE to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of Cox
Enterprises providing digital cable television, telecommunications
and Home Automation services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Robert Neil Fisher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com

Cox Communications Inc. is represented by:

          Richard R. Patch, Esq.
          Philip D. W Miller, Esq.
          Scott C. Hall, Esq.
          COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY AND BASS LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94104-5500
          Telephone: (415) 391-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 989-1663
          E-mail: rrp@cpdb.com
                  pmiller@coblentzlaw.com
                  sch@cpdb.com


CUADRILLA: Faces Homeowners' Class Action Over Fracking Site
------------------------------------------------------------
George Martin, writing for Yahoo! News, reports that Cuadrilla is
facing legal action from homeowners over their claims that the
company's fracking site caused earthquakes and damage to their
properties.

The company's controversial Preston New Road site near Blackpool
allegedly caused "thousands of pounds" worth of damage to local
homes after seismic activity in August.

The oil and gas exploration firm recently attempted to stave off
the threat of legal action by offering residents GBP250 "goodwill
payments".

But their efforts appear to have backfired with The Times reporting
that "two and three dozen" locals will join the class action
against Cuadrilla.

One resident, Mark Mills, said the group were talking their
complaints to a law firm and expected more residents to come
forward.

"I've begun instructing my solicitor," Mills told the newspaper.

"I know a lot of people feel that those GBP250 payments were
derisory and bear no relation to repairing this damage."

The Government announced on Nov. 1 it is ending its support for
fracking, a process which has provoked particular outrage in
counties such as Lancashire and Yorkshire.

Francis Egan, chief executive of Cuadrilla, said he was unaware of
potential ligation and said the company would "vigorously defend"
its position.

The Government announced on Nov. 1 it is ending its support for
fracking, a process which has provoked particular outrage in
counties such as Lancashire and Yorkshire.

Earlier the government faced growing calls to make its fracking ban
permanent, as opponents raised concerns the major U-turn could be
an election ploy.

The suspension is a reversal of years of support from the Tories,
including from Boris Johnson who has consistently praised shale gas
extraction and hit out at its opponents.

On Nov. 2, Andrea Leadsom defended the suspension despite praising
the "advantages" of fracking, which she hailed as "a huge
opportunity".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's a disappointment but
we've always been clear that we will follow the science."

Pressed on why a permanent ban is not being imposed, she replied:
"Because this is a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom.

"We will follow the science and it is quite clear that we can't be
certain. The science isn't accurate enough to be able to assess the
fault lines, the geological studies have been shown to be
inaccurate, so therefore unless and until we can be absolutely
certain, we are imposing a moratorium."

The PM has previously hailed fracking as a potential "answer to the
nation's prayers", and called its critics' reactions as "ludicrous"
and "mad denunciations".

But he has now followed Labour's pledge for a ban and conceded he
has "very considerable anxieties" about it, amid growing public
opposition. [GN]


DESH BANGLA: Sarker Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay & Earned Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjibon A. Sarker, Plaintiff v. Choudhury Manjurul Hasan; Desh
Bangla Inc.; The Bangla Times Inc.; and C.M.M. Hasan, Physician,
P.C., Defendants, Case No. 719490/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 18, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation and earned wages, in violation of the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants employed Mr. Sarker to work for the newspapers with
the primary duty of being a reporter. As a reporter, the Plaintiff
would gather information in the field from various venues and
businesses and then report the stories to the Entity Defendants to
be printed as news articles.

Mr. Sarker says he was a loyal and dedicated employee, who
regularly worked over 40 hours a week when he was employed by the
Defendants. As compensation, the Defendants provided the Plaintiff
a fixed weekly payment that did not compensate him in accordance
with the requirements of New York's wage and hour laws, the lawsuit
says.

Desh Bangla Inc. and The Bangla Times Inc. are local community
newspapers that serve the Bangladeshi community of New York City
and the surrounding areas. Both newspapers are owned by Defendant
Choudhury Manjurul Hasan. Mr. Hasan also owns and operates a
medical practice, Defendant C.M.M. Hasan, Physician, P.C. The
medical practice and newspapers are run as a single business in
that they use the same employees, management, and resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat107@gmail.com


EDDIE BAUER: Remand of Harbers to King County Superior Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER HARBERS, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. C19-0968JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, denied Ms. Harbers' motion to remand the action to King
County Superior Court.

Ms. Harbers filed a putative class action complaint in King County
Superior Court alleging that Eddie Bauer violated certain
provisions of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act
("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").  Ms.
Harbers alleges that since November 2017, she has received roughly
43 Eddie Bauer marketing e-mails containing "xx% Off Everything,"
"xx% Off Your Purchase," "Take xx% Off," "Get xx% Off," or similar
language in the subject line.

Ms. Harbers contends that these subject lines contain two types of
false or misleading statements.  First, Ms. Harbers asserts that
the percentage-off statements are false or misleading because in
reality, Eddie Bauer is not offering the products at the promised
discount.  Second, she contends that "Everything" and "Off Your
Purchase" are further false or misleading, and that she thought
these subject lines meant that all Eddie Bauer's products would be
offered at a discount.

Ms. Harbers claims that the 43 Eddie Bauer e-mails described above
violate CEMA, which regulates various electronic practices,
including the transmission of commercial e-mail message.  Although
CEMA does not provide a private right of action for damages,
recipients of commercial e-mails containing false or misleading
subject lines can sue for injunctive relief.  In addition to the
injunctive relief available under CEMA, a recipient of an unlawful
commercial e-may can bring a civil action against the sender under
the CPA for either statutory or actual damages.

Ms. Harbers alleges two causes of action: (1) a per se violation of
the CPA; and (2) a CEMA violation.  In her first cause of action,
Ms. Harbers seeks both injunctive relief and statutory damages.
She estimates that statutory damages will be $500 to each putative
class member multiplied by 43 violative e-mails, the total of which
exceeds one billion dollars.  Under her second cause of action, Ms.
Harbers seeks only injunctive relief.

On June 21, 2019, Eddie Bauer removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  In response,
Ms. Harbers moves to remand, arguing that she intentionally does
not allege a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact to establish
Article III standing in federal court.  She explains her position
as a "non-traditional—but increasingly common—tack" based on
state law.  Specifically, Ms. Harbers contends that she
intentionally pleaded her claims to be non-removable.

Judge Robart concludes that Ms. Harbers pleaded a concrete
injury-in-fact by alleging that Eddie Bauer violated the CPA by way
of RCW 19.190.020(1)(b).  CEMA was enacted to protect concrete
interests in being free from deceptive commercial e-mails.  CEMA's
prohibition on sending commercial e-mails with false or misleading
subject lines resembles the substantive provision raised in Van
Patten and creates a substantive right to be free from deceptive
commercial e-mails.  However, even if Ms. Harbers' CEMA allegations
were procedural, Ms. Harbers has still alleged a concrete injury.

Because the alleged violation presents at least a material risk of
harm to an individual's concrete interest in being free from
deceptive commercial e-mails, which CEMA was enacted to protect,
she need not allege any additional harm in order to meet the
concreteness requirement.  Consequently, Ms. Harbers has
sufficiently pleaded an injury-in-fact and satisfies the
constitutional requirement of Article III standing.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Judge denied Ms. Harbers'
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ofyeRr from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Harbers, for Herself, as a Private Attorney General,
and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Che Z. Corrington -- che@hattislaw.com -- HATTIS &
LUKACS PLLC, Daniel M. Hattis -- dan@hattislaw.com -- HATTIS &
LUKACS PLLC & Paul Karl Lukacs, HATTIS & LUKACS, pro hac vice.

Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony Anscombe --
aanscombe@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, pro hac vice, Marc
C. Levy -- marcl@seedip.com -- SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP
PLLC, Meegan Brooks -- mbrooks@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON
LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie Sheridan -- ssheridan@steptoe.com --
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Shewmake --
tomshewmake@seedip.com -- SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP
PLLC.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Pawar Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Eldorado
Resorts, Inc. (NYSE: ERI) from March 1, 2019 through September 2,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Eldorado Resorts, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/eldorado-resorts-inc/or call Vik
Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) several of the Company's executive officers, including
CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect to the
securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
22, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Tel: (917) 261-2277  
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]


ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: Class of Maintainers Certified in Belvin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Upon agreement and stipulation by the parties, U.S. Magistrate
Judge Peggy Kuo certifies the class action styled MICHAEL BELVIN,
NERY DUQUE-GARCIA, DANIEL MACHADO, MICHAEL MAYERS, JORGE RESTREPO,
MARCELINO REYES, ADRIANO TURBI-GARCIA, and MANUEL VERA,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT LLC; FIRST HOUSING COMPANY, INC.; FOURTH
HOUSING COMPANY, INC.; SECOND HOUSING COMPANY, INC.; THIRD HOUSING
COMPANY, INC.; and GERALD FINKEL; jointly and severally, Case No.
15 CV 4924 (KAM)(PK)(E.D.N.Y.), pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The class includes all maintainers employed by the Defendants since
August 21, 2009, who were responsible, at times, to perform
overnight duties.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul F. Millus, Esq.
          MEYER, SUOZZI ENGLISH & KLEIN, P.C.
          990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 9194
          Garden City, NY 11530-9194
          Telephone: (516) 741-6565
          Facsimile: (516) 741-6706
          E-mail: pmillus@msek.com


EXTENDICARE: Faces Class Action Over Care Home Resident Neglect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson, writing for CBC News, reports that Rita Bedford, 94,
was kept confined to her apartment in a Chilliwack, B.C., senior
care home for two weeks last December over the holidays -- while
bedbugs multiplied on her mattress.

She is blind, and a staffer alleged in emails to provincial
authorities that employees of The Cascades facility were ordered
not to tell Bedford what was happening.

But, so disturbed by what she saw, the staffer took photos.

Another took video -- capturing bedbugs scurrying across Bedford's
mattress, bloodstains, and bedbug carcasses on the floor. They sent
the images to Bedford's daughter in Ottawa, early in the New Year.


"I couldn't believe my eyes," said Anne-Marie Burgon, recalling how
she played the video several times, trying to absorb what she was
seeing. "I'm so grateful that [the employees] were willing to stand
up for their beliefs, for doing the right thing, the moral thing."

"I could not believe that a facility in Canada . . . would allow
something so hideous to happen."

Infuriating, yes, but "not shocking," said Amani Oakley, a
Toronto-area lawyer who has battled nursing home chains for over
two decades, and who currently has several lawsuits underway
against Cascades owner Sienna Senior Living, formerly Leisureworld.


"I'm infuriated that we still are allowing these corporations to
make money off our seniors . . . while delivering shoddy care,"
Oakley said.

Burgon was first contacted on Dec. 20, 2018 by the Cascades head
nurse, who was filling in for the vacationing executive director.

She says she was told that a resident living next to her mother had
brought bedbugs into the facility and that a single bedbug had been
found on Bedford's bed.

"I assumed they knew what they were doing," said Burgon. "I thought
it would be not much of a big deal."

But according to a timeline the home later provided to health
authorities, employees had, on Dec. 19, found "10 small bite marks"
on Bedford's back and arms, "blood spots" on her bed and "five
possible bed bugs" on her floor.

Staff were told to "wash and change" Bedford, and a pest control
company was brought in, though only the apartment next to hers was
heat-treated and vacuumed, according to the timeline. In Bedford's
apartment, an ant trap was placed between her mattress and box
spring.

After two weeks, on Jan. 2, a Cascades employee complained to
regulators with the Ministry of Health, reporting she and her
colleagues were being instructed to keep Bedford confined to her
room.

"Please help," the employee wrote in an email. "It's inhumane."

She claimed management told staff to lie to Bedford -- that she was
sick and couldn't visit with friends or share Christmas dinner with
other residents. She also alleged management threatened to fire any
staff who spoke publicly or to other residents about the outbreak.


"I just can't do it any longer," the employee wrote, calling
Bedford a "blood buffet."

"This woman is 94 and blind. Locked in a room, being chewed up
while management hides it."

That same day staff moved Bedford and her neighbour to new suites.
Management later claimed, in the timeline, that they didn't have
other rooms available until then.

'I felt betrayed'
An employee secretly described what her mother had endured over the
holidays, Burgon says.

"I was told of her crying and asking repeatedly, 'Are these bugs
crawling on my skin?'" she said. "It broke my heart ... I felt
betrayed."

Around then, Cascades executive director Rob White returned from
vacation.

Burgon says he told her that Sienna did not know how to handle the
bedbug outbreak and says he repeatedly complained to her about the
cost of dealing with it.

"I had to listen to his concerns about how expensive this was and
how much time it was taking him away from his job," Burgon said.

White did not respond to Go Public's request for an interview.

'Inspections tend to be announced'
Oakley, the lawyer, says she hears so many complaints of neglect
and abuse involving Canada's three largest for-profit seniors'
homes that last year, she filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
involving 200 families.

The lawsuit named Extendicare, which runs 96 homes across the
country; Sienna, which operates 83; and Revera, which runs 76.

Oakley alleged the companies were "systematically negligent" but
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice discontinued the lawsuit,
says Oakley, because the cases were too dissimilar.

She is instead pursuing dozens of individual lawsuits on behalf of
the families.

None of the allegations has been proven in court and all three
companies deny the allegations have merit.

Oakley says because privately owned chains receive provincial
subsidies for some clients, government oversight needs to be
rigorous.

"Part of the problem is that [government] inspections tend to be
announced," said Oakley. "So they [long-term care chains] know when
the inspectors are coming, weeks ahead of time."

Go Public asked several provinces whether their inspections are
announced or unexpected.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario said some inspections
are not announced, while others are and happen every one to two
years -- more often if a complaint is reported or a problem found.
Nova Scotia said all inspections are unannounced and happen at
least twice a year. Inspections in B.C. were previously only
triggered by complaints. New legislation that takes effect Dec. 1
allows inspections at any time.

But even when problems are discovered -- Oakley says many homes are
understaffed, and she often hears of one nurse being in charge of
60 people at nighttime -- getting justice can be a challenge.

She says the courts don't place much value on the lives of elderly
people who are no longer working. "I've been told by a judge that
I'm wasting his time because the case is [financially] modest," she
said.

Sienna Senior Living is a publicly-traded company worth $1.25
billion in 2018.

Seniors' home 'not in compliance'
Complaints to regulators from staff and Burgon led to an
investigation and two reports in May and in June, which found
Cascades violated regulations including not providing a "safe and
sanitary environment" and not protecting residents by responding in
a timely manner to allegations of "abuse and neglect."

The site was also found to not have sufficient staffing levels.

As of October, the home was still "not in full compliance" with
health and safety standards, according to a Ministry of Health
spokesperson, who added that officials had a recent meeting with
Sienna to discuss outstanding issues and to ensure the company
keeps working toward "full compliance."

Cascades management apologized in a letter to the family for the
"housekeeping inadequacies, miscommunications . . . and the overall
experience."

'We have apologized'
Sienna Senior Living declined an interview request by Go Public,
sending a statement that said the company regrets what happened.

"Our goal is to provide all tenants with the best possible quality
service and overall retirement living experience through the warmth
of human connection," wrote a spokesperson.

"We recognized that there were actions that should have been
better."

"We have apologized and worked with the tenant and family to
resolve their concerns."

The spokesperson would not say why Bedford was left in her room for
two weeks, nor comment on a staffer's allegation that management
threatened to fire any staffers.

Burgon decided it would be too disorienting to move her mother —
who turned 95 in February — to another nursing home. She's
worried that speaking out about the care her mom received will
bring repercussions, but says she wants Sienna held accountable.

"You trust that they're [Sienna] going to uphold their part of —
not even the legal contract, but the social and moral contract,"
says Burgon. "I'm appalled at how callous they were."

Bedford was moved to a new suite and her furniture was replaced,
including a new bed, at the expense of the retirement home. [GN]


FOX RENT A CAR: Faces Arroyo Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
MYRNA ARROYO, as representative of the State of California and the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and on behalf of herself
and other current and former employees, Plaintiff v. FOX RENT A CAR
INC., a corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV41300 (Cal.
Super., Nov. 15, 2019), alleges that Fox violated numerous wage and
hour laws with respect to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees.

The Plaintiff alleges that Fox failed to provide accurate and
itemized wages statements, payment for all hours worked (including
regular wages and overtime), lawful meal periods, lawful rest
periods, timely payment during employment, and payment upon
separation of employment.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt hourly
employee renting vehicles. Aggrieved employees worked in non-exempt
positions for the Defendants.

Fox Rent A Car, Inc. provides car rental services. The company
offers a range of vehicles for rent including compact, economy,
full size, and hybrid types for pick up and delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., No. 202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 248-2944
          E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com


GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL: Frank's Bid to Certify Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael R. Barrett denied the Corrected Motion for Class
Certification by Proposed Class Representative Jahmir Frank in the
lawsuit titled Jahmir Christopher Frank v. The Good Samaritan
Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Case No. 1:18-cv-00618-MRB (S.D.
Ohio).

Judge Barrett grants the Plaintiff's oral motion that the Court
direct entry of a final judgment as to his third cause of action,
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
There will be no stay pending appeal with regard to the Plaintiff's
first and second causes of action, Judge Barrett notes.

The Plaintiff filed his "Medical Malpractice Complaint with Class
Allegations for Negligent Destruction of Medical Records" in the
Southern District of Ohio on August 31, 2018.  Specific to his
third cause of action, he contends that Good Samaritan Hospital
"was subject under the American Medical Association Code of Ethics
to a nondelegable duty to manage medical records appropriately."
He contends further that it is "a violation of Ohio law for any
physician to violate any provision" of said Code of Ethics, citing
Ohio Revised Code Section 4731.22(B)(18).

On December 9, 2019, Judge Barrett granted the Hospital's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action for failure to state
a claim under which relief can be granted under Ohio law.

During a status conference by telephone held the next day, December
10, 2019, the Court discussed with the parties the ongoing
viability of the Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Class
Certification.  The Plaintiff conceded that his class action
allegations were supported solely by his third cause of action, now
dismissed.

In light of this acknowledgement, and for the reasons set forth in
his Order dated December 9, 2019, Judge Barrett sua sponte denies
the Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Class Certification for
failure to state a claim under which relief can be granted under
Ohio law.[CC]


GOOGLE: English Appeal Court Allows Data Privacy Case to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Charlwood, Esq. -- susanna.charlwood@shearman.com --
Jonathan Swil, Esq. -- jonathan.swil@shearman.com -- and James
Matthews, Esq. -- james.matthews@shearman.com -- of Shearman &
Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that Richard Lloyd,
a "champion of consumer protection" and former director of the
consumer rights group Which?, is seeking to bring a representative
damages claim1 against Google, on behalf of more than four million
iPhone users. The English Court of Appeal has recently granted Mr
Lloyd permission to pursue his claim in the English Courts as a
representative action. Google intends to seek permission to appeal
to the Supreme Court.

This decision2 is of interest because:

* It has potentially significant implications for the U.K. class
action landscape. The wide reading the Court of Appeal has given to
the meaning of "same interest" for the purpose of establishing the
representative class may encourage more privacy/data protection
representative actions in the future.

* It confirms that damages may be claimed for "loss of control" of
an individual's personal data even if the individual does not
suffer pecuniary loss or distress.

Background

Mr Lloyd alleges that Google tracked the internet activity of
iPhone users in the U.K., between August 2011 and February 2012, by
developing a workaround to the settings in Apple's Safari browser
that blocked third party cookies. This so-called "Safari
Workaround" allowed Google to track and collect individuals'
"browser generated information" (BGI), without their knowledge or
consent. He claims that Google was thereby able to obtain or deduce
individuals' personal data, including sensitive personal data such
as their ethnicity, age, health, gender, sexuality and financial
position, and that this enabled Google to sell targeted
advertisements to those iPhone users.

The United States Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5
million in August 2012 (a record at the time) in connection with
the Safari Workaround.

Mr Lloyd issued his representative action in May 2017 against
Google on behalf of the four million U.K. iPhone users affected at
the time (the "affected iPhone users"). The claim is for breach of
statutory duty by Google for infringement of the affected iPhone
users' data protection rights and loss of control over personal
data.

Mr Lloyd seeks damages on a per capita basis under section 13 of
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) but does not allege the affected
iPhone users suffered any pecuniary loss or distress. Section 13 of
the DPA implemented Article 23 of the Data Protection Directive
(95/46/EC) (the "Directive")3.

The key issues for determination were whether:

* the claimant class had suffered damage; and

* the affected iPhone users constituted a representative class for
the purposes of CPR 19.6 and if it did, whether the court should
then exercise its discretion to allow the claim to continue as a
representative action.

The High Court's Decision

On the key points above, the High Court decided that:

* The claimant class suffered no damage within the meaning of the
Directive or the DPA. The wording of section 13 and Article 23
required a causal link between the infringement and damage and that
no such causal link had been identified. Additionally, a per capita
damages claim was essentially a notional damages claim and did not
cross the relevant materiality threshold; e.g. some claimants would
not have minded their data being used as it was. The High Court
said that it is for the regulator or criminal law to censure such
breaches and not the court to fashion a penalty on the basis of an
artificial notion of damage.

* The affected iPhone users were not a representative class for the
purposes of CPR 19.6. There was no viable method of identifying
individuals that fit within the class and a risk of honest (and
dishonest) unfounded claims being made. Balancing the "overriding
objective" and the "modest at best" compensation that each claimant
would recover, against the litigation costs and court resources
required to achieve it, the Court would in any event have declined
to exercise its discretion to allow the action to proceed.

The Appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned each of the High Court's findings
and the exercise of its discretion. It decided as follows.

The Claimant Class Could Recover Damages Without Proving Pecuniary
Loss or Distress

* The Court answered the question on the key premise that the
fundamental right to data protection is contained in Article 8 of
the EU Rights Charter, and that article confirmed the protections
in the Directive and applied to the rights under the DPA. Section
13 (and Article 23) had to be interpreted as a matter of EU law,
including by reference to the precept that EU law is interpreted
"autonomously" (i.e. EU law concepts do not necessarily accord with
domestic law principles or interpretations). If it were a matter of
English law interpretation, the legislation would require actual
damage to be caused by the data protection infringement. But the
Court held that the loss of control over personal data itself was
the loss in this case. On that basis, given the data is protected
under EU law and that it has economic value -- Google could sell
the BGI to advertisers -- the control of the data has value and
therefore so does any loss of that control.

* As to whether loss of that value was damage in the required
sense, the Court considered its earlier decision in Gulati v MGN
Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 (CA). In that case loss of control
over telephone data was found to be damage for which compensation
could be awarded. The Court said that it would be at odds with the
EU law principle of equivalence -- domestic rules governing actions
for safeguarding rights under EU law (e.g the DPA) must be no less
favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (e.g.
misuse of public information) -- to approach damage differently in
this case to the way it did in Gulati, particularly as they both
derive from a common European right to privacy. The effectiveness
principle also requires Member States not to make it practically
impossible to exercise rights granted under EU law. What counted as
damage in Gulati must therefore also be damage for the purposes of
the present case.

* The Court noted that although they are not strictly relevant to
this case, the GDPR (and Data Protection Act 2018) accord with
awards of damages for loss of control of personal data: Article
82.1 of GDPR provides that a person who has suffered "material or
non-material damage as a result of an infringement of GDPR should
have the right to receive compensation for the damage suffered,"
Recital 85 refers to "loss of control" over personal data as an
example of physical, material or non-material damage and section
169(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018 includes a definition of
damage which is "financial loss and damage not involving financial
loss."

The Affected iPhone Users Were a Representative Class for the
Purposes of CPR 19
As to whether there was a representative class, the Court of Appeal
said the High Court had applied too stringent a test of "same
interest." All members of the class had suffered the same loss,
being the loss of control of their personal data. That data was
taken without consent by Google in the same circumstances and
throughout the same period in respect of each potential claimant in
the class. Google seemingly could not raise any defence to one
claimant that did not apply to all the others. The Court also
rejected the notion that there were verification issues in defining
the class - it would be possible to determine whether a person has
the "same interest" as the class by self-identification or
disclosure of information in the possession of Google.

The High Court Should Have Exercised Its Discretion to Allow the
Representative Action to Proceed

The Court of Appeal considered that the High Court's exercise of
discretion was influenced by its findings on damages and "same
interest." It was right to take account of the modest compensation
that was likely to be recoverable, the high costs of the litigation
and absence of complainants. But contrary to what the High Court
concluded, the class was identifiable and it was irrelevant that
the members of the class had not authorised the claim.

What Impact Will the Case Have?

The impact of Lloyd v Google may be felt most in the context of
U.K. "class actions":

* Having to prove specific damage for each individual in a class
has hitherto been a major barrier for representative litigation in
the U.K. This judgment removes that barrier, at least insofar as
claims for loss of control of personal data are concerned.

* By allowing a "lowest common denominator" approach to loss to
inform a broad interpretation of "same interest" under CPR 19.6,
the decision may well embolden litigation funders to pursue more
claims in the future where such an approach is available on the
facts (of which data protection breaches are at least one example).
While this may substantially reduce the amounts received by
individual claimants in such cases, it will provide little comfort
to defendants who may find themselves faced with large class sizes
(and thus large total damages pay-outs), more often.

The case's impact on data protection claims may, however, be more
limited:

* The current GDPR data protection regime requires all data
controllers and processors to obtain user consent or otherwise rely
on other limited gateways to permit the lawful processing of
personal data. The chances of a fact pattern similar to Lloyd
arising again are limited: companies that collect and trade in
substantial amounts of personal data are now very mindful of their
obligations under GDPR. Deliberate and persistent misuses of
personal data on a large scale -- as the Safari Workaround is
alleged to have been -- will likely be rare.

* Lloyd v Google does not seem to go much further than what the
GDPR now appears expressly to provide. Indeed, the GDPR provides a
mechanism for not-for-profit bodies to lodge complaints on behalf
of data subjects and to receive compensation on their behalf.

What is clear, though, is that the English Court takes seriously
data protection and the obligation on EU Member States to provide
effective redress for the infringement of data protection rights.
That is unlikely to change any time soon, as the GDPR will continue
to apply when the U.K. leaves the EU. [GN]


GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Szalanski Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA SZALANSKI, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIKE ARNOLD, LEA
GEREND, PHIL TROIA, MIKE WHALEY and GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00940 (W.D. Wisc., Nov. 15, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to the
participants and beneficiaries of the PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The claims arise out of a transaction by which the assets of PDQ
Food Stores, Inc. were acquired by Kwik Trip, Inc., which closed on
October 10, 2017. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants
improperly obtained personal benefit from that transaction.

The Plaintiff and Class are participants in and beneficiaries of
the PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

Plaintiff Brenda Szalanski was employed at PDQ Food Stores from
October 2000 until October 2017. She began participating in the PDQ
ESOP in April 2009. Ms. Szalanski remains a participant of the ESOP
within the meaning of ERISA, because she has still not received
complete distribution of her benefits from the Transaction and
because she has a colorable claim for additional benefits as a
result of the Defendants' breaches and violations.

Mike Arnold was the President of PDQ and a member of the PDQ Board
of Directors. Ms. Lea Gerend was an officer and employee of PDQ.
Mr. Phil Troia was Vice President of PDQ and a member of the Board.
Mr. Mike Whaley was the Vice President of Marketing and
Merchandising at PDQ.

GreatBanc Trust Company was the Trustee for the Transaction and
fiduciary of the PDQ ESOP.

According to the complaint, the members of the PDQ, Inc. Board of
Directors and/or fiduciaries of the PDQ ESOP, Defendants Mike
Arnold, Mike Whaley, Phil Troia, and Lea Gerend, arranged the
October 2017 Transaction so that they would receive, in addition to
payments to their ESOP accounts, side-payments totaling in excess
of $12 million.

In addition, the Plaintiff alleges, Defendants Arnold, Gerend,
Troia, and Whaley structured the Transaction to sell Kwik Trip an
option to buy property owned individually by Defendant Arnold.
Despite their responsibilities as fiduciaries of the ESOP,
Defendants Arnold, Gerend, Troia and Whaley structured the
Transaction to include these side-payments to themselves and voted
as members of the PDQ, Inc. Board of Directors to recommend that
participants vote their shares in the ESOP to approve the
Transaction including these side-payments.

GreatBanc, the designated Trustee of the ESOP at the time of the
October 2017 Transaction, voted the ESOP's shares in favor of the
Transaction, including the illegal side-payments to Defendants
Arnold, Gerend, Troia, and Whaley. Despite each being aware of
their co-fiduciaries' breaches in the Transaction, none of the
Defendants took any action to prevent or correct their
co-fiduciaries' breaches.

On behalf of a Class of PDQ ESOP participants and beneficiaries,
the Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under ERISA and the Plan
to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and/or the improper
profits realized by Defendants as a result of their breaches of
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Erlandson, Esq.
          Catherine E. White, Esq.
          HURLEY BURISH, S.C.
          33 East Main Street, Suite 400
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-0945
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5764
          E-mail: aerlandson@hurleyburish.com
                  cwhite@hurleyburish.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Cash Bail Settlement May Get Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady, writing for Law360, reports that a landmark
settlement memorializing cash bail reforms in Harris County, Texas,
appears to have a clear path to final approval -- a move that could
inspire other jurisdictions to take up similar changes but also
open the door to a new round of litigation, those who have been
following the 3-year-old lawsuit say.

After a final fairness hearing that packed a Houston courtroom on
Oct. 28, where Chief U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal heard
arguments both in favor of and against the consent decree -- which
allows indigent, misdemeanor, nonviolent offenders to be released
from jail on a personal recognizance bond instead of a cash bond --
approval of the deal seems all but certain.

Judge Rosenthal, who held the prior system was unconstitutional
because it didn't consider a defendant's ability to pay, issued an
order in September granting preliminary approval to the settlement
agreement.

The deal follows a 2016 lawsuit brought by Maranda ODonnell, then a
22-year-old mother of a 4-year-old girl, against Harris County
misdemeanor court judges and the county itself after she was jailed
because she couldn't afford to pay the $2,500 bail following her
arrest for allegedly driving without a valid license. Misdemeanor
judges and hearing officers are tasked with setting the bail amount
and use what the lawsuit described as a "generic, offense-based
bail schedule" as a guide.

There were no arguments put forth in briefing or at the hearing
that would cause Judge Rosenthal to change course and deny
approval, said Alex Bunin, Harris County's chief public defender.

"I think her final order will look a lot like her preliminary
order," he said.

The proposed settlement, while narrow compared to the scope of
other similar lawsuits challenging cash bail because it only
applies to indigent misdemeanor defendants, can still have a big
influence beyond Harris County, said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a
professor at the University of Houston Law Center and director of
its Criminal Justice Institute.

"It's incredibly impactful because you have a ruling by a federal
district court judge on the constitutional law of how the county is
doing its pretrial justice determinations, and it was approved by
the Fifth Circuit," she said. "It puts other counties . . . on
notice that if you're using the same kind of system as Harris,
you're also violating the law. Now they should understand that the
status quo is not lawful."

Thompson noted that another important aspect of the settlement,
should it receive final approval, is that a monitor will be
appointed to ensure compliance, and the county must also fund
annual studies to gather data and "make sure the system is working
properly."

Judge Rosenthal -- who, after an eight-day hearing, issued a
193-page ruling explaining her April 2017 preliminary injunction
that ordered the release of indigent misdemeanor defendants on
personal bonds within 24 hours -- took the rare step of allowing
nonparties to speak at the final fairness hearing.

In a docket entry, she noted she was opening the court for comments
to ensure "there is a fair and full opportunity for the different
views on the proposed settlement to be heard."

Kevin Pennell of Pennell Law Firm PLLC, who represents the
Professional Bondsmen of Harris County, was among those who spoke
at the hearing and said he was grateful for Judge Rosenthal's
willingness to hear from other stakeholders not involved in the
lawsuit.

"That was very unusual, but it was very much appreciated," he said.
"She clearly recognizes the issues in this case go beyond the
parties involved."

Pennell said he does see a path forward to challenge the federal
consent decree but declined to discuss any specifics on the
matter.

Still, he pointed to another lawsuit that's pending in state
district court in Harris County that challenges what's referred to
as "Local Rule 9." That rule was promulgated by the defendant
judges, the Harris County Sheriff, the county and the plaintiffs
who brought this class action while the suit was ongoing. It
effectively eliminated the bail schedule that was used as a basis
for making bail determinations.

The Professional Bondsmen of Harris County, as amicus in the
federal lawsuit, have argued that the consent decree now before
Judge Rosenthal violates a Texas law that requires magistrates
consider evidence presented by both the defendant and the district
attorney's office, and use discretion in setting bail.

"The new policy they're attempting to embody in the consent decree
says, 'We're going to release all misdemeanor defendants on a
personal bond, with just a few exceptions,'" Pennell said. "But
Texas law doesn't allow you to do that."

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit argued that judges were
"blindly adhering" to a bail schedule that set out bond amounts for
certain crimes, but Pennell said the consent decree "goes too far
the other way."

"Discretion means discretion," he said. "It doesn't mean there's a
policy."

Adam Arthur Biggs, special litigation counsel for the attorney
general's office, urged the court during the hearing not to
"substitute a blanket rule for discretion" in determining bond
amounts.

"A blanket rule got us into this situation," he argued.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, a Democrat who campaigned
partially on the issue of bail reform, and initially supported the
reforms proposed in this suit, told the court in August she was now
opposed to the consent decree.

In a brief, Ogg argued there has been a 59% increase in the number
of open cases on misdemeanor dockets since January 2018, which
shows "people are not showing up to court."

But Neal Manne of Susman Godfrey LLP, who represents ODonnell,
countered that in court, arguing what it really shows is that poor
defendants are no longer being coerced into pleading guilty so they
can go home.

Manne said Ogg and others had demonstrated an "insistence on
political posturing without regard for the truth," and had tried to
undermine this agreement by "creating a false narrative" that
misdemeanor defendants were dangerous and were not showing up to
court.

"Unable to make their case based on evidence and data, they have
regularly resorted to scare stories," he said.

The district attorney's office did not respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


HINGHAM, MA: Bid to Certify Class in Belezos Suit v. Board Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS G. BELEZOS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN of
Hingham, Massachusetts, in their official capacity, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-12570-MBB (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Marianne B.
Bowler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
denied Belezos' motion for class certification.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to certify a
proposed class, designate himself as class representative, and
designate the Plaintiff's current counsel, Frederic P. Zotos, Esq.,
as the class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) and (g).
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants Board of Selectmen of
Hingham, Massachusetts erected, maintained, and enforced speed
limit signs without regulatory authority.  According to him, the
claims can be proven on a classwide basis and 382 potential
Plaintiff class members have already been identified.  The
Defendants maintain that the proposed class does not satisfy the
requirements for class certification.

A first amended complaint sets out eight causes of action against
the Defendants arising out of a speeding ticket the Plaintiff
received for traveling in excess of a 30-mile-per-hour speed limit
reflected in a posted speed limit sign on Gardner Street in
Hingham, Massachusetts in violation of Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 90, section 18.  Counts IV through VIII allege federal
constitutional claims, while counts I through III are pendent ultra
vires claims under state law.  

Before filing suit in the Court, Zotos, the Plaintiff's counsel,
challenged a ticket he received for exceeding the 30 m.p.h. posted
speed limit on Gardner Street in both state and federal court.  In
federal court, Zotos challenged the legitimacy of the speed limit
sign on Gardner Street in Zotos v. Town of Hingham, et al., Civil
Action No. 12-11126-JGD, 2013 WL 5328478 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2013)
("Zotos I"), and again in Zotos v. Town of Hingham, et al., Civil
Action No. 13-13065-DJC (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2016) ("Zotos II").  

In a lengthy opinion on the merits, the court in Zotos I rejected
Zotos' federal constitutional and state law claims and dismissed
the action.  The First Circuit upheld the dismissal.  Zotos filed
Zotos II prior to the First Circuit's decision in Zotos I.  On
March 25, 2016, the court in Zotos II issued a comprehensive
opinion on the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims as well as the
newly-added ultra vires state law claims and dismissed the action.

In the state court proceeding, Zotos exercised his right to appeal
a finding of "responsible'" made by a clerk-magistrate in Hingham
District Court for exceeding the posted 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign
on Gardner Street purportedly erected and enforced in violation of
section 18.  After the Appellate Division of the District Court
Department upheld the decision, Zotos appealed the matter to the
Massachusetts appeals court.  

In an amended brief to the appeals court, Zotos argued that the
erection and enforcement of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign was
ultra vires and therefore unenforceable given the absence of an
engineering study and a special speed regulation under section 18
to support the sign.  He also asserted violations of substantive
due process, namely, that the enforcement of the illegally posted
sign "shocks the conscience," as well as violations of procedural
due process.  The appeals court affirmed the decision of the
appellate division.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
("SJC") denied Zotos' request for leave to obtain further appellate
court review.

Before bringing the action in federal court, the Plaintiff brought
a number of similar claims against the same defendants in
Massachusetts Superior Court ("trial court") in Belezos v. Board of
Selectmen of the Town of Hingham, No. PLCV2014-01018B ("Belezos").
In allowing the Defendants' Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion, the
trial court addressed and rejected the merits of the state law
ultra vires claims regarding erecting and enforcing the 30 m.p.h.
speed limit sign on Gardner Street without a special speed
regulation under section 18.  The trial court also dismissed the
substantive and procedural section 1983 claims largely based on the
decisions in Zotos I and Zotos II.

The appeals court upheld the trial court's dismissal on the basis
that the Plaintiff did not exhaust the statutory remedies provided
in Massachusetts General Laws chapter 90C, section three.  The
Plaintiff filed an application for leave to obtain further
appellate court review ("ALOFAR") with the SJC and, during the
pendency of the ALOFAR before the SJC, the Plaintiff filed the
action on Dec. 28, 2017.  The SJC denied the ALOFAR in February
2018.

The ultra vires state law claims and the federal due process claims
under section 1983 in the Plaintiff's state court action and in
Zotos II are similar to the ultra vires state law claims and the
federal section 1983 due process claims brought in the instant
action based on the 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign on Gardner Street.

On March 29, 2019 in this proceeding, the Court allowed a motion to
dismiss the individual federal law claims (counts IV to VIII) on
the basis of claim preclusion and, in the alternative, on the
merits.  It also determined that claim preclusion barred the
individual state law claims but held the motion to dismiss these
state law claims in abeyance pending a determination of the class
certification motion.

On July 3, 2019, the Court allowed the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as to claim preclusion only on the state law claims
in counts I through III.  These individual claims, together with
the remaining putative class claims, therefore constitute the
claims in this proceeding at this juncture.  On Aug. 1, 2019, the
Defendants filed a motion to reconsider the July 2019 decision as
to claim preclusion on the state law claims, which remains pending.


The first amended complaint defines the putative class as follows:
Any person who received motor vehicle traffic citations for
violation of a special speed regulation lawfully made under the
authority of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 90, Section 18, i.e., operating a
vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of a Speed Limit sign (R2-1),
where (in fact) there is no such approved special speed regulation,
and who, by reason thereof, suffered or experienced an adverse
legal consequence, including payment of an assessment, surcharge,
cost or fee in disposition of the citation, or whose admission or
finding of responsibility have been or may be counted against them
in the future for the purposes of adversely affecting their driving
record or automobile insurance premium, or all these things, from
Sept. 28, 2011, to the date of the judgment in the action.

Magistrate Judge Bowler finds that the Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate the Rule 23(a) typicality requirements.  The
Plaintiff's claims do not arise from the same event -- posting and
enforcing a sign on Gardner Street -- that gives rise to the claims
of other class members.  Nor do they arise from the same practice
of repeatedly enforcing that sign against 13 other drivers.  In
other words, it is not likely that the Plaintiff, in pursuing his
claims regarding the ultra vires illegality of the posted speed
limit on upper Gardner Street, will advance the interests of the
putative class members challenging different speed limit signs
posted at different times on different roadways and supported, if
at all, by a speed study.  Consequently, typicality is lacking.

Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate typicality, it is
unnecessary to consider the fourth Rule 23(a) requirement at
length.  It suffices to state that at this juncture in the
proceedings, the Magistrate is not aware of conflicts between the
Plaintiff and the proposed class members.

Even if the Plaintiff could show that all four requirements of Rule
23(a) are satisfied -- which he has not done -- he would still have
to show that the proposed class satisfies one of the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3).  The Magistrate
finds that (i) because the monetary claims are not merely
incidental to the injunctive and declaratory relief, Rule 23(b)(2)
certification does not apply; (ii) because a great deal of
individualized proof' would need to be introduced, common questions
do not predominate; and (iii) the strong absence of predominance
coupled with the lack of typicality foreclose certification under
Rule 23(b)(3) notwithstanding the superiority given the small
monetary damages as well as other concerns.

Because the Plaintiff fails to establish the requisite elements for
class certification, Magistrate Judge Bowler holds that it is
unnecessary to consider the Plaintiff's argument for the
appointment of Zotos, who prepared and authored the Zotos speed
study, as the class counsel.  In accordance with the foregoing, she
denied the motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/3QVHFe from Leagle.com.

Nicholas G. Belezos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick P. Zotos --
fzotos@pathogenics.com -- Pathogenics, Inc.

Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts, in their official
capacity, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison,
Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP.


HOME TRUST: Class Suit Certified, Says It Has Valid Defenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Home Capital Group Inc. (TSX:HCG) announced on Nov. 7, 2019, that
its subsidiary, Home Trust Company has received a decision from the
Ontario Superior Court in connection with a motion by the plaintiff
to certify the class action related to consumer HVAC rental
equipment financing and for summary judgment in that case.

The Court has ordered certification of certain of the issues
advanced by the class against Home Trust and its co-defendant. The
Court held that this was not an appropriate case for summary
judgment as sought by the plaintiff.

There will be a trial on terms and timing to be fixed by the
court.

Home Trust continues to believe that it has good and valid defences
to this claim and the Company intends to fully defend its conduct.

Home Capital Group Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto
Stock Exchange (HCG), operating through its principal subsidiary,
Home Trust Company. Home Trust is a federally regulated trust
company offering residential and non-residential mortgage lending,
securitization of residential mortgage products, consumer lending
and credit card services. In addition, Home Trust offers deposits
via brokers and financial planners, and through a
direct-to-consumer brand, Oaken Financial. Home Trust also conducts
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home Bank. Licensed
to conduct business across Canada, we have offices in Ontario,
Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba.

Contact:

         Jill MacRae
         Director, Investor Relations
         Tel: 416-933-4991
         Email: jill.macrae@hometrust.ca
[GN]


ILLINOIS: Bid for Prelim Injunction/TRO in Inmate's Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRINCE RICHARD, #R17418 Plaintiff, v. JB PRITZKER,
BRUCE RAUNER, JOHN BALDWIN, ROB JEFFREYS FRANK LAWRENCE, JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LISA MADIGAN, and
KWAME RAOUL, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-1308-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge
Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO.

Plaintiff Richard, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center, has filed a putative class action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights related to conditions throughout the Illinois
Department of Corrections ("IDOC").  Before the Court is the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO.

In the Motion and the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that he and
an indefinite class of other IDOC inmates are being denied a
variety of protections, services and items due to the IDOC system
being overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded.  Specifically, he
alleges denial of access to adequate medical care, denial of
adequate clothing, exposure to cold temperatures, delays in getting
mail, having mail opened outside his presence, denial of an
adequate grievance system, denial of adequate access to the law
library, denial of adequate food, inadequate access to vocational
programs, exposure to a generally violent atmosphere,
double-celling of seriously mentally ill ("SMI") inmates, exposure
to excessive use of force and being intimidated by representatives
of the Illinois Attorney General's Office into accepting settlement
offers in cases.  The Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief is
that the Illinois prison population be ordered to be reduced.

Judge Yandle finds that the Plaintiff has not filed either a
verified Complaint or an affidavit in the matter.  As such, a TRO
cannot issue.  The Plaintiff also fails to adequately establish the
elements for his requested injunction.  He is requesting an order
that the prison population be reduced -- in other words, that
prisoners be released. The Plaintiff has not filed materials
sufficient to demonstrate that less intrusive relief has previously
been ordered against the Defendants and that the Defendants have
had a reasonable amount of time to comply with such order(s).
Therefore, he has not demonstrated an entitlement to the requested
preliminary injunctive relief.

Accordingly, Judge Yandle denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO.  The Plaintiff's Complaint
will be screened under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A via separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/A24r3z from Leagle.com.

Prince Richard, Plaintiff, pro se.


INFOSYS LIMITED: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of Infosys Limited (NYSE: INFY)
from July 7, 2018 through October 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Infosys Limited
investors under the federal securities laws.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

To express an interest in the class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/infosys-limited/or call Vik Pawar,
Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues to inflate
short-term profits; (2) the Company's CEO, Salil Parekh, bypassed
reviews and approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny;
(3) management pressured the Company's finance team to hide
information from auditors and the Company's Board of Directors; and
(4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.  
Attorney advertising.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.
         Pawar Law Group
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
         New York, NY 10007
         Tel: (917) 261-2277
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]


INFOSYS: Faces Whistleblower Complaints Amid U.S. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Parkin, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Infosys said it has received no preliminary evidence to support
allegations levelled against it by anonymous whistleblowers in
October, pushing back on suggestions it was obliged to report the
accusations sooner and prompting a rally in the Indian outsourcing
group's share price.

Shares in Infosys fell about 15 per cent on October 21 after it
emerged that whistleblowers claiming to be company employees had
filed complaints with the company's board and the US Securities and
Exchange Commission, alleging irregularities.

Both Infosys and the SEC opened separate investigations, while the
business was also subject to a class-action lawsuit in the US.

In a letter to India's National Stock Exchange released on
Nov. 4, Infosys said it had not received any supporting evidence to
substantiate the allegations. "There is complete absence of prima
facie evidence," the company said, while adding that its internal
investigation was continuing.

Infosys' share price rose as much as 6.5 per cent in the Nov. 4
morning trading.

Central to the reaction after the allegations surfaced in local
media in October was concern that Infosys hadn't proactively
disclosed them to the public. The NSE had also questioned why the
outsourcer had not revealed the allegations itself.

In its letter to the bourse Infosys said that due to the lack of
supporting evidence, it was not initially clear whether the
complaints were "credible or concrete", and therefore did not
warrant reporting.

The whistleblowers alleged that top Infosys executives oversaw
accounting irregularities, misrepresented deals and pressured
employees to withhold information from the board and auditors, with
a view to boosting short-term financial metrics.

They claimed to have emails and audio recordings to substantiate
their claims, which they said they would share with investigators.


The complaints prompted alarm among investors, coming just two
years after a separate round of allegations about governance
contributed to the ousting of the company's then-chief executive.

Infosys helped bring about India's transformation into a global IT
services hub after it was founded in 1981, and has long been seen
as an exemplar of corporate India. Some investors cited a
reputation for transparency that made it one of the safer bets in
Indian equity markets.

Its share price has recovered some ground since the initial rout.
Analysts at ICICI Securities upgraded the stock to a buy rating
from hold, saying that a preliminary look at financial reports
suggested there was "no perceivable inconsistency in key data
points shared by the company".

But the analysts added: "What has exacerbated investors' response
to the whistleblower allegations was the absence of proactive
disclosures by the company." [GN]


INTEGRITY EMPLOYEE: Frazier FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Chambre Frazier, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Integrity Employee Leasing, Inc. and Purple Square Management
Company, LLC, doing business as: Dunkin Donuts, Defendants, Case
No. 19-006795-CI, was removed from the 6th Judicial Circuit,
Pinellas County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa) on Nov. 15, 2019.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-02825-MSS-TGW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Integrity Employee Leasing, Inc. is a full-service professional
employer organization (PEO) specializing in offering superior
customer service to small, medium. and large businesses. Dunkin',
also known as Dunkin' Donuts, is an American multinational
coffee/donut company and quick service restaurant. It was founded
by William Rosenberg in Quincy, Massachusetts in 1950.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

Integrity Employee Leasing, Inc. is represented by:

          Lorraine M. Hultman, Esq.
          Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq.
          MILLER TACK & MADSON
          2055 Wood St Ste 208
          Sarasota, FL 34237
          Telephone: (941) 953-2828
          Facsimile: (941) 953-3018
          E-mail: lhultman@hsjlawfirm.com
                  nik@peolawyers.net

Dunkin Donuts is represented by:

          Nicole Farinas Soto, Esq.
          CONROY, SIMBERG, GANON KREVANS & ABEL, LLP
          201 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 273-6464
          Facsimile: (813) 273-6465
          E-mail: nsoto@conroysimberg.com


IROBOT CORP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-10373, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
iRobot securities between November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The claims asserted herein are
alleged against iRobot and certain of the Company's current
executives (collectively, "Defendants"), and arise under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased iRobot within the class
period, you have until December 23, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

iRobot is a global consumer robot company based in Bedford,
Massachusetts.  Founded in 1990, iRobot designs and builds robots
to assist with household tasks and has sold more than 25 million
robots worldwide.  iRobot's most popular product line is its
autonomous robotic vacuum cleaners, which the Company first
introduced with the Roomba Vacuuming Robot in 2002.  iRobot's
products, including the Roomba line, purport to feature proprietary
technologies and advanced concepts in cleaning, mapping, and
navigation.

In November 2016, iRobot announced the first of two upcoming
acquisitions—the acquisition of the iRobot-related distribution
business of Tokyo-based Sales on Demand Corporation ("SODC").  The
Company said the acquisition would "better enable iRobot to
maintain its leadership position and accelerate the growth of its
business in Japan through direct control of pre- and post-sales
market activities including sales, marketing, branding, channel
relationships and customer service."

Following this announcement and throughout the Class Period, iRobot
reported explosive, double-digit revenue growth and reaffirmed its
positive outlook, attributing its strong performance to growing
demand for the Roomba line of products, expanded gross margin
because of distributor acquisitions, greater brand awareness, and
technological innovation.  The truth behind the Company's revenue
numbers was that it was engaging in channel-stuffing—the
deceptive practice of sending retailers and distributors in a
company's distribution channel more products than those retailers
would ordinarily purchase from the company or be able to sell to
the public during a given period, enabling the company to book
those as sales in the current quarter or year.  Here, iRobot was
stuffing the channel through its control of the two distributors it
had acquired to continue its deceptive scheme.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, iRobot
reported explosive, double-digit revenue growth, which it
attributed to increasing demand for its Roomba products, expanded
gross margin because of distributor acquisitions, greater brand
awareness, and technological innovation.  However, in reality,
iRobot was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its
sales and revenues figures, and had acquired two of its largest
distributors to facilitate and conceal this deceptive practice.

On April 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot surprised the
market by announcing quarterly revenues that were below analyst
expectations and also revealed surging inventory levels.  In
response to this news, iRobot's stock price fell from $130.57 per
share on April 23, 2019, to $100.42 per share on April 24, 2019 on
unusually high trading volume—a decline of over 23% in one
trading day.

Then, on July 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot cut its
full-year earnings forecast.  In response to this news, iRobot's
stock price fell from $89.63 per share on July 23, 2019, to $74.51
per share on July 24, 2019 on unusually high trading volume—a
decline of nearly 17% in one trading day.

Finally, on October 22, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot
cut the high end of its revenue expectations for the year, from
$1.25 billion to $1.21 billion, and said it rolled back price
increases after a "suboptimal" customer response.  The Company
reported increased inventory levels once again, with third quarter
2019 ending inventory of $248 million or 149 days in inventory
("DII") compared to the $161 million or 113 DII a year prior.  In
response to this news, iRobot's stock price fell from $54.03 per
share on October 22, 2019, to $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019
on unusually high trading volume—a decline of over 9% in one
trading day.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]


J.G. WENTWORTH: Man Claims Scam in New Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a man who
sold part of his structured settlement annuity (SSA) worth more
than $400,000 to J.G. Wentworth claims the financial services
company took advantage of him and fraudulently advised him to use
an attorney who was not "disinterested counsel."

Richard Tarvin III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint Oct. 22, 2019, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against The
J.G. Wentworth Co., 321 Henderson Receivables Limited Partnership
and others alleging violation of the Missouri Structured Settlement
Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

On May 5, 2005, Tarvin, who was an SSA beneficiary due to brain
injuries he suffered as a minor, received $300,000 from J.G.
Wentworth "in exchange for a scheduled portion of his annuity
payments totaling $570,575.75," according to the suit.

"The present value of Mr. Tarvin's annuity was $449,222.62 at the
time of the transaction in 2005," the suit states.

He claims the defendant's "unfair, deceptive and fraudulent
conduct" caused "Missouri consumers to not receive the necessary
legal advice of disinterested counsel when evaluating offers to
purchase structured settlement payments, and subsequently obtain
less than the fair value of their settlement to the benefit of
Wentworth."

Tarvin seeks monetary relief and damages, trial by jury and other
just relief. He is represented by Thomas SanFilippo, Esq. of The
Law Firm of Thomas SanFilippo & Associates LLC in St. Louis and
Richard Burke, Esq., Jamie Weiss, Esq. and Zachary Jacobs, Esq. of
Quantum Legal LLC in Highland Park, Illinois. [GN]


KAOS CLUB: Former Employee Files Class Action After Closing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Bowers, writing for 8 News Now, reports that on the heels of
closing its doors, a former employee of KAOS Dayclub and Nightclub
filed a class-action lawsuit against the club, Red Rock Resorts,
and Station Casinos.

According to court documents, the suit brought by Alyssa Faulstick
and other employees was filed by workers at KAOS, claiming they
were fired without proper notice or payment. The lawsuit was
brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, also known as the WARN Act.

The suit claims the defendants failed to give Faulstick and other
co-workers the required 60 day notice under the WARN Act. They're
asking for a jury trial on all of the issues.

In early November 2019, KAOS announced that after being open for
seven months, the club was closing. [GN]


KEURIG GREEN: Smith Moves to Certify Class of Coffee Pod Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KATHLEEN SMITH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN,
INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), moves to certify a
class defined as:

     All persons who purchased the Products for personal, family
     or household purposes in California (either directly or
     through an agent) from June 8, 2016 through the present.

Ms. Smith also asks the Court to appoint the Lexington Law Group as
counsel for the Class.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., sells single serve coffee pods labeled
as recyclable (the "Products"), even though the Products are not
recyclable, the Plaintiff contends. Since there is no other way to
determine whether the Products are recyclable, consumers must rely
entirely on Keurig's representations.

Keurig's uniform label representations that the Products are
recyclable are unlawful, false, and misleading under California
law, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 13, 2020, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Hirsch, Esq.
          Ryan Berghoff, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
                  rberghoff@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gideon Kracov, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV
          801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-2071
          Facsimile: (213) 623-7755
          E-mail: gk@gideonlaw.net


LAND O'FROST: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Travis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC TRAVIS, on Behalf of himself and All Others Similarly-
situated, Plaintiff v. LAND O'FROST, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00165-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., Nov. 19, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky state
law by failing to pay its employees for work performed, including
overtime work.

Specifically, the Defendant has willfully engaged in a practice of
not paying its employees for compensable work, including time
donning protective clothing, prior to the scheduled beginning of
the shift, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at the Madisonville facility
from June 27, 2018, until October 19, 2019.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of producing pre-sliced
lunch meats and operates a production facility in Madisonville,
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com


MACY'S WEST: Faces Bencomo Class Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's West Stores
Inc. The case is captioned as CRYSTAL BENCOMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF v. DOES 1 TO
100, INCLUSIVE, and MACY'S WEST STORES INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. CGC19580814 (Cal. Super., Nov. 15, 2019).

Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The company
offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty
products, and house wares. Macy's West Stores serves customers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Peter Kihiczak, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          815 Moraga Dr.
          Los Angeles, CA 90049-1633
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Lindsey Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00646-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Nov. 27, 2019) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Lindsey was employed by the Defendant as welding
inspector.

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. is primarily involved in the
storage, transportation, and distribution of refined petroleum
products and ammonia. The Company's asset portfolio includes a pipe
line system serving the mid-continent region of the United States,
petroleum products marine terminal facilities, petroleum products
terminals, and an ammonia pipeline system. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2677: Can't Compel Family Member Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part
DraftKings, Inc.'s, FanDuel, LLC and FanDuel Deposits, LLC's, and
the Payment Processor Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in
in In re: DAILY FANTASY SPORTS LITIGATION. This Document Relates
To: All Cases, MDL No. 16-02677-GAO (D. Mass.)

The action consolidates for centralized pretrial proceedings more
than 80 individual and putative class actions filed either in the
Court or transferred here by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  While the separately filed actions present separately
drafted claims, the complaints all generally allege improper and/or
unlawful conduct by DraftKings and FanDuel, which are providers of
daily fantasy sports contests accessible on the Internet ("DFS
defendants").  Claims are also presented against Paysafecard.com
USA, Inc. and Vantiv, Inc., companies providing payment processing
services for DraftKings and FanDuel ("payment processing
defendants" or "PPDs").  A First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint asserts 27 claims arising under both state and federal
law against the Defendants.

DraftKings, a Massachusetts-based company, and FanDuel, a New
York-based company, provide online platforms enabling persons to
participate in daily fantasy sports contests.  Through the DFS
defendants' websites and mobile applications, players compete
against each other in contests for cash prizes based on the
real-world performance of both professional sports teams and
individual athletes.

Paysafecard.com and Vantiv are alleged to be intermediaries that
provide the banking functionality that enables the financial
transactions between the players and the DFS Defendants.  The PPDs
receive a fee for each transaction that they facilitate.

For present purposes, the Plaintiffs fall into three general
categories: (1) the "player Plaintiffs," who assert claims against
one or both of the DFS Defendants with which they have created
accounts; (2) the "cross-over Plaintiffs," who have accounts with
only one of the DFS defendants but assert a civil conspiracy claim
against both DFS Defendants; and (3) the "family member
Plaintiffs," who assert claims under various state laws regarding
gambling.

The Plaintiffs seek money damages, equitable relief, and
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains against the DFS Defendants and
their affiliates.

Before the Court were motions by DraftKings, FanDuel, and the PPDs
to compel arbitration against most of the individual Plaintiffs.
The DFS defendants argue that the player the Plaintiffs entered
into valid agreements to arbitrate their claims, including
threshold questions of arbitrability.  In response, the Plaintiffs
argue that no valid and enforceable agreements to arbitrate were
formed.

The DFS Defendants further argue that certain other Plaintiffs,
so-called "cross-over" and "family member" Plaintiffs, must also be
compelled to arbitrate their claims even in the absence of an
express agreement to do so because their claims derive from the
player-Plaintiffs' agreements with the DFS defendants, which
include arbitration clauses.

For their part, the PPDs contend in support of their separate
motion that the Plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding arbitration
of their claims against the PPDs because those claims are
intertwined with the claims brought against the DFS defendants.

Judge O'Toole holds that it is not disputed that the player
Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the relevant
arbitration agreements.  Accordingly, he focuses on the threshold
questions whether valid arbitration agreements were formed and
whether the various categories of the Plaintiffs are bound by them
to arbitrate.  It is also necessary to determine whether threshold
issues of arbitrability are properly decided by the Court or by the
arbitrator.

As to the Plaintiffs' claims against DraftKings, the questions are
whether the player Plaintiffs entered into valid agreements (1) to
arbitrate the merits of any claims against DraftKings and (2) to
delegate the resolution of threshold challenges to arbitrability to
the arbitrator.

The Judge holds that established law is clear that challenges to
the validity or enforceability of the contract generally, rather
than to the validity or enforceability of the arbitration clause
specifically, are to be resolved by the arbitrator.  The other
arguments the Plaintiffs make about fraudulent inducement,
fraudulent scheme, illusory contract, and unconscionability all are
directed not to the arbitration clause itself, but to the entire
contractual relationship.  Such issues have plainly been delegated
to the arbitrator.

Turning to FanDuel's Motion to Compel the Player Plaintiffs' Claims
to Arbitration, the Judge holds that the question is not whether
the FanDuel sign-up page could have had a better design.  It surely
could have; for an obvious example, it could have required an
explicit acknowledgment of the terms ("I Agree"), as DraftKings'
site did.  But the question at hand is not whether the site was
optimally designed, but whether a player had actual or constructive
notice that there were terms requiring his assent to which he did
give assent.  Any player who deliberately clicked the "Play Now"
button had such notice from the text immediately adjacent to the
button and, by clicking the button, indicated consent.  By
consenting to the terms of the arbitration clause, the FanDuel
player agreed to submit all issues of validity and enforceability
to the arbitrator in the first instance, for essentially the same
reasons discussed above regarding DraftKings' Terms.

As for DFS Defendants' Motions to Compel the Cross-Over Plaintiffs'
Claims to Arbitration, the Judge holds that a DraftKings cross-over
Plaintiff is bound by the accepted Terms of Use to arbitrate his
civil conspiracy claim against DraftKings, but he has no similar
contractual obligation to arbitrate the same claim against FanDuel.
A DraftKings player is required to arbitrate his civil conspiracy
claim as it is asserted against DraftKings but is contractually
free to litigate in court the identical claim as it is asserted
against FanDuel.  At the same time, FanDuel must arbitrate the
civil conspiracy claim made by one of its own players, but not the
very same conspiracy claim asserted against it by a DraftKings
player.

As for Payment Processor Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration,
the Judge finds that allegations make clear that the claims against
the PPDs are substantially "intertwined" with claims asserted
against the DFS Defendants.  Success on the claims against the PPDs
will depend, if not entirely then at least to a substantial and
legally significant degree, on the Plaintiffs' success on claims
asserted against the DFS defendants.  Although they may not have
used the word "intertwined" in the language of the Complaint, by
their allegation of conspiratorial and joint tortfeasor cooperation
between the PPDs and the DFS defendants they have substantively
alleged the nature and degree of "intertwinedness" that cases in
both the First and Second Circuits have recognized as justifying an
equitable estoppel preventing the Plaintiffs from declining to
arbitrate with non-contracting parties claims that are as closely
related, both factually and legally, with claims bound to be
arbitrated against contractual partners.

Finally, as for DFS Defendants' Motions to Compel the Family Member
Plaintiffs' Claims to Arbitration, the Judge holds that because no
plausible arbitration agreement binds the family member Plaintiffs,
and because there are no specific allegations tending to show that
they derived any substantial benefit from any arbitration
agreement, the well-established principle that arbitration is a
matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to
arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit
dictates the result.  The family member Plaintiffs are not bound to
arbitrate their distinct claims.

For the reasons he stated, Judge O'Toole granted DraftKings',
FanDuel's, and the Payment Processor Defendants' motions to compel
arbitration as to the Player Plaintiffs and the cross-over
Plaintiffs, and denied as to the family member Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/mvsqxp from Leagle.com.

In re DAILY FANTASY SPORTS LITIGATION, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Weld, Jr. -- cweld@toddweld.com -- Todd & Weld & James
R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm.

Nathan Wicksman, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Weld, Jr.,
Todd & Weld, Elizabeth A. Ryan, Bailey & Glasser LLP & John J.
Roddy, Bailey & Glasser LLP.

Ryan Leonard, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley
Kallas, LLP & Christopher Weld, Jr., Todd & Weld.

Roderick Lizardo, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick J. Sheehan,
Whatley Kallas, LLP, Christopher Weld, Jr., Todd & Weld & Mila
Finkelstein Bartos, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

BENJAMIN TEWES, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD A. WEBB, Webb,
Klase & Lemond, LLC, Christopher Weld, Jr., Todd & Weld, EDWARD A.
WEBB, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, pro hac vice & Matthew C. Klase,
WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC, pro hac vice.

Melo7 Media Partners LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert M. Tils
-- rtils@moritthock.com -- Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP & Julia
Gavrilov -- jgavrilov@moritthock.com -- Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP.

21st CENTURY FOX, Defendant, represented by Adam J. Bernstein, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice, Harris Fischman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Michele
Hirshman, Paul, Weiss, Fifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac
vice, R.J. Cinquegrana, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Jennifer E. Tracy,
Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP & Justin J. Wolosz, Choate, Hall &
Stewart LLP.

Fox Sports Interactive Media LLC, Defendant, represented by R.J.
Cinquegrana, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Adam J. Bernstein, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, pro hac vice, Harris Fischman, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jennifer E. Tracy, Choate,
Hall & Stewart LLP, Justin J. Wolosz, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP &
Michele Hirshman, Paul, Weiss, Fifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

DraftKings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock
LLP, Andrew D. Lamb, BERRY AND SILBERBERG LLC, Christopher W.
Brooker, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Damien Marshall, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Boies, III, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Franco A. Corrado, MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Gregory Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP,
James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Moore & VanAllen, Jeffrey P. Doss,
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Jess L. Askew, III, Kutak Rock LLP,
John R. Cooney, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Jonathan
D. Schiller, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Jorge David
Guttman, GUNSTER, Joshua I. Schiller, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn K. Van Namen, WYATT TARRANT & COMBS,
LLP, Leigh M. Nathanson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew Mahoney Lubozynski, WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP, Mitzi
Denise Wyrick, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Robert P. Berry, BERRY
AND SILBERBERG LLC, Robert E. Craddock, Jr., WYATT TARRANT & COMBS
P.O., Samuel H. Franklin, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Theodore
J. MacDonald, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC, W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom
LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, William
K. Hill, Gunster, pro hac vice, Lisa G. Arrowood, Arrowood LLP &
Peter M. Vetere, Arrowood LLP.

FanDuel, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam R. Doherty, Prince
Lobel Tye LLP, Benjamin D. Williams, Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel Hodes, Rouse, Hendricks, German, May, PC, Daniel
P. Tighe, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP, David McDowell, Morrison
& Foerster LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis P. Waggoner, Hill, Ward &
Henderson, Eric S. Fisher, TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP, Ira N.
Richards, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Jacob A. Sommer,
Zwillinger Genetski LLP, Jamie Levitt, Morrison & Foerster, Jason
Michael Wexler, Aldridge Grammer & Hammar PA, John R. Brumberg,
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Kai Bartolomeo,
Morrison & Foerster, LLP, pro hac vice, Marc J. Zwillinger,
Zwillgen PLLC, Michael Bruce Miller, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Patrick W. Gault, Napier Gault Schupach & Stevens PLC, Patrick J.
Kenny, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Robert R. Leight, Pietragallo
Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Robert F. Tom, BAKER DONELSON
BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Scott F. Llewellyn, Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, Nicholas Jackson, ZwillGen PLLC & Rebekah Elisabeth
Kaufman, Morrison and Foerster.

MDL 2820: Court Allows Baldwin Testimony in Dicamba Herbicide Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BADER FARMS, INC. and BILL BADER Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO CO. and BASF CORP., Defendants, MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ,
Case No. 1:16cv299-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division, denied the Defendants' motion to exclude the
expert testimony of Dr. Ford Baldwin.

Several motions are now pending in the matter, which is part of the
In re Dicamba Herbicide Multidistrict Litigation.  The matter is
going to trial in January 2020.

The MDL, which involves a putative class-action complaint related
to crop damage to soybeans, is at the class certification stage,
and numerous motions to exclude expert testimony have been filed
related to class certification.  Dr. Ford Baldwin is named as an
expert for the Plaintiffs in both the MDL and in the matter.
Motions to exclude Baldwin's testimony have been filed both the MDL
and in the matter.  Thus, the Court is filing the memorandum in
Bader concurrently with the order addressing Daubert motions in the
MDL, before addressing the other motions pending in Bader.

The Bader Plaintiffs claim their peach orchard was destroyed
beginning in 2015 after Defendants Monsanto Co. (a company that
sells crop seed and herbicide) and BASF Corp. (a company that sells
herbicide) conspired to develop and market dicamba-tolerant seeds
and dicamba-based herbicides.  They claim both the Defendants
conspired to create an "ecological disaster," where Monsanto
released its dicamba-tolerant seed in 2015 and 2016 with no
corresponding dicamba herbicide.  As a result, farmers illegally
sprayed an old formulation of dicamba herbicide that was unapproved
for in-crop, over-the-top, use and was "volatile," or prone to
drift.  Drifting dicamba would cause damage to neighboring,
non-tolerant crops, forcing neighboring farmers to plant Monsanto's
dicamba-tolerant seed defensively, and that increased demand for
both the Defendants' new dicamba herbicide during the 2017 growing
season.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Defendants based on
these circumstances, and the cases filed in federal court have been
consolidated into the MDL.  The present case was filed on Nov. 23,
2016 and was consolidated into the MDL.  Numerous MDL plaintiffs
have joined the Master Crop Damage complaint, which focuses on
soybean growers in several states.  The Bader Plaintiffs, although
part of the MDL, did not join in the Master Crop Damage Complaint;
the Bader case is following its own Case Management Order and is
set for trial in January 2020.

The Defendants seek to exclude the expert reports of the
Plaintiffs' expert Ford Baldwin.  Dr. Ford Baldwin is a weed
scientist who worked with herbicides and studied off-target
movement for more than 40 years.  He is Professor Emeritus in weed
science at the University of Arkansas and holds a B.S.A. in
Agronomy (Crop Science), an M.S. in Agronomy (Weed Science), and a
Ph.D. in Agronomy (Weed Science).  He has served as an expert
witness and consultant for many companies, including the Defendants
here.  As a weed scientist for the University of Arkansas for 28
years, Dr. Baldwin's focus was on studying herbicides, including as
part of genetically modified crop systems, and off-target movement
of those herbicides.  He investigated drift complaints and
conducted applied research.

Baldwin opines that Plaintiff Bader Farms has experienced
symptomology to its peach trees consistent with the damage caused
by dicamba exposure to sensitive broadleaf crops.  The multiple
exposures to dicamba has resulted, he says, in a continuous
weakening of the peach trees, causing a decline in the health of
the trees and their ability to bear fruit.  Baldwin submitted a
supplemental report regarding his July 20, 2019 inspection of Bader
Farms.  That report also include a map reflecting seed sales by
year from 2015 to 2018.  In his later rebuttal report, Baldwin
addressed the alternate causes of peach tree damage that have been
offered by the Defendants.

Baldwin's opinion includes information on the background and
characteristics of dicamba herbicide; dicamba toxicity to broadleaf
species and propensity for off-target movement by drift,
volatility, and temperature inversions; historical uses of dicamba
showing that dicamba use increased with the release of Xtend seed;
the increase in complaints of dicamba injury following introduction
of Xtend seed; the foreseeability of injury to broadleaf species
given what defendants' own research and general scientific
community knew about dicamba, the difficulty following the label
and using the product in-crop; the current research and testing of
the defendants' new dicamba; and Baldwin's observations at Bader
Farms.

The Defendants first seek to exclude Baldwin's opinion because he
is not qualified to offer his causation opinions.  They also seek
to exclude his opinions on yield loss, the source of dicamba that
damaged the peach trees, product labeling, and volatility and
"atmospheric loading."  Finally, defendants maintain the Plaintiffs
should not be permitted to use Baldwin to narrate documents or
speculate about the Defendants' motives, intent, or states of
mind.

Judge Limbaugh finds that Baldwin's opinions are not based only on
his personal observations and the visit to Bader farms in the
winter of 2017.  Numerous other sources of information support
Bader's opinions pertaining to the 2015 and 2016 seasons.  The
Defendants are free to cross-examine Baldwin on these matters, but
the Court will not exclude Baldwin's causation opinion.

The Defendants argue that Baldwin's yield-loss opinions are
speculation.  The Judge finds that Baldwin does not seek to
quantify the degree or amount of yield loss, only that it can occur
and, scientifically, why.  Baldwin observes that the reason 2019
yields appear improved is because the unusually wet spring weather
delayed application of dicamba to surrounding fields.  That delay
allowed the early peach crop to grow more successfully than in
2018, though the 2019 yield was still lower than it should have
been.

Next, the Defendants argue that, for Baldwin's causation theory to
be relevant, the alleged dicamba must have come from application of
dicamba over the top of Xtend crops.  The Judge holds that the
facts that the Defendants push -- such that in 2016 one Bader
neighbor allegedly sprayed dicamba on corn (which is apparently not
susceptible to dicamba) -- do not require exclusion of Baldwin's
testimony.  Again, the purported failure to consider alternative
causes to the damage to the trees is in general just one of the
factors to consider in determining whether to admit expert
testimony, and that failure goes to the weight and not the
admissibility of the testimony.  The matter, too will be left to
the jury.

In his report, Baldwin criticizes defendants' product labels for
being deficient, confusing, and inadequate.  The Defendants argue
that this testimony should be excluded for several reasons.  The
Judge will take up these matters before trial in a motion in limine
as appropriate, because certainly there is a fine line Baldwin must
walk with respect to his labeling opinions.  But it is not
necessary to do so now.

The Defendants incorporate their arguments regarding volatility and
atmospheric loading from their motion to exclude Baldwin's opinions
in the MDL.  That motion discusses at length the finer points of
Baldwin's understanding of dicamba's chemical and physical
properties.  However, it ultimately seeks to exclude the opinion
that defendant's herbicides "volatize in sufficient amounts to
cause uniform, class-wide symptomology."  The Judge holds that
Baldwin is qualified to opine as to dicamba's chemical and physical
properties and as to its ability to move off-target.  Baldwin's
opinion regarding uniform, class-wide damage is not relevant to the
Bader Farms case.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs may not be
permitted to use Baldwin as a mouthpiece to narrate defendants'
documents or speculate about their motives, intent, or states of
mind.  The Plaintiffs respond they have no intention of having
Baldwin narrate documents or draw legal conclusions, but they also
point out that Baldwin has been deposed (over the Plaintiffs'
objection) as a fact witness, and that he may reasonably be asked
to explain certain aspects of the Defendants' documents.  The Judge
agrees with the Plaintiffs that these matters are better taken up
as part of a motion in limine.  They do not call for exclusion of
Baldwin's testimony at this stage.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Limbaugh denied the Defendants'
motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Baldwin.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/k0LitX from Leagle.com.

John S. Hahn, Special Master, pro se.

Bader Farms, Inc. & Bill Bader, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela
Marie Splittgerber -- angie@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND
SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Beverly Turina Randles -- bev@randleslaw.com --
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R. Randles --
bill@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E.
Sternhell-Blackwell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Pro Hac
Vice, Jeffrey A. Masson, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John R. Musgrave,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John J. Rosenthal, WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP,
Booker T. Shaw, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousque,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles N.
Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, E. B. Chiles,
IV
-- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason D.
Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
&
Smith, LLP, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
AND BAKER LLP, John E. Tull, III -- jtull@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Ross W. Johnson --
ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Tarifa Belle
Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP,
Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Troy A.
Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Carolyn A.
Gunkel -- carolyn.gunkel@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP &
Shane Alan Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND
BAKER LLP.


MDL 2820: Milliken Testimony Allowed in Dicamba Herbicide Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BADER FARMS, INC. and BILL BADER Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO CO. and BASF CORP., Defendants, MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ,
Case No. 1:16cv299-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stevan Knezevic;
(ii) granted the Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Dennis Gardisser; (iii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
the testimony of Dr. Ford Baldwin; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. George Milliken; and (v)
held that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due
Dec. 16, 2019.

The Plaintiffs in the Multi-district Litigation filed a Crop Damage
Class Action Master Complaint against Defendants Monsanto and BASF
on Aug. 1, 2018.  The Plaintiffs are soybean farmers from eight
states: Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  Each Plaintiff alleges that
its soybean crop was damaged by the herbicide dicamba when
neighboring farmers planted genetically modified dicamba-resistant
seeds and sprayed that crop with dicamba.  

The Plaintiffs challenge Monsanto's commercialization of its
dicamba-resistant cotton seeds in 2015 and soybean seeds in 2016
("Xtend seeds").  The U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA")
allowed the sale of the dicamba-resistant seeds in January 2015.
However, the Plaintiffs contend that their commercialization was
premature and improper because the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") had not yet approved a dicamba herbicide for use
over the top of crops grown from those seeds.  They add that the
dicamba-resistant seeds were also tolerant to application of other
herbicides, like Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup-branded
herbicides.

Only one PPlaintiff in the Master Complaint brings claims related
to 2016, the year Monsanto sold Xtend seed but did not sell the
corresponding herbicide.  That Plaintiff, Jerry Franks of Missouri,
represents himself and a class of "Missouri 2016" plaintiffs.  The
other plaintiffs allege that in 2017 they grew non-dicamba-tolerant
("non-DT") soybeans that were damaged by dicamba herbicide used on
fields that were planted with dicamba-tolerant Xtend seeds.

By 2017, the EPA had approved Monsanto and BASF's new
low-volatility dicamba herbicides (respectively named XtendiMax and
Engenia).  Earlier versions of dicamba had been on the market since
the 1960s (though none manufactured by Monsanto), but it was not
approved for in-crop use due to its volatility and propensity to
drift (sometimes taking other herbicides with it), meaning it could
cause damage to other, off-target growing plants.  XtendiMax and
Engenia were developed to address original dicamba's volatility
problem so that they could be used over-the-top of crops, during
the growing season, without harming nearby, non-tolerant crops.

The 2017, the Plaintiffs challenge the design and sale of Monsanto
and BASF's dicamba herbicide products.  They contend, despite the
Defendants' representations to the contrary, that both are
unsuitable for in-crop use because they too, like the earlier
versions of dicamba, are volatile and prone to move off-target and
damage nearby, sensitive crops.  The claim, then, is that the
defendants, in their pursuit of increased profits, pushed the Xtend
seeds and XtendiMax and Engenia herbicides forward and
misrepresented the system as safe, knowing that
non-dicamba-resistant crops and plants would be damaged.  In fact,
teh Plaintiffs contend that such damage was to the Defendants'
benefit, as it would cause farmers to defensively purchase
dicamba-resistant seed to avoid damages.

Each Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and a state-wide class, brings
claims under its own state's laws, and they also seek to represent
a nationwide class pursuing claims under the Lanham Act.  The
parties have been engaged in discovery in preparation for a motion
for class certification.  Numerous experts have been retained, and
the parties have filed 15 motions to exclude expert testimony.
This Memorandum and Order addresses the Plaintiffs' experts Dr.
Knezevic, Dr. Gardisser, and Dr. Baldwin, and Monsanto's expert Dr.
Milliken.

The Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Knezevic's testimony as to three
issues: (i) volatility rate of Xtendimax and Engenia; (ii)
Knezevic's dose-response opinions; and (iii) effect of multiple
exposures.

Judge Limbaugh will exclude Knezevic's opinions as to the
volatility rate of Xtendimax and Engenia, Knezevic's dose-response
opinions, and his opinions on the effect of multiple exposures.  He
finds that (i) the Plaintiffs admit that Knezevic is not offering
an opinion on the Xtendimax and Engenia volatilization rates; (ii)
Knezevic's dose-response opinions suffer from numerous problems;
and (iii) the record shows that Knezevic relied on unspecified
scientific studies.  The Judge therefore granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to exclude certain opinions of Dr.
Knezevic.

Dr. Gardisser is an agricultural applications expert who has
previously worked for BASF to teach applicators how to apply
Engenia, BASF's over-the-top dicamba herbicide.  He has a B.S., an
M.S., and a Ph.D. in agricultural engineering and is a retired
biological and agricultural engineering professor.  The Plaintiffs
retained Dr. Gardisser to explain off-target movement of dicamba.
They state that Gardisser's opinions, when combined with Knezevic
and Baldwin, establish causation can be shown through common proof
and that all class members suffered damage.

Dr. Gardisser's opinions pertinent to the Defendants' motion
include the following: (1) the Defendants' dicamba products
volatize in sufficient amounts to cause uniform, class-wide
symptomology; and (2) non-DT soybeans exposed to dicamba moving
through volatility, and exhibiting symptomology, suffered yield
loss.

The Defendants seek the exclusion of the following opinions: (i)
volatility opinions and (ii) yield loss opinions.  The Judge finds
that Gardisser cannot opine that volatilized dicamba caused
"uniform, class-wide damage" to the Plaintiffs' non-DT soybeans
while also admitting that some 14% of fields showed evidence of
another contamination vehicle, like drift, which by definition
causes non-uniform damage.  He finds that Dr. Gardisser's opinion
is neither reliable nor helpful in the context of class
certification.  The opinion will be excluded.  

Gardisser's yield loss opinion will also be excluded.  The Judge
holds that all agrees that there is yield loss at some dosage
point, but the amount cannot be determined.  He has excluded
Knezevic's opinion on the matter.

The Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Ford Baldwin is another weed scientist
who has been working with herbicides and studying off-target
movement for more than 40 years.  He is Professor Emeritus in weed
science at the University of Arkansas.  Much of Dr. Baldwin's
testimony overlaps with that of Dr. Gardisser.  Dr. Baldwin opines
that every non-DT soybean field in the eight states at issue was
exposed to dicamba through off-target movement of dicamba applied
to Xtend seeds because of dicamba's volatility and long-range
transport.

The Defendants advance two arguments for excluding Baldwin's
testimony.  First, they contend that Baldwin lacks the necessary
qualifications to offer a reliable expert opinion.  Second, they
argue that Baldwin inferred the alleged injury and cause rather
than following a sound scientific methodology to reach his
conclusions.

The Judge concludes that, although Baldwin clearly has the
qualifications and experience to opine on the volatility and
off-target movement of dicamba, his opinions related to dicamba
injuries to fields he has not visited must be excluded.  Although
experts commonly extrapolate from existing data, "nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court
to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only
by the ipse dixit of the expert.

Monsanto's expert Dr. Milliken is a professor emeritus in
Statistics at Kansas State University who has more than 50 years'
experience in statistical study design and analysis with a specific
focus on agricultural studies.  The Defendants retained Milliken to
opine on the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Knezevic's use of the
four-parameter log logistic model.

The Plaintiffs make four arguments in support of their motion.
They argue (1) Milliken's opinion is inconsistent because he admits
that Knezevic used the log logistic model appropriately, and (2)
Milliken's speculations about the C-value on the results of
estimated dose are unsupported and contradicted by Milliken's own
results.  Both arguments involve Milliken's opinion that Knezevic
was wrong to derive "C"—the minimum yield value—from the data
rather than setting it to zero.

Among other things, the Judge disagrees that Milliken was
inconsistent on this point.  Milliken agreed that sometimes C is
not set to zero, but that it should have been for the purposes of
this statistical analysis because there is some level of dicamba
dose that will reduce the yield to zero.  He also disagrees that
Milliken's results contradict his testimony.  Milliken testified
that his results across the three data sets were the same.  On that
note, the Plaintiffs complain that Milliken produced only his
results for the 2018 data and suggest that the analysis from the
other two data sets would have been to the Plaintiffs' benefit.
The Defendants deny this, too, and contend that they would have
furnished the other analyses had the Plaintiffs so-requested it.
The Plaintiffs' arguments in favor of excluding Milliken's expert
testimony fail.  The motion is denied.

Judge Limbaugh concludes that Defendants' motions to exclude the
expert testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts will be granted as to
Gardisser and Baldwin and granted in large part as to Knezevic.  He
recognizes that the testimony of those three experts appears
critical to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.  As such,
he will withhold rulings on the remaining experts and will consider
them, if necessary, as part of the class certification briefing.

Finally, the Fourth Case Management Order states that any motion
for class certification is due 14 days after the Court rules on the
parties' Daubert motions.  The 14-day time period will begin to run
on Dec. 2, 2019.

Accordingly, the Judge (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stevan Knezevic;
(ii) granted the Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Dennis Gardisser; (iii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
the testimony of Dr. Ford Baldwin; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. George Milliken; and (v)
held that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due
Dec. 16, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/Vx32w2 from Leagle.com.

John S. Hahn, Special Master, pro se.

Bader Farms, Inc. & Bill Bader, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela
Marie Splittgerber -- angie@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND
SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Beverly Turina Randles -- bev@randleslaw.com --
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R. Randles --
bill@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E.
Sternhell-Blackwell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Pro Hac
Vice, Jeffrey A. Masson, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John R. Musgrave,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John J. Rosenthal, WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP,
Booker T. Shaw, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousque,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles N.
Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, E. B. Chiles,
IV
-- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason D.
Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
&
Smith, LLP, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
AND BAKER LLP, John E. Tull, III -- jtull@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Ross W. Johnson --
ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Tarifa Belle
Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP,
Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Troy A.
Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Carolyn A.
Gunkel -- carolyn.gunkel@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP &
Shane Alan Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND
BAKER LLP.


MDL 2875: Richissin v. Camber Over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Fred Richissin, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS
INC., HETERO USA INC., HETERO LABS LTD, HETERO DRUGS LIMITED, SOLCO
HEALTHCARE U.S. LLC, PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC., HUAHAI U.S.
INCZHEJIANG,  HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, AUROBINDO PHARMA
LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC., and AUROLIFE PHARMA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13442, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on Nov. 18,
2019.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-20407 to the proceeding.

The Richissin case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, In Re:
VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019.
This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products
containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of
high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the
FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic
valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of
generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic
losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by
actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected
valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve
common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs
purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications
containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these
impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that
defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early
as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and
voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls
are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed
actions, focused on Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the
source of the alleged impurities, the FDA investigation and the
actions before the Panel now encompass alleged industry-wide issues
concerning the production of the valsartan active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API) which will be common to all actions.

The common questions of fact include: (1) whether the generic
valsartan sold by defendants contained NDMA or NDEA; (2) the cause
of the alleged impurities, including alleged defects in the
manufacturing and sampling process; (3) when defendants knew or
should have known of the impurities; (4) how long the NDMA- and
NDEA- containing valsartan medications were in circulation; and (5)
whether the amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the medications presented a
risk of cancer or other injuries. All of the valsartan actions will
raise these issues, regardless of whether the alleged supplier of
the valsartan API was Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,
Mylan, Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization
will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert
B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica A. Perez, Esq.
          1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 523-0699

               - and -

          Matthew Palmer Lambert, Esq.
          Stanley Paul Baudin, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2800
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 522-2304
          E-mail: plambert@gainsben.com

Defendants SolcoL Healthcare US LLC, and Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., are represented by:

          Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr.
          Brian Gerard Reaney, II, Jr.
          IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2107
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2101
          E-mail: qurquhart@irwinllc.com

Defendants Aurobindo Pharma USA., Inc. and Aurolife Pharma LLC are
represented by:

          Morgan J. Wells , Jr., Esq.
          Evan J. Godofsky, Esq.
          LARZELERE, PICOU, WELLS, SIMPSON, LONERO, LLC
          Two Lakeway Center
          3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 500
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 834-6500


MDL 2913: Ferraro Suit Over JUUL E-Cigarettes Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as GIOVANNI FERRARO, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs
Inc., Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc., John Does 1-25,
JANE ROES NO. 1-25, and ABC CORPORATION No. 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-07565-WHO (Filed Oct. 24, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on Nov. 18 2019.

The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07324-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida, the Plaintiff
alleges. In particular, the Defendants have knowingly developed,
sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in
excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering
long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that
addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates
nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using
JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through
unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth.

The Plaintiff and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit
Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive
advertising and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The Ferraro case is being consolidated with MDL 2913, IN RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200
          E-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com


MELALEUCA INC: Wainwright Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled JOANN WAINWRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. MELALEUCA, INC., an Idaho corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 34-2019-00266415 (Filed Oct. 4,
2019), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Nov. 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02330-JAM-DB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum wages
under the California Labor Code.

Melaleuca manufactures and distributes of nutritional,
pharmaceutical, personal care, facial care, home, and wellness
products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian M. Lutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: 415 393 8200
          Facsimile: 415 393 8306
          E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: 949 451 3800
          Facsimile: 949 451 4220
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
                  cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com


MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY: Former Students' Class Action Faces Delay
--------------------------------------------------------------
SaltWire Network reports that a lawsuit filed against Memorial
University by a group of former students almost five years ago has
yet to see any progress, though the court has so far not granted
MUN's request to throw out the case.

Four former engineering students from China filed a statement of
claim with Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court in February
2015, indicating they wanted to start a class action against MUN
for alleged negligence causing them to flunk out of their programs.
The group was represented by Haowei Chen, since he was the only one
of the four still residing in the province at the time of the
claim.

Chen has since moved out of the province, leaving the proposed
class action without a required representative.

The former students say they were living in China when they applied
to enrol as graduate students in MUN's faculty of engineering and
applied science (FEAS) in 2011. They say the university compelled
them to apply through a recruiting agency in China, at a cost of
$3,000, and they allege students from other countries can apply
directly to the university without having to pay this third-party
fee.

Once admitted to the program, the former students say, they were
required to pay a $20,000 "special fee" on top of tuition costs,
which was charged only to Chinese students.

"The plaintiffs state that despite the fact that they paid a
significant amount of money to attend the university, there were
numerous deficiencies in the instruction and administration of the
FEAS program, all of which led to academic failure of the
plaintiffs," the statement of claim reads.

The former students allege issues with unavailable courses, poor
academic advice, poor instruction and poor communication between
administrators and students.

Once the students failed out of the program, their fees were not
refunded, as they had been told in advance, they say.

They say MUN breached its contract by failing to provide
appropriate advice, instruction, and access to programs and
information, and was also negligent.

"The plaintiffs state that as students, the university owed them a
duty of care. Further, that as international students with limited
English language skills, the university owed them a higher duty of
care," court documents state.

In media interviews in 2013, MUN officials defended the "special
fee," saying the programs in question, which include more courses
than other research programs, require extra faculty, language
training and other resources, and incurred extra administrative and
recruiting costs.

MUN filed an application to dismiss the case a year ago, arguing
Chen had not given any indication that he intended to pursue the
claim, since he last filed documents in 2016.

The matter was heard in court Oct. 24, with lawyer Steve Orr
explaining that the former students were having difficulty finding
a representative and arguing that the resulting delay was therefore
reasonable. He applied to convert the class action into separate
non-class action proceedings.

The university's lawyer argued the delay has been unreasonable and
a ground to dismiss the case, pointing out Chen had said in a media
interview in 2013 that he had a petition signed by 50 other
graduate students with concerns.

Justice Carl Thompson ordered the former students contact all those
who may have been eligible for inclusion in the class action and
inform them of the application before the matter proceeds any
further. [GN]


MIDSPAN TELECOM: Underpays Technicians, Martinez et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO MARTINEZ; LAMINE ZERBO; and MOHAMMED KAMARA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MIDSPAN TELECOM CORP.; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P.; DANIEL ZAYAS;
and RICHARD GRULLARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10973 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 27, 2019) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as technicians.

Midspan Telecom Corp. offers communication services. The Company
provides information & communication technology development,
broadband, and telephone services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700


MONSANTO: Gets Favorable Ruling in Brazil Round Up Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karine Eliane Peschard, writing for Scroll.in, reports that a
Brazilian appeals court has decided in favour of Monsanto, the
global agribusiness conglomerate, in a landmark class-action
lawsuit filed by Brazilian farmers' unions.

The court's nine justices unanimously ruled on October 9 that
farmers cannot save seeds for replanting if the seeds are harvested
from Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready soybeans, which are
genetically engineered to withstand direct application of the
company's Roundup herbicide.

The Brazilian ruling aligns with similar decisions in the US and
Canada. Courts in all three countries determined that, as a product
of genetic engineering, Roundup Ready soybeans are protected by
domestic patent law.

In a public statement, Monsanto -- which was acquired by Bayer in
2018 -- said the decision will strengthen "agricultural innovation
in Brazil".

How strict patenting of seeds affects innovation, however, is a
matter of debate. And the lawsuits challenging Monsanto's
aggressive pursuit of its patent rights raise a vexed legal issue:
When intellectual property laws that protect companies conflict
with the rights of farmers to plant their fields, who should win?

Monsanto 'owns everything'

The Brazilian lawsuit is a sign of growing uneasiness with the
control Monsanto has over farmers, my research on biotechnology and
seeds finds.

Founded as a chemical manufacturer in 1901, Monsanto has invested
heavily in agricultural biotechnology to become the world's largest
seller of seeds. Its biotech seeds have proved attractive to
farmers because they simplify farm management. Monsanto says its
genetically modified seeds also increase crop yields, and thus
farmer income -- but evidence on this subject is not probative.

In the United States and Canada, Monsanto requires buyers of its
genetically modified seeds to sign extensive licensing contracts
that prevent them from saving seeds. North American farmers who
violate those agreements have been sued for patent infringement and
compelled to pay tens of thousands of dollars in damages.

In Brazil, Monsanto charges 2% royalties on the sale of its
patented soybeans, a conventional industry practice. More
unusually, the company charges an additional royalty -- 3% of
farmers' sales -- when soybeans are grown from saved Roundup Ready
seeds.

Soybeans are Brazil's biggest export. The royalties in dispute in
the class action, which is likely to be appealed to the Brazilian
Supreme Court, are estimated at $7.7 billion.

"I can't stand it anymore -- seeing those Monsanto people showing
up at the grain elevator and behaving as if they own everything,"
one grain cooperative manager told the Brazilian Congress during a
special commission on agriculture I attended in December 2017.

'Amoral' royalty collection

The Brazilian appeals court's October 9 decision reverses a past
ruling establishing the rights of small farmers in Brazil.

In their original petition, farmers' unions in 2009 asserted that
Monsanto's royalty collection system is arbitrary, illegal and
abusive. They argued that it extends Monsanto's intellectual
property rights to their own production and violates their right to
freely save seeds for replanting, as guaranteed under Brazil's
Plant Variety Protection Act.

In April 2012, a civil court agreed with the farmers, affirming
their rights to save seeds and sell their harvests as food or raw
material without paying royalties.

Monsanto got this ruling overturned on appeal. The Brazilian
farmers' unions then appealed that decision, leading to the October
9 ruling against them.

"Monsanto is amoral," Luiz Fernando Benincá, a soybean producer
and litigant in the class action suit told me in January 2017. "It
will do anything for profits."

Controversial practices

Monsanto is accustomed to litigation. Several of its other products
-- such as Agent Orange, the synthetic chemicals PCBs and, more
recently, the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup -- have been
embroiled in legal controversies.

For decades, the St Louis-based company, valued at $63 billion last
year, used its deep pockets and large teams of lawyers to
intimidate farmers and defeat opponents in courts.

From 1997 to 2018 Monsanto won every single intellectual property
lawsuit that went to trial in the US and Canada.

It has had less success abroad. Courts in Argentina, the European
Union and other countries with stronger farmers' rights have
checked the company's aggressive use of royalties to profit off the
byproducts of patented products.

Judges in these cases confront a tricky legal issue.

In theory, a genetically engineered DNA sequence like the one that
confers herbicide resistance to Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans
can be protected under patent law. Yet the plant variety in which
the genetic sequence is introduced may also be legally protected,
as it is under Brazil's Plant Variety Protection Act.

In practice, however, it is virtually impossible to separate
genetically engineered DNA sequences from the rest of the physical
plant. So the two laws -- one recognising the rights of farmers to
save seeds for replanting in their fields, the other protecting
Monsanto's intellectual property -- conflict with each other.

Farmers versus corporations

Faced with this conundrum, the Canadian and US Supreme Courts have
ruled that the exclusive rights of a patent holder over plant
genetic sequences extend to the plants themselves, thereby allowing
companies like Monsanto to prohibit farmers from saving seeds.

Brazil has effectively agreed with this interpretation -- for now.
The lawyer for the Brazilian farmer's unions, Neri Perin, says the
ruling "disregards Brazil's international commitment to guarantee
farmers' rights".

But more troubles await Bayer-Monsanto.

In a separate lawsuit, Brazilian soybean farmers are challenging
the validity of Monsanto's patent on second-generation Roundup
Ready soybeans. In India, the courts have been asked to rule on the
validity of Monsanto's patent for a cotton variety genetically
engineered to be insect resistant.

Monsanto has long had the upper hand over the farmers who use its
products. But the momentum may be shifting. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BARBARA KOHANSKI, also known as BARBARA
PAULSON-KOHANSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00600-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff seeks to certify a
class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
defined as:

     All natural persons to whom Nationwide Credit, Inc. mailed a
     written communication in the form of Exhibit A to the
     Complaint to an address in the State of Wisconsin on or
     after April 25, 2018 and on or before May 16, 2019.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court appoint her to represent the
putative class members, and that her attorneys, Stern Thomasson
LLP, be appointed counsel for the class.

The claims against Nationwide arise under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  Nationwide mailed an initial collection letter to
the Plaintiff, which was dated May 12, 2018, and which sought to
collect an alleged debt.  The Letter is a template letter that
Nationwide uses to collect debts from Wisconsin residents.

Ms. Paulson-Kohanski contends that the Letter was materially false,
deceptive, and misleading to the unsophisticated consumer as a
person with limited financial resources would, based on the Letter,
choose to pay the debt over an otherwise identical debt in which
the collection letter did not falsely imply that the settlement
offer was a one-time take-it-or-leave-it offer.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com


NCAA: Former Villanova Football Player Sues for Athletes' Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Murphy, writing for ESPN News, reports that a former Villanova
football player is suing the NCAA, claiming that college athletes
should be viewed as employees and paid like other students who
participate in work-study programs on campus.

Trey Johnson filed the class-action lawsuit Wednesday, November 6,
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court. Along with
the NCAA, 22 Division I universities are listed as defendants.
Johnson, who currently plays in the Canadian Football League, is
asking for what amounts to unpaid wages for his time spent on the
Villanova football team.

"Our case says everyone deserves to be paid in every sport," said
Paul McDonald, one of the attorneys representing Johnson in the
case along with Michael Willemin from the law firm of Wigdor LLP.
"[The NCAA] could do this starting next fall if they put their mind
to it. You would just fold student-athletes into the same system as
other work-study students."

Johnson's suit is the latest addition to an ongoing barrage of
challenges to the NCAA's long-held practice of not allowing college
athletes to make money. The NCAA's board of governors announced
last week that it planned to modify its rules restricting athletes
from accepting any type of endorsement money. That announcement
came on the heels of a passed law in California that will make it
illegal for colleges in that state to prohibit endorsement deals
for their athletes starting in 2023. NCAA leaders are attempting to
fend off pressure from federal and state lawmakers while also
defending their organization against civil lawsuits that claim that
current NCAA rules violate antitrust laws.

Johnson argues that each athlete is an employee of the school and
deserves to be paid an hourly wage that is comparable to peers who
stock books at the library or sell concessions and tickets at
campus sporting events. His attorneys estimate that would mean
roughly $10 to $15 per hour for each student.

McDonald said he believes that if the NCAA shows some willingness
to treat athletes like work-study students that it would have
better luck getting the government to grant an antitrust exemption
to help avoid some of the "thornier" labor issues looming on the
horizon.

This suit marks the third time McDonald has attempted to force
colleges to treat athletes like work-study students. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ended his first shot in 2016
when it upheld a ruling that a group of former Penn track runners
were not employees of the school.

"This complaint is filed by lawyers who have already sued
unsuccessfully on this subject," NCAA chief legal officer Donald
Remy said. "Importantly, it ignores previous court rulings that
student-athletes are not university employees. The NCAA remains
confident that courts will continue to uphold the precedent set by
prior decisions."

In most cases regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court
will run the claim through one of two standard tests to determine
if the plaintiff should be considered an employee and is entitled
to minimum wage. In the Penn track runners case -- Berger v. NCAA
--the court decided no test was necessary after the NCAA
successfully argued it should be granted an exception because of
its tradition of amateurism. According to McDonald, the NCAA argued
for its exception by using a case in which prisoners in Illinois
sued in an attempt to be paid for the work they did while
incarcerated.

A judge in California used the same reasoning to dismiss a case
filed by former USC football player Lamar Dawson in 2017.

McDonald was not involved in Dawson's lawsuit, but he made another
attempt at the same argument in 2017 with former Villanova football
player Poppy Livers.

In that case, a judge decided that the NCAA should not be exempt
from an employment test, but Livers backed away from the suit
because of questions about whether his case was still within the
statute of limitations. Livers eventually led McDonald to Johnson
and the class-action suit that was filed this week.

McDonald said he was confident that the judge in this case will at
least allow for the employment test, which amounts to a series of
questions that seek to define the relationship between the athlete
and his or her school. He said he believes Johnson and any others
who join the lawsuit will be able to make a strong case that they
should considered as employees.

"If you go through each criteria and compare them to work-study
students that have already passed those tests as employees,
student-athletes are even more of an employee," McDonald said.
[GN]


NOKIA: Failure to Issue Profit Warning Ground for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksi Teivainen, writing for Helsinki Times, reports that the
situation of Nokia has sparked off concerns among not only industry
analysts but also the employees and owners of the Finnish mobile
network equipment supplier.

Lasse Laurikainen, a shop steward for senior salaried staff at the
headquarters of Nokia in Espoo, told Bloomberg on Nov. 1 that the
company's management has been distracted by disagreements over
priorities and staffing since the acquisition of Franco-American
Alcatel-Lucent in 2016.

"Execution needs to be sharper," he stressed to the
business-oriented media company. "It's pure politics. And some are
favouring their nationals and rejecting common ways of working."

Nokia shocked investors in October by announcing it has downgraded
its outlook for operating margin to 8.5 per cent for this year and
9.5 per cent for next year, and decided to forgo dividend payouts
for the third and fourth quarters of this year.

Its profit warning has been interpreted as a sign that the
ex-mobile phone giant is struggling in the fifth-generation (5G)
mobile network space compared to Sweden's Ericsson and China's
Huawei Technologies.

Nokia acquired Alcatel-Lucent for 15.6 billion euros in what was
the largest corporate acquisition in the history of Finland.
Analysts have recently drawn attention to the changes made in the
managerial staff following the acquisition, such as the
organisational shake-up last year that led to the departure of Marc
Rouanne.

"The entire idea of the merger was for the whole to be bigger than
the sum of its parts," Mikael Rautanen, an analyst at Inderes,
stated to Bloomberg.

He also commented on the situation on Twitter.

"Nokia's next-generation products in the mobile spare are lagging
behind the competition, coffers are weakening, credit rating is
declining and shares are plummeting. It seems as if we've been here
before," he stated.

Antti Makinen, the chief executive of the state-owned investment
company Solidium, voiced his concerns about the former mobile phone
behemoth in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat.

"You have to be worried about Nokia, because downgrading future
outlook and the reasons that led to it don't look good. Investors
should always be a bit paranoid but particularly so in this case,"
he said to the daily newspaper.

Nokia's failure to issue a profit warning earlier could even
constitute grounds for bringing a class action against the network
equipment manufacturer, viewed Timo Rothovius, the chairperson of
the Finnish Shareholders' Association.

"When your share value has fallen by 25 per cent, it's absolutely a
significant thing. A profit warning should've been issued about
it," he said to MTV. [GN]


ORANGE COUNTY, FL: Tellam Files Proof of Citizenship & Seeks Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LEZA S. TELLAM, et al. and
others similarly situated v. TIFFANY MOORE RUSSELL, FAYE L. ALLEN
and KEVIN WEISS, Case No. 6:19-cv-00441-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla.), asks
that the Court:

   (a) accept her filing of a notice of proof of citizenship and
       motion for any class representative form or other
       requirement; and

   (b) deliver any form or other requirement predicate or
       required for a class representative.

Tiffany Moore Russell is the Orange County Clerk of Courts.  Faye
L. Allen is Orange County Judge and Kevin Weiss is a Circuit
Judge.

Ms. Tellam informs the Court that she is an owner of residential
real property valued at under $500,000 in Orange County, Florida.
She says she is a citizen of the United States.  A copy of her
passport issued by the United States is included as Exhibit A.

Ms. Tellam also asks the Court to notify her of any additional
approved form or other information for verifying her competency and
capability as class representative in this action as a predicate to
any findings or ruling on same.  She reserves the right to amend or
correct.

The Plaintiff, of Winter Park, Florida, appears pro se.[CC]

Defendant Tiffany Moore Russell, Clerk of Court, is represented
by:

          Gail C. Bradford, Esq.
          DEAN, RINGERS, MORGAN AND LAWTON, P.A.
          Capital Plaza 1
          201 East Pine Street, Suite 1200
          P.O. Box 2928
          Orlando, FL 32802-2928
          Telephone: (407) 422-4310
          E-mail: gbradford@drml-law.com

Defendants Judge Faye Allen and Judge Kevin Weiss are represented
by:

          David Asti, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL-CIVIL LITIGATION BUREAU
          501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 233-2880
          E-mail: david.asti@myfloridalegal.com


OTTAWA: Commences Talks to Settle First Nations Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Barrera, writing for CBC News, reports that Ottawa says it
has started talks to settle a $6 billion proposed class action
lawsuit filed earlier this year on behalf of First Nations children
affected by the on-reserve child welfare system.

The proposed class action was filed in March with the Federal Court
on behalf of First Nations children affected by on-reserve child
welfare services between April 1, 1991, and March 1, 2019.

The lawsuit is separate from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Ruling that ordered Ottawa to compensate First Nations children
affected by the on-reserve child welfare system since Jan. 1,
2006.

Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) said in a statement on Nov. 1 that
settlement talks were in the preliminary stages.

"We are at the early stages of the certification process and we are
involved in exploratory discussions with the parties, which are
confidential," said the statement from ISC, which is the lead
department on the file.

David Sterns, a partner with Toronto-based Sotos LLP, one of three
law firms bringing forward the lawsuit, confirmed talks have
started.

"We are having exploratory settlement discussions," he said. "We
are in the very early stage."

Sterns also said that Ottawa has indicated it plans to fight
certification of the lawsuit. Sterns said he is now waiting for the
federal government to file its legal paperwork outlining its
opposition, which is expected in the coming month.

"We are in full litigation mode and we are ready to do battle with
the government," said Sterns.

Contacted by CBC News, ISC did not say whether it plans to contest
the certification.

A certification hearing is still months away, he said.

The statement of claim alleges that Ottawa knew for years about
"severe inadequacies" in its on-reserve First Nations child welfare
funding formulas, policies and practices, but did nothing.

The proposed class action lawsuit was amended recently to increase
the compensation sought to $6 billion from $3 billion.

Jordan's Principle plaintiff

The proposed class action is also seeking compensation for First
Nations children who "suffered or died" while waiting for help from
services Ottawa was legally required to provide that would be
covered by the policy known as Jordan's Principle.

According to Jordan's Principle, the needs of a First Nations child
should always be placed ahead of jurisdictional disputes over
funding for health care and other public services.

The amended statement of claim also added a new plaintiff: Jeremy
Meawasige from Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia, as a
representative of the Jordan's Principle class.

Meawasige was born in 1994 with cerebral palsy, spinal curvature
and autism.

His mother, Maurina Beadle, was his primary caregiver until she
suffered a stroke in 2010. The Pictou Landing band council stepped
in to provide assistance but the funding from Ottawa was not
adequate.

The band council then applied for more funding, citing Jordan's
Principle, but Ottawa refused. The council and Beadle went to the
Federal Court, which ruled in 2013 that the federal government
would have to pay for Meawasige's services in accordance with
Jordan's Principle.

"While Mr. Meawasige received funding for certain services after
the Federal Court's 2013 decision, he has not received some other
essential public services and products to this date," said the
amended statement of claim.

The original plaintiff, Xavier Moushoom, is an Algonquin man from
the Lac Simon Anishnabe Nation, Que. He was shuffled through 14
foster homes between the ages of nine and 18.

Minister's conversation recorded

Sterns said the tribunal compensation order and the class action
lawsuit are two separate issues.

He said receiving compensation from the tribunal order — which is
governed by the Human Rights Act — would not prevent anyone from
also getting compensation through a settlement of the class
action.

The federal government applied for a judicial review in October
with the Federal Court to quash the tribunal's order, arguing that
the human rights body overreached in its compensation decision.
Ottawa says in court filings the tribunal's compensation order
could cost the government up to $8 billion.

While the federal government is fighting to quash the tribunal
compensation order, it has signalled it wants a class action-type
settlement process to offer compensation to those affected by the
on-reserve child welfare system.

During the election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he
was in favour of child welfare compensation.

Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett said in an Oct.
11 recorded conversation with Nipissing First Nation Chief Scott
McLeod that Ottawa wants to compensate First Nations children
affected by the child welfare system from 1991 to today -- which is
essentially the time frame outlined by the proposed class action.

"We want to be at the table as soon as possible and get this thing
sorted," said Bennett, according to a transcript of the
conversation filed in Federal Court as part of the separate
litigation around the human rights tribunal ruling.

The transcript was attached to an affidavit filed by Cindy
Blackstock, who heads the First Nations Child and Family Caring
Society. The society and the Assembly of First Nations filed a
human rights complaint against Ottawa in 2007.

Bennett also echoed an argument advanced by federal lawyers in
court filings that the tribunal compensation order -- which said
each apprehended child should receive $40,000 -- was unfair.

"They can only just give $40,000 to everybody, but that meant if
somebody had been in care for a week, or somebody had been in 10
homes, abused all that time, that person ends up feeling that isn't
fair and continues to be harmed in terms of re-traumatized," said
Bennett, according to the transcript.

During the recorded conversation, Bennett also referred to the
Sixties Scoop and Indian Day School class action settlements
finalized in the Liberal government's previous term. [GN]


PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Plumley Suit Challenges Merger With ArTara
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PROTEON THERAPEUTICS, INC., PAUL J.
HASTINGS, TIMOTHY P. NOYES, HUBERT BIRNER, GAREN BOHLIN, JOHN G.
FREUND, ARTARA THERAPEUTICS, INC., and REM 1 ACQUISITION, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02143-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 15, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Proteon will merge with ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. and REM 1
Acquisition, Inc.

On September 23, 2019, Proteon's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with ArTara
and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
share of ArTara common stock will be converted into the right to
receive Proteon shares such that, following the consummation of the
Proposed Transaction, ArTara stockholders will own approximately
90% of the combined company, while stockholders of Proteon will own
only approximately 10%.

On November 7, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Proteon's stockholders vote to
approve the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff, who owns Proteon common stock, alleges that the
Registration Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement
false and misleading.  Among other things, the Plaintiff asserts,
the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's and ArTara's financial projections, including failure to
disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBIT; (ii) projected
cash flows and all underlying line items; and (iii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

The Plaintiff seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff points out that the omissions and false and
misleading statements in the Registration Statement are material in
that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Proteon is a pharmaceuticals company that focuses on improving the
health of patients with kidney and vascular diseases through the
development of novel, first-in-class therapeutics. The Company's
lead product candidate, vonapanitase, is an investigational drug
intended to improve hemodialysis vascular access outcomes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ROBINSON NURSING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Brown, writing for McKnight's, reports that an Arkansas
nursing home can't compel arbitration in a class-action lawsuit
because it couldn't prove the agreements for more than 200
residents were signed by legally authorized representatives.

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down the ruling on Oct. 31
against the Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, based in
Little Rock, AR. The nursing home will now have to fight claims of
breach of contract, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment
made by former residents in court, Bloomberg Law reported.

The nursing home argued that 544 signed arbitration agreements by
the residents meant the class-action lawsuit couldn't be solved in
court, but rather the disputes should be arbitrated.

The court, however, found that the facility didn't have proof the
signers of 271 of those agreements were legally authorized to
endorse the deals on their behalf.

The court also ruled that other arbitration agreements weren't
enforceable because they required claims for more than $30,000, and
unfairly excluded higher value personal injury claims from
litigation; the facility didn't sign them; or they didn't include
necessary information, the report stated. [GN]


ROCK COUNTY, WI: Jailing People for Unpaid Fines May Prompt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Beleckis, writing for Associated Press, reports that when a
court case is ending, a judge often lists what a defendant needs to
do and know.

It can include contacting a probation agent, not possessing a gun
or avoiding the use of drugs or alcohol.

One routine item usually on the list is paying court costs, which
can total hundreds of dollars or more.

Failing to pay could land the defendant in jail.

Orders to jail for nonpayment are called arrest warrant
commitments, authorizing "that a defendant be arrested and detained
until a fine is paid or discharged by due course of law," according
to Rock County's website .

"A lot of this happens outside of anybody's view," said Eric
Nelson, a recently retired assistant public defender who worked in
Rock County for nearly 40 years.

"Broadly speaking, it's a debtor's prison," he told The Janesville
Gazette.

It's coming to an end.

All seven Rock County circuit judges recently signed an order that
should substantially cut the number of people put in jail because
they can't pay such fines.

The result should be fewer people incarcerated only because they're
poor.

The order signed Sept. 30 calls for 2,862 active arrest warrant
commitments to be transferred to State Debt Collection, which has
other avenues to collect debts that don't involve putting people in
jail.

So, instead of the county not collecting the money owed while at
the same time incurring the costs of incarcerating someone, the new
system will more easily collect fines and fees, officials said.

"I've heard it said that the jail should house people that scare us
and not people who are just in a position that they can't pay their
bills at this moment," Sheriff Troy Knudson said.

How it works

Arrest warrant commitments usually work something like this:
Someone gets a speeding ticket, or they're ordered to pay court
costs after pleading guilty to a felony and a few misdemeanors, or
they are cited for disorderly conduct.

A judge gives that person a certain amount of time to pay what they
owe. That person also can set up a payment plan with the Rock
County Clerk of Courts Office if they don't want to -- or can't --
pay all at once.

Judges didn't order jail every time someone didn't pay. The court
might also have sought other remedies, such as extensions on
payments or ordering community service.

But if the person did not pay, they would then return to court for
a hearing to decide if they were able to pay.

Or, that was supposed to happen. Nelson said this had not been
going on for some time.

The court was first supposed to find someone had willfully
disobeyed a court order before jailing them. Instead, Nelson said,
judges were signing off on arrest warrant commitments and people
were going to jail whether they had any ability to pay or not.

He floated this as the reason there are "probably many thousands of
potential plaintiffs that could all decide to bring a class-action
(lawsuit) at some point if they wanted to."

Congress outlawed debtor's prisons federally in 1833, and states
chose to do the same, according to a report from the Marshall
Project, a criminal justice news website.

But the practice, or at least one similar enough to it, did not end
with this abolition. Nelson, who started in the 1980s, said he's
been aware of it going on for at least decades.

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under former
President Barack Obama in March 2016 sent a letter to state and
local courts about legal obligations in collecting fees and fines.
It listed seven principles, including the need for an indigency
hearing and the consideration of alternatives to incarceration for
those unable to pay.

In August, Forbes reported on a federal court decision about judges
in New Orleans having a conflict of interest in such practices that
generated revenue for their courts.

The Sept. 30 order by Rock County judges does not guarantee the
practice will end locally, however. Cities and towns in the county
that have municipal courts (Rock County handles Janesville's
municipal court matters) are not necessarily bound by the circuit
court's order.

It was not immediately clear what municipalities might or might not
continue the commitments.

The costs

Someone taken into custody on an arrest warrant commitment would
sit in jail and knock $75 per day off what they owed. Officials
said it used to be $50 per day.

Knudson said it costs about $65 per day to keep someone in the
jail. That meant the county per day per person was losing about
$140_the $65 cost of housing the person plus $75 in fines forgiven
for each day incarcerated.

Knudson added, however, that sometimes someone would be sitting in
the jail on a fresh, unrelated charge while simultaneously serving
off previously owed debts.

Nonetheless, the old way of doing business was losing money.

"I think this is a matter of using the resources that we have in
the best possible way for our community," Knudson said. "Jail space
is a finite item, and it's expensive, and I think it's best used
for individuals that need to be incarcerated for the safety of our
community."

But it's about way more than cost savings. Do people who could not
pay their debts really need to be incarcerated? What harm was this
causing?

Nelson said the previous practice was bad public policy because it
incarcerated people for the wrong reasons — people can get fines
for unpaid library books or leaving their trash bins out on the
curb too long.

The old process took people away from jobs and school and other
prosocial parts of their lives. Even short stays in jail are
destructive. Research, he said, shows incarcerating low-risk people
with high-risk ones is harmful.

Additionally, he said, jacking up court costs to "exorbitant"
levels is "no way to fund public services."

Faun Moses is the regional attorney manager for the Wisconsin State
Public Defender's Office covering Rock, Walworth, Green and
Lafayette counties.

While defense attorneys don't represent clients arrested for unpaid
fines, she knows court costs can be a burden on top of rent,
medical bills and other financial obligations.

"We're very happy with this decision," she said of the judge's
order.

Judge Karl Hanson said he couldn't comment on the order, but
speaking generally he said he and the other judges think it's an
important issue. Other judges were not immediately available to
comment.

Although the jail is "creeping" toward capacity, Knudson said
overcrowding at the jail did not drive the policy change. Still, he
said, they should see fewer inmates over time after this.

He said the sheriff's office and the judges were each looking at
making this change, and he appreciates the order.

In the short term, Capt. Jay Wood said, the policy change is making
more work for the sheriff's office but not having to make arrest
warrant commitment arrests will eventually free up more time for
deputies and correctional officers. And he said that time can go
toward efforts that benefit the community.

"Do you think it actually make sense as a person to sit in jail for
a traffic citation?" he asked.
[GN]


SCIPLAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and
consumer rights litigation firm announces the filing of a
securities class action against, among others, SciPlay Corporation
("SciPlay" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SCPL) and certain of its
officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants"), related to
SciPlay's May 7, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO"). If you
purchased SciPlay securities pursuant and/or traceable to SciPlay's
IPO, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Jonathan
Zimmerman at (844) 398-9312 for more information.

On May 7, 2019, SciPlay sold 22.72 million shares of common stock
to the general public at $16.00 per share, for gross proceeds of
approximately $363.5 million.

According to the complaint filed in the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County, the documents
used to effectuate SciPlay's IPO were negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made
therein not misleading. More specifically, for example, the
complaint alleges that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was
experiencing technical difficulties that significantly affected the
playability of SciPlay's core games.

As of the date of the filing, the price of SciPlay's stock was
trading approximately 40% below the IPO price.

What You Can Do

If you purchased SciPlay securities, pursuant and/or traceable to
SciPlay's IPO, or have questions about this case, please contact
Scott+Scott attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (844) 398-9312, or at
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or visit the SciPlay page on our
website at
https://scott-scott.com/investigation/sciplay-corporation/.

        About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

Contact:

         Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, NY, NY 10169
         Tel: (888) 398-9312
         Email: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
[GN]


SCOTT GROSS: Fails to Review Housing Rental Records, Simmons Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Simmons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Law Offices of Scott D. Gross; Scott D.
Gross; and Jennifer Terry, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06463
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have
absolutely no policy of reviewing any records relating to rent
their landlord clients tell them is owing, in and relating to New
York state housing court actions.

Similarly, the Defendants have a policy and practice of not
obtaining or reviewing any leases or other relevant documents
before sending eviction notices or commencing eviction
proceedings.

By failing to even conduct cursory review of records, the
Defendants consistently and routinely threaten to take legal
actions that cannot be taken; send misleading, false, deceptive,
and fraudulent statements to consumers; and then refuse to even
review records for accuracy upon receiving a Fair Debt Collections
Practice Act demand, according to the complaint.

The Defendants' false and unfair misrepresentations violate the
FDCPA, which was designed to prohibit precisely these sorts of
abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt-collection, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Simmons is a natural person residing at 249 Midwood Street (the
Building), Apt. 15, in Brooklyn, New York.

According to the complaint, on September 3, 2019, the landlord and
owner of the Building engaged the Gross Firm and its attorneys to
seek the eviction of Ms. Simmons, along with payment of rent that
was not due.

The Law Offices of Scott D. Gross is a law firm in Westbury, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Remy Green, Esq.
          COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C.
          1639 Centre St., Suite 216
          Ridgewood, NY 11385


SEQWATER: Queensland Flood Victims Await Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Fernvale's Lyn Lynch is one of 6800 Queenslanders living downstream
from the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams who have a Christmas wish.

Their wish is that NSW Supreme Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones
makes a decision on their almost nine-year class action for
compensation from Seqwater and others for damage to their homes
during south-east Queensland's 2011 floods before Christmas.

Justice Beech-Jones retired in March 2019 to consider the evidence
presented during the trial, which began in the NSW Supreme Court on
December 4, 2017.

Ms. Lynch's home in Poole Street in Fernvale -- nearly at the foot
of Wivenhoe Dam -- was flooded to the ceiling in January 2011.

"Of course it would be lovely before Christmas, but . . . but I
don't like counting my chicken before they hatch," she said.

Ms. Lynch said flood victims suffer differently years after the
devastating 2011 crisis.

"Some people might have only got a foot of water through their
home, but they're terribly affected by it," she said.

"Mine went to my ceiling and I can cope when it rains.

"Others just fall apart when it rains."

Damage to Ms. Lynch's home is one of the first four scenarios that
lawyers Maurice Blackburn have argued as part of the class action
that began its courtroom stage in December 2017.

The scenarios included a flood victim from Lockyer Creek, one from
the Bremer River, one from Moggill on the Brisbane River and
another where only personal items were destroyed, while their home
was not affected.

The first case was Vince Rodriguez, who ran a sporting goods
business at Fairfield Gardens Shopping Centre.

Ms. Lynch's Fernvale home was the second case presented by Maurice
Blackburn.

"I'm just hoping that whatever decision he makes, he makes it with
enough backing that no one can contest it," Ms Lynch said.

Ms Lynch's home has been repaired, though the ceiling recently
collapsed.

She believes her home is priceless but the class action over the
damage was worth pursuing.

"There is no dollar value to me," she said.

"I just say to people 'Don't get your hopes up', because I don't
want people going down the drain again.

"I say to them if you get $5000, be happy. But if it's more, be
even happier. We don't know. We don't have a clue."

Ms Lynch has not asked for a specific sum of money as compensation
as part of the claim. That process will be worked out by Maurice
Blackburn and financiers, IMF, if the class action is successful.

"It is with the judge now and we are just waiting on his decision,"
she said.

"But he has to get his argument on why he has made that decision,
very very clear."

The class action alleges that Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were
mismanaged in the lead-up to and during the 2011 floods to a degree
that made the floods more severe than they should have been.

Seqwater, who manage both dams, and the Queensland government are
being sued as part of the class action.

They have both vigorously defended their actions.

The 2012 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry chaired by Justice
Cate Holmes found Wivenhoe Dam engineers had not followed the dam's
operating manual in the lead-up to the Brisbane River floods.

Justice Holmes found the operating manual was ambiguous, unclear,
impartial and not up to date.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission found no evidence of
professional misconduct by the three dam engineers and cleared
their actions.

Maurice Blackburn's class action legal team met and are still
waiting on the latest advice on when a ruling from Justice
Beech-Jones will be made. [GN]


SKILLED WORKFORCE: Sued for Allegedly Underpaying Casual Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that a $45 million class action has hit a major labour hire
firm in the coal industry over the alleged underpayment of
thousands of casual workers.

Canberra law firm Adero has accused Programmed subsidiary Skilled
Workforce Solutions of underpaying up to 3,000 casual mine workers
between $15,000 and $25,000 each, in a Federal Court case filed in
October.

Programmed supplies labour to Yancoal at two major black coal mines
in the NSW Hunter Valley and forms part of the largest temporary
staffing business in the world.

The class action is the seventh over casual underpayments following
a precedent ruling Workpac v Skene that allowed casuals to claim
annual leave and other permanent entitlements on top of their 25
per cent casual loading if they work regular hours.

BHP and mining labour hire firms WorkPac, Hays, Stellar, TESA
Mining and Chandler Macleod are also facing multimillion-dollar
class actions over underpayments.

"These actions serve to put an end to the rampant abuse of the
'casual' labour hire business model and ensure these workers are
classified for what they truly are, permanent," Adero principal
Rory Markham said.

"It is time labour hire companies paid their debts to the
Australian families who have suffered years of financial insecurity
while the labour hire business model has become so profitable."

However, unlike Adero's other cases, the Programmed class action
does not have a litigation funder and the law firm is instead
backing the action on a "no win, no fee" basis.

It is understood a pending decision challenging the Skene ruling is
making litigation funders concerned about backing further actions,
and a recent decision requiring a funder to put up $2.1 million in
security before a case proceeds may also be having a chilling
effect.

However, law firms are still filing class actions to ensure they do
not exceed the six-year statute of limitations for underpayments.

Employer groups are urging the Morrison government to change the
Fair Work Act to address the Skene precedent after warning that it
will cost the economy some $6 billion-$8 billion and affect every
business, especially health and hospitality.

The value of the claims in the Programmed case, led by a former
plant operator at Yancoal's Mount Warkworth black coal mine, is
estimated to cover an average two years of employment between 2014
and 2019.

The full value of the class action is conservatively estimated to
be $40 million to $45 million in damages.

Programmed, owned by Japanese firm Persol, said it was unable to
comment.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox  estimated
class action claims now totalled more than $10 billion.

"The recent explosion in class action claims by plaintiff law
firms, typically backed by overseas litigation funders, is a clear
and present danger to Australia's fragile economy," he said.

"The growing threat of class actions adds to business risks and
creates a disincentive for those considering setting up new
businesses, or taking on board and senior leadership positions.
This has potential impacts for leadership and management capability
in the long term."

He said class actions were subject to scant regulation compared
with overseas and called for the government to introduce reforms to
make plaintiff lawyers liable for costs in workplace class actions,
limit returns and raise the minimum number of plaintiffs. [GN]


STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cropley, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that a payday
may finally be coming for hundreds or even thousands of current and
former employees of Stewart's Shops who say the company deprived
them of pay they were entitled to.

Five years and 51 weeks after the class-action lawsuit was filed, a
hearing on a proposed settlement is scheduled to be held on Jan. 2
before a federal judge in Binghamton.

There's always a chance of further delay -- the hearing already has
been postponed once, from Sept. 17 -- and the payout is unlikely to
be very much, as the pot of money to be divided among the employees
will be less than $450,000, after attorney and administrator fees
are deducted.

Neither Stewart's nor the attorney for employees of the Malta-based
convenience store chain would discuss the agreement with The Daily
Gazette before Judge Thomas McAvoy approves it. But both sides seem
to agree that settling the matter is the best option after nearly
six years.

On Jan. 9, 2014, Albany-area law firm Hacker Murphy sued Stewart's
on behalf of Holly Gregory, an hourly employee at a store near
Watertown. Astrid Halten, who worked at a Stewart's in New Lebanon,
and Matthew Potter, who worked at a Saratoga location, joined the
case as named plaintiffs in April 2014; their attorneys sought and
won class-action status for thousands of unnamed Stewart's Shops
employees who had been treated similarly.

Among the allegations were that Stewart's:
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
   -- Required off-duty workers to come in for store meetings but
      did not give them call-in pay mandated by state law;

   -- Required workers to arrive before their shift started
      and/or stay after it ended to ensure a smooth transition
      between employees on the two shifts, but did not pay them
      overtime for this, as required by federal law;

   -- Didn't provide uniform maintenance pay;

   -- Denied workers the meal breaks required by state law;

   -- Paid less than state and federal minimum wage;

   -- Didn't provide mandatory disclosure statements.

The lawsuit dragged on through numerous motions, with rulings going
in favor and against both sides.

In November 2019, Stewart's Shops maintains its policies and
practices comply with state and federal law; the plaintiffs'
attorneys, now working for E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, maintain
otherwise.

The class action lawsuit is down to two points of action -- unpaid
overtime work and unpaid attendance at call-in meetings  
-- each with separate classes of affected workers.

Class one, those not paid overtime, consists of the three named
plaintiffs and 146 unnamed plaintiffs who opted into the class.

The size of class two, those not paid for the meetings, won't be
known until the deadline to opt in is reached. More than 33,000
notices were sent out to potential members of this class.

The proposed settlement, submitted to the court in May 2019, calls
for a payment by Stewart's of not more than $675,000. The three
named plaintiffs would get at least $5,000 each, while the opt-ins
would get at least $200 each. But how much more is impossible to
calculate at this point, as it would be determined by a claims
administrator using a formula based on length of employment.

The proposed allocation is:
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
  -- $5,000 service awards to each of the three named plaintiffs;

  -- $100,000 to be divided among class one plaintiffs, both named
     and opt-in;

  -- $225,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs;

  -- The claims administrator's fees and costs, an amount yet to
be
     determined;

  -- The remainder to be divided among class two members, through
     a formula based on the number of weeks they worked in the
     period covered by the settlement - Jan. 8, 2008, to
     Dec. 31, 2018 - with a minimum payment of $200.

Judge McAvoy must approve terms of the settlement. Attorneys for
both sides have submitted paperwork advocating for this, explaining
that it is "appropriate, fair, just and adequate." [GN]


SUNRISE MEDICAL: Segovia Seeks Overtime Pay for Cytotechnologists
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDELINE M. SEGOVIA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE MEDICAL LABORATORIES,
INC., a New York Corporation, KATHRYN DAVIES, a/k/a KATHRYN
ESPOSITO, JOHN/JANE DOE, fictitiously named parties, true name(s)
unknown, and COMPANY ABC, COMPANY XYZ, fictitiously named business
entities, true name(s), unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06499
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks unpaid wages, overtime premium
pay, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The collective action members are similarly situated to the
Plaintiff in that they were employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employees, including as cytotechnologists, and were
denied premium overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a
week.

Sunrise Medical Laboratories Inc was founded in 1972. The company's
line of business includes providing professional analytic or
diagnostic services for the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          305 Broadway, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 513-1183
          E-mail: Heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


TANDY LEATHER: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California captioned Haghebaert v. Tandy
Leather Factory, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:19-cv-09601), on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Tandy
Leather Factory, Inc. (NASDAQ: TLF) ("Tandy" or the "Company")
securities between March 7, 2018 and August 15, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

On August 13, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that its Audit Committee was investigating "certain aspects of the
Company's methods of valuation and expensing of costs of inventory
and related issues regarding the Company's business and
operations."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.55 per share, or
over 10%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.90
per share on August 15, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on August 15, 2019, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that it was unable to timely file the Company's quarterly
report for the period ended June 30, 2019 due to the Audit
Committee's investigation.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.40 per share, or
over 8%, to close at $4.50 per share on August 16, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

On October 18, 2019, the Company revealed that certain financial
statements should no longer be relied upon, citing "misstatements
primarily relating to the Company's methods of valuation and
expensing of costs of inventory and related issues." It also
disclosed that its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Tina
Castillo, had resigned from her positions.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain costs of inventory had been improperly
valued and expensed; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results for certain periods were misstated; (3) that the Company
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (4)
that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Tandy securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com
[GN]


TARGET CORP: Times Discrimination Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York  granted Final Approval of the Settlement in the case
CARNELLA TIMES and ERVING SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and THE FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC.,
Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18
Civ. 2993 (S.D. N.Y.), conditioned on the Court being informed by
the counsel that, by the expiration of the opt-out period for any
class members who were belatedly served with notice of the proposed
settlement, no such class members stepped forward with any
objections to the settlement, or expressed a desire to be heard by
the Court as to the settlement agreement's adequacy and fairness.
The Court directed the Counsel to provide a written update to the
Court if any such Class Members wished to be heard and directed the
Clerk of Court to keep the case open pending further order of the
Court.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' Dec. 3, 2019 Status Report
providing the requested information, and having received the single
additional objection received, the Court now FINDS, CONCLUDES, and
ORDERS that the Court's October 29, 2019 Order Conditionally
Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, And Approval of Service Award is adopted
and Finally Approved. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this
matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A24r3z from Leagle.com.

Carnella Times, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher McNerney --
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Coty Rae
Montag, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., pro hac
vice, Giovanna Shay, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Lisa Ann Levy,
Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc., Ossai Miazad --
om@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Samuel Spital, NAACP
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. & Adam T. Klein --
atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP.

Erving Smith, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & The Fortune Society, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher McNerney , Outten & Golden, LLP, Coty Rae Montag ,
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., pro hac vice, Ossai
Miazad , Outten & Golden, LLP, Samuel Spital , NAACP Legal Defense
& Educational Fund, Inc., Sherrilyn A. Ifill , NAACP Legal Defense
& Educational Fund, Inc. & Adam T. Klein , Outten & Golden, LLP.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph George Schmitt
-- jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis Pa, Donald
Marion Lewis -- dlewis@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis Pa &
Mark Girouard -- mgirouard@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis
Pa.

TESLA: NHTSA Launches Probe Into Battery Defects Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Jacobo, writing for ABC News, reports that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has launched an investigation
into the possibility that battery defects in Tesla vehicles may
have caused the cars to burst into flames.

The investigation will involve certain battery management system
software updates in Model S and Model X vehicles made between 2012
and 2019 in response to an "alarming number of car fires that have
occurred worldwide," according to a letter the agency sent to Al
Prescott, Tesla's deputy general counsel, on Oct. 24.

The alleged defects in question are "high-voltage battery fires
that are not related to collision or impact damage to the battery
pack," according to the letter.

The federal agency is seeking to interview all past and present
officers and employees who were involved with the design,
engineering, analysis, modification, production, testing,
assessment or evaluation of the battery management system, as well
as those who had consideration or recognition of potential actual
defects through forums such as field reports or complaints and had
communication to or from zone representatives, dealers or other
field locations.

The petitioner who requested an investigation is representing a
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District
of California that relates to the software updates. Tesla had until
Nov. 28 to comply with the requests from the NHTSA, or it could
face a fine up to $111.6 million.

The electric car company has faced a several issues involving its
vehicles in recent months.

In February, a Florida man died after his Model S caught fire after
crashing into a palm tree, but he could't get out because the
electronic door handles wouldn't open.

In March, another Florida man died after he crashed into a tractor
trailer while Autopilot was engaged in his 2018 Model S.

A representative for Tesla did not immediately respond to ABC News'
request for comment. [GN]


TOARMINAS KA INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jones Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATHISA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOARMINAS KA INC. D/B/A TOARMINA'S PIZZA
DEARBORN, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-13524 (E.D. Mich., Nov. 27,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Toarminas Ka Inc. d/b/a Toarmina's Pizza Dearborn is a pizzeria
chain restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOM DOUGLAS: Settles Suits vs. Restaurants for $2.4MM, Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Campbell, writing for bizjournals.com, reports that Seattle
restaurateur Tom Douglas has settled a class-action lawsuit for
$2.4 million and $200 gift cards to his restaurant group for each
class action member, amounting to potentially more than $200,000.

The suit filed December 2018 in King County Superior Court
represented about 1,360 employees. It alleged that Douglas'
restaurants misled customers into thinking the 20 percent service
charge went directly to the servers and that management failed to
give employees proper breaks.

Since Seattle passed the $15 minimum wage and began implementing
the new system in 2015, many restaurants include a service charge
to cover the costs. Douglas, speaking to the Business Journal on
Thursday, November 7, said a lawsuit was bound to come forward on
the matter, but he was surprised that one came after him in a
class-action.

"I've been in business 30 years," he said. "This is the first time
I've been sued like this."

The suit prompted Douglas to change the language on the menus and
receipts and to implement a better system of tracking employees'
breaks. But Douglas said the matter was more nuanced than the
lawsuit portrayed.

"Of course our laborers got breaks," he said. Regarding the service
charge, he said he has "attorney emails that said we're doing it
correctly. The problem is, this is all new stuff and we're all
learning together."

On menus or itemized receipts in Douglas' restaurants it said
either:

"20 percent service charge: 100 percent of these funds are
distributed to our team in the form of wages, sales commissions,
benefits and revenue share" or
"20 percent service charge added. 100 percent of these funds are
distributed to our team," according to the filing.
This language was not specific enough, according to the filing.

"The menu and itemized receipt notations did not illuminate how the
service charges were divided, who gets them, or what 'benefits' the
service employees get form the service charges," according to court
documents.

About 14 percent of the service charge implemented at his Seattle
restaurants like Dahlia Lounge, Lola and Serious Pie went to the
servers, and the rest was split between bussers, hosts and
bartenders, Douglas said. The 20 percent service charge is
distributed in the form of commissions, benefits and wages, Douglas
said.

"Forever and a day, that's how it always worked for service
charges," he said. "There's not a nickel that we keep ourselves."

The lead plaintiff, Clare Thomas, who worked at Brave Horse Tavern
in downtown Seattle, told the Seattle Times that she "brought this
lawsuit to try to change the culture in restaurants, ensure
transparency with regard to distribution of service charges, and
seek fair pay." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stole Millions From NY Drivers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Edwards, writing for Dailymail.Com, reports that Uber is
once again being accused of shortchanging its drivers in a new
class action lawsuit filed in New York City on Wednesday, Nov. 6.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed by the New York Taxi
Workers Alliance, as many as 96,000 drivers could join in on the
litigation against Uber.

The lawsuit claims that Uber stole millions from New York City
drivers between November 2, 2013, and May 22, 2017.

Uber generally takes a commission from its drivers after deducting
taxes and some fees, but it instead took a higher percentage from
its New York drivers using the full fare before accounting for
sales taxes and fees, according to the lawsuit.

Given the number of potential class action lawsuit members and 'the
fact that more than 10 per cent of each fare was illegally deducted
from each of the drivers, the aggregate amount in controversy is
over $5million', the suit reads.

'Uber bosses are raking in millions while drivers struggle to feed
their families,' Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the Taxi
Workers Alliance, said in a statement.

'Uber's business model depends on exploiting vulnerable low-wage
workers — including by stealing from driver pay. But time and
time again, when workers fight back, we beat Uber even with all
their billions,' he continued.

The suit also alleges that during the time frame in question, Uber
would deduct as its service fee anywhere from 20 per cent to 28 per
cent of each fare depending on the class of service provided, the
time period and when drivers began working for Uber.

At the time, New York City sales tax rate was 8.875 percent and the
Black Car Fund surcharge rate was 2.5 percent.

The suit alleges that Uber illegally deducted from drivers'
earnings, which 'Uber represented were sales taxes and BCF
surcharge', which provides workers' compensation for black car
drivers.  

According to the suit, Uber did not pay taxes it took out of
drivers' pay for nearly four years; thus, the company violated its
own employee agreements.

In May 2017, Uber admitted to underpaying New York City drivers for
2.5 years.

The company also admitted to deducting sales taxes and a surcharge
for a worker's compensation fund from payments to drivers.

The suit also argues that customers are supposed to pay those fees,
not employees.

A spokesperson for Uber was not immediately available when
DailyMail.com reached out.  

The new lawsuit against the embattled company comes after Uber
reported a $2billion loss in market capitalization overnight as the
lockup period on its initial public offering expired Wednesday,
November 6, and shares in the ride share company flooded the market
place.

That pushed the stock down to $25.58, a drop of 43 per cent from
the app-based ride share company's May IPO price, which was a
record low for the troubled startup and followed lackluster
earnings reported earlier this week.

Normally, the lockup period - which had kept early investors and
company employees from selling their stock - would have signaled
opportunity to sell and get cash for equity.  

The San Francisco-based company lost $1.16billion in the third
quarter, extending a streak of losses. The third-quarter loss
included $401million in stock-based compensation related to its
IPO.

Despite rapid growth, Uber has been losing about $2 billion per
year, according to analysts.

As the losses keep mounting, the startup still expects to be
profitable in about two years. [GN]


UNILEVER: Faces Class Actions Over Anti-Stain Antiperspirants
-------------------------------------------------------------
TruthInAdvertising.org reports that a recent trend in class-action
litigation alleges that certain aluminum-containing antiperspirants
marketed as "anti-stain" and/or "anti-mark" miss the mark. That's
because, despite claims to the contrary, the brands named in the
lawsuits leave yellow stains and/or white marks on clothing,
according to plaintiffs.

The reason why, the suits say, is a version of the active
ingredient that all of the antiperspirants share: aluminum (which,
by the way, is the same ingredient that temporarily clogs pores and
keeps sweat from escaping, according to some experts).

It has long been recognized, and is well-accepted, that "yellow
stains" and "white marks" on clothing is caused, at least
indirectly, by aluminum in antiperspirants (as to yellow stains,
they are caused generally upon aluminum being mixed with a user's
perspiration).

So states one of several lawsuits against Unilever, whose Degree,
Dove and Axe antiperspirant brands are currently entangled in
class-action litigation. Colgate-Palmolive's Speed Stick rounds out
the list.

The complaint against Colgate-Palmolive asserts that Speed Stick
Stain Guard is "nothing more than a slightly diluted version of
regular Speed Stick-branded antiperspirant containing essentially
the same ingredients with nothing added to fight white marks or
yellow staining."

Meanwhile, the lawsuit targeting "anti-mark" claims for Dove
Invisible Dry Spray, which include the on-the-bottle claim that it
prevents "white marks on 100 colors," alleges that the product
"actually causes the very problem that it claims to solve."

All of the lawsuits were filed in Missouri state court in July and
transferred to federal court in November.

TINA.org reached out to Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive for comment.
[GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Briefing Sched on Bid to Dismiss Vallarta Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA VALLARTA and LISA SALMONS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-05895-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has entered a
stipulated order modifying the briefing schedule on the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).

On Nov. 27, 2019, the Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.  It
noticed its Motion to Dismiss for a hearing on Jan. 16, 2020, at
2:00 p.m.  Pursuant to Docket No. 19, Responses are due by Dec. 11,
2019, and Replies due by Dec. 18, 2019.

On the evening of Dec. 1, 2019, Mr. Marc L. Godino's, one of the
Plaintiffs' attorneys, mother passed away.  On Dec. 2, 2019, the
Parties have conferred and have agreed to change the briefing
schedule to allow the Plaintiffs more time to prepare the
opposition brief due to Mr. Godino's mother's passing and the
intervening holidays, and to allow the Defendant adequate time to
prepare a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss.

On Dec. 2, 2019, the Clerk issued a notice instructing the
Defendant to re-notice its Motion to Dismiss because the date, Jan.
16, 2020, was not the Court's next available hearing date when the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was e-filed.  As a result, the
hearing date of Jan. 16, 2020 was vacated and the Clerk directed
the Defendant's counsel to check the Court's scheduling notes
before re-noticing its Motion to Dismiss for a new hearing date.
The briefing schedule, however, remained in effect.

On Dec. 3, 2019, the Defendant filed a Re-Notice Motion,
re-noticing the Motion to Dismiss for Jan. 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
On Dec. 3, 2019 at 11:21 a.m. (PST), the Court set the hearing for
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Jan. 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.

The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Gilliam approved, as
follows: (i) Responses are now due Jan. 8, 2020, and (ii) Replies
are now due Jan. 22, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lFHv2M from Leagle.com.

Diana Vallarta & Lisa Salmons, Plaintiffs, represented by Rosemary
M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Marc Lawrence
Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Azar Asas
Alexander -- aalexander@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes and
Cancila LLP, Rachel Frances Sifuentes, Riley Safer Holmes and
Cancila LLP & Sondra Ann Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer Holmes Cancila LLP.


UNITED SERVICES: Withholding PIP Benefits Injures Insured, Says Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON IN KRISTA PEOPLES,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. JOEL STEDMAN and KAREN
JOYCE, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 96931-1 (Wash.), Judge Steven Gonzalez of the
Supreme Court of Washington held that an insurance carrier's
wrongful withholding of personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits
injures the insured in their "business or property."

The Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") prohibits unfair and deceptive
trade practices and can be enforced by private citizens.  Any
person who is injured in their business or property by a violation
of the CPA may bring a civil suit for injunctive relief, damages,
attorney costs and fees, and treble damages.  

Krista Peoples and Joel Stedman filed CPA suits against their
insurance carriers for violating Washington claims-handling
regulations and wrongfully denying them PIP benefits.  Washington
law requires insurers to offer PIP coverage to all automobile
liability policyholders.

Peoples and Stedman purchased PIP coverage.  After they were
injured in car accidents, they made claims for PIP benefits.  After
their PIP benefits were terminated or denied, they filed class
action suits against their respective insurance carriers under
several causes of action, including the CPA, claiming their
insurers violated Washington insurance regulations.  Specifically,
Peoples alleges that USAA refuses, without any individualized
assessment, to pay medical provider bills whenever a computerized
review process determines that the bill exceeds a predetermined
limit.  

According to Peoples, USAA's failure to investigate or make an
individualized determination regarding the reasonableness or
necessity of a provider's charges before denying payment violates
WAC 284-30-330(4) and WAC 284-30-395(1).  She alleges that due to
this practice of algorithmic review, USAA routinely fails to pay
all reasonable medical expenses for treating an insured's injuries
arising from a covered event, in violation of RCW 48.22.005(7).
She and the class members seek actual damages, including unpaid
medical bills and expenses incurred to investigate USAA's wrongful
conduct.

Stedman alleges Progressive terminates PIP benefits whenever an
insured reaches "Maximum Medical Improvement" and this practice
violates WAC 284-30-395(1), which lists the only permissible
reasons to terminate PIP benefits.  He alleges that by terminating
benefits on the basis of "Maximum Medical Improvement," Progressive
routinely fails to pay all reasonable medical expenses for treating
an insured's injuries arising from a covered event, in violation of
RCW 48.22.005(7).  He and class members seek to enjoin Progressive
from using "Maximum Medical Improvement" to limit PIP claims and
seek actual damages, including unpaid medical bills.

USAA and Progressive moved to dismiss the CPA claims on the grounds
the insured was not injured in their business or property.  The
federal district court consolidated the cases solely for the
purpose of asking the Court whether the Plaintiffs allege
cognizable CPA injuries.

The certified questions are as follows:

       a. With regards to the injury to business or property
element of a CPA claim, can insureds in Ms. Peoples' and/or Mr.
Stedman's circumstances, who were physically injured in a motor
vehicle collision and whose Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
benefits were terminated or limited in violation of WAC 284-30-330,
bring a CPA claim against the insurer to recover out-of-pocket
medical expenses and/or to compel payments to medical providers?

       b. With regards to the injury to business or property
element of a CPA claim, can insureds in Ms. Peoples' and/or Mr.
Stedman's circumstances, who were physically injured in a motor
vehicle collision and whose Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
benefits were terminated or limited in violation of WAC 284-30-330,
bring a CPA claim against the insurer to recover excess premiums
paid for the PIP coverage, the costs of investigating the unfair
acts, and/or the time lost complying with the insurer's
unauthorized demands?

Judge Gonzalez holds that an insurance carrier's wrongful
withholding of PIP benefits injures the insured in their "business
or property."  An insured in these circumstances may recover actual
damages, if proved, including out-of-pocket medical expenses that
should have been covered, and can seek injunctive relief, such as
compelling payment of the benefits to medical providers.  Other
business or property injuries, apart from the wrongful denial of
benefits, that are caused by an insurer's mishandling of a PIP
claim are also cognizable under the CPA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4y4Gjg from Leagle.com.

Krista Peoples, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Wesley Donckers -- bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON &
TOWNSEND PLLC, David Elliot Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com --
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC & Young-Ji Ham --
youngji@washinjurylaw.com -- WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC.

United Services Automobile Association & USAA Casualty Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by David C. Scott --
dscott@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, pro hac vice, Jay
Williams -- jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, pro hac
vice, Michael A. Moore -- mmoore@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN,
LLP
& John T. Bender -- John.Bender@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.


UNITED STATES: Fed. Cir. Affirms Partial Final Judgment in Haggart
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, ET AL., FOR THEMSELVES
AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, Case
No. 2018-1757 (Fed. Cir.), Judge Evan Wallach of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirmed the Partial Final
Judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Appellee/Landowners Daniel Haggart, Kathy Haggart, et al. filed the
"rails-to-trails" class action against the United States
Government, claiming that the Government, through the National
Trails System Act, effected a Fifth Amendment taking of Landowners'
reversionary rights to property underlying railroad easements owned
by the BNSF Railway Co.  

In 2013, the Government and Landowners negotiated and agreed to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.  In May 2014, the Court of
Federal Claims approved the Settlement Agreement and awarded the
class counsel $33,172,243.74 in attorney fees under the common fund
doctrine, in addition to the attorney fees set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.  In Haggart V, the it vacated the Court of
Federal Claims' approval of the Settlement Agreement and award of
common-fund attorney fees.

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims conducted a hearing in
August 2016, discussing: (1) the status of the case; (2) the
necessary steps before the Court of Federal Claims could hold a
second fairness hearing, including what information needed to be
disclosed to the class members; and (3) how to deal with potential
objectors.   In the succeeding months, the parties engaged in
extensive motions practice.  In March 2017, the Court of Federal
Claims heard arguments on the parties' motions.  The following
month, class counsel moved to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In May 2017, the Court of Federal Claims granted the class
counsel's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and denied all
other outstanding motions.  It concluded that the Settlement
Agreement was and remains a binding and enforceable contract that
the Government cannot avoid even if it now has had a change of
heart and wishes to back out.

In July 2017, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration,
arguing that the parties had abandoned the Settlement Agreement, as
evidenced by their conduct on remand.  Following a hearing in
August 2017, the Court of Federal Claims denied the Government's
motion, finding that the Government had not met its burden of
demonstrating that the parties unequivocally intended to abandon
the Settlement Agreement.

In August 2017, the class counsel filed a motion for preliminary
approval, notice, and a fairness hearing on the Settlement
Agreement.  In October 2017, the Court of Federal Claims
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and also approved
the proposed plan for notice and a Notice of Settlement to be
mailed to the class members under that plan.  In December 2017, it
conducted a fairness hearing, at which no class member objected to
the Settlement Agreement.

In January 2018, the Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion and
order, approving the Settlement Agreement as "procedurally" and
"substantively fair," and entered a partial final judgment pursuant
to Rule 54(b) "in the total amount of $159,636,521.65, consisting
of $110 million in principal and $49,636,521.65 in interest.  The
Court of Federal Claims deferred determining the amount of attorney
fees and costs until after all proceedings have been completed and
the court's judgment is final.

The Government appeals.

Judge Wallach finds that the Court of Federal Claims did not
clearly err in finding that the Government failed to meet its
burden of demonstrating that the parties unequivocally intended to
abandon the Settlement Agreement, or abuse the court's discretion
in granting the class counsel's Motion to Enforce the Settlement
Agreement.  The Government's abandonment argument fails as the
record does not demonstrate the parties' mutual intent to abandon
the Settlement Agreement by positive and unequivocal conduct.

The Judge also finds that the Court of Federal Claims did not make
a decision concerning attorney fees and costs.  He is not persuaded
that a determination on the amount of attorney fees and costs to
award the class counsel under the URA, if any, is within that
narrow class of exceptions.  Accordingly, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to address the Government's argument in this regard.

Finally, at oral argument, the Government expressed concern that
Landowners would invoke the mandate rule to foreclose the
Government's arguments with respect to URA fees when the case
returns to the Court of Federal Claims.  The mandate rule provides
that "issues actually decided on appeal -- those within the scope
of the judgment appealed from, minus those explicitly reserved or
remanded by the court -- are foreclosed from further consideration.
Because the issue of attorney fees and costs is not within the
scope of the judgment, the mandate rule is inapplicable, and the
Government may subsequently raise its arguments with respect to the
issue before the Court of Federal Claims.

Judge Wallach has considered the Government's remaining arguments
and finds them unpersuasive.  Accordingly, he affirmed the Partial
Final Judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2itYZ3 from Leagle.com.

CARTER GLASGOW PHILLIPS -- cphillips@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees Daniel
Haggart, Kathy Haggart, Cleveland Square, LLC, RC TC Meridian Ridge
LLC, TWOSONS LLC, Dennis J. Crispin, Gretchen Chambers, DeBlois
Properties LLC, Star L. Evans, Michael B. Jacobsen, Molly A.
Jacobsen, Frances Jane Lee, Susan B. Long, Claudia Mansfield,
Frederick P. Miller, Susan L. Miller, Leslie Milstein, PBI
Enterprises LLC, Michael G. Russell, Elana Russell, James M.
Sather, Kelly J. Sather, James E. Strang, Patricia Strang, Alison
L. Webb, D. Michael Young, Julia H. Young, Faramarz Ghoddoussi,
Westpoint Properties, LLC. Also represented by THOMAS SCOTT STEWART
-- Stewart@swm.legal -- ELIZABETH McCULLEY -- McCulley@swm.legal --
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC, Kansas City, MO; STEVEN WALD, St.
Louis, MO. Plaintiffs-appellees Cleveland Square, LLC, RC TC
Meridian Ridge LLC, TWOSONS LLC, Dennis J. Crispin, Gretchen
Chambers, DeBlois Properties LLC, Star L. Evans, Michael B.
Jacobsen, Molly A. Jacobsen, Frances Jane Lee, Susan B. Long,
Claudia Mansfield, Frederick P. Miller, Susan L. Miller, Leslie
Milstein, PBI Enterprises LLC, Michael G. Russell, Elana Russell,
James M. Sather, Kelly J. Sather, James E. Strang, Patricia Strang,
Alison L. Webb, D. Michael Young, Julia H. Young also represented
by LOUIS DAVID PETERSON, Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson PS,
Seattle, WA. Plaintiffs-appellees Faramarz Ghoddoussi, Westpoint
Properties, LLC also represented by RICHARD SANDERS, Tacoma, WA.

DAVID CHARLES FREDERICK, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees Gordon
Arthur Woodley, Denise Lynn Woodley. Also represented by JOANNA
ZHANG.

ERIC GRANT, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellant. Also represented by JEFFREY H. WOOD, BRIAN C.
TOTH, JEFFREY B. CLARK, WILLIAM B. LAZARUS, MARY GABRIELLE
SPRAGUE.


UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Granted in ICE Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Lantry, writing for ABC11, reports that Darwin Celinn Garcia
Portillo and his partner, Oscar Juarez Hernandez, fled Honduras
earlier this year for the United States, hoping that they could
find safety from threats against their lives.

Instead, Garcia Portillo has been in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement custody for nearly seven months -- his request for
parole (administrative release for asylum seekers) denied and his
life still at risk due to his identity as a part of the LGBTQ
community, according to his lawyer.

The 25-year-old and his partner say they decided to escape Honduras
along with Garcia Portillo's younger brother in March. They sought
asylum by legally crossing the U.S. border at San Ysidro, in San
Diego, an official U.S. port of entry.

While his partner was granted asylum, for close to seven months
Garcia Portillo has been in ICE custody under the jurisdiction of
the New Orleans ICE Field Office - which is under court order to
decide parole cases on an individual basis instead of instituting
blanket rules.The rate of parole for the field office had dropped
from more than 75% in 2016 to zero this year, according to a
memorandum opinion from Washington, D.C. federal judge James
Boasberg granting a preliminary injunction in a class action
lawsuit filed by other asylum seekers.

On Oct. 22, Garcia Portillo's request to be released on parole was
denied because he was deemed a flight risk. His lawyer says ICE's
decision to keep him detained has jeopardized Garcia Portillo's
life and health.

"This [being part of the LGBTQ community] is the basis of his
asylum claim, but it also makes him vulnerable in a prison where
there aren't enough guards to keep the inmates from targeting each
other," David Bennion, Garcia Portillo's lawyer, told ABC News.
"And Darwin has been targeted by other detainees who don't like
being locked up with gay people. Darwin, and other LGBT detainees,
they can't go to the bathroom by themselves; they have to take
showers together to protect themselves, so they won't get beaten or
raped."

According to Bennion, there was no explanation of why Garcia
Portillo was deemed to be a flight risk.

"He's been denied parole, with no justification," said Bennion.
"Clearly he's not a flight risk. He has a very strong network of
support, which is where he'll go. He'll join his life partner, who
already has asylum."

Hernandez is currently living in Colorado with his sponsors, the
Bobb family, who have also legally requested to become both Garcia
Portillo and his younger brother's sponsors.

"We are not rich," Margaret Bobb, one of the sponsors, told ABC
News. "We're retired public school teachers. But we have extra
bedrooms in our house because our children are grown. And we have
like-minded friends who will jump in and help."

Garcia Portillo's younger brother, who is a minor, is currently in
the custody of United States Department of Health and Human
Services. Garcia Portillo says he is the sole guardian for his
younger brother, and according to Bennion, his little brother
cannot be released until a guardian can claim him.

Bennion claims Garcia Portillo's little brother has tried to kill
himself twice while in U.S. custody.

ABC News reached out to CBP, but they did not immediately respond
with comment.

According to ICE's own parole directive, if an asylum seeker passes
his credible fear interview, proves his identity, demonstrates he
is not a danger to society and shows he is not a flight risk, he
should be released on parole while he waits for his asylum
hearing.

Garcia Portillo passed his credible fear test, has no criminal
record, proved his identity and has the Bobb family willing to
sponsor him, which is a strong indication that he is not a flight
risk, according to his lawyer.

Despite Judge Boasberg's ruling in the class action lawsuit, Garcia
Portillo's lawyer said he believes not much has changed.

"ICE doesn't believe it is bound by court decisions, and the
federal courts don't seem interested in asserting their authority
over ICE," Bennion said.

Garcia Portillo's asylum hearing will take place over a video
conference system on Nov. 7, according to Bennion. The judge will
be located in Falls Church, Virginia, while Garcia Portillo and
Bennion will be in Louisiana, and the court handling the case files
will be in Minnesota.

"These agencies are in chaos," said Bennion. "And it's politically
motivated to make it more confusing for immigrants, so they can be
more easily deported."

An ICE spokesperson said the agency "cannot provide information" on
Garcia Portillo's request for parole. Regarding the class action
lawsuit, ICE earlier said that it "generally does not comment on
pending litigation" but complies "with court orders."

On Oct. 30, the Bobb family, along with advocates, will be holding
a press conference outside of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's
office in Colorado, hoping to call attention to Garcia Portillo's
case.

Garcia Portillo's lawyer is concerned that since he has been
detained for the last seven months, he hasn't been able to properly
gather evidence to make the best possible claim.

"It's just difficult when your client is locked up 1,500 miles
away," said Bennion, who is based out of Philadelphia and taking
the case pro bono. "It's a big risk. And we can't trust that due
process will be protected in this system." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Suit Challenges Health Insurance for Visa-Seekers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports
that a class action suit filed on Oct. 30 in federal court in
Portland challenges President Donald Trump's recent mandate
requiring visa-seekers to prove they can get health insurance.

The suit alleges the requirement is arbitrary, an "abuse of
discretion" and discriminatory. It asks a judge to declare the
proclamation unlawful and bar the Trump administration from putting
it into practice.

The president signed the proclamation on Oct. 4, saying immigrants
applying for U.S. visas will be denied entry into the country
unless they can show they'll be covered by health insurance within
30 days or show they have the financial resources to pay for any
medical costs. The measure was set to go into effect on Nov. 1.

The Portland-based Innovation Law Lab and Los Angeles-based Justice
Action Center filed the complaint.

Trump's proclamation "seeks to unilaterally rewrite this country's
immigration laws, imposing a new ground of inadmissibility that
Congress has expressly rejected, and creating requirements that
will be extremely difficult, or impossible, for most otherwise
qualified immigrant visa applicants to satisfy," attorney Stephen
W. Manning wrote in the suit. Manning is executive director of the
Innovation Law Lab.

The White House said in a statement that too many non-citizens are
taking advantage of the county's "generous public health programs''
and that immigrants contribute to the problem of "uncompensated
health care costs."

Most of the approved health insurance plans listed as satisfying
the requirement aren't "actually legally or practically available"
to the majority of prospective immigrants -- including Medicare,
which requires a recipient to have lived in the United States for
five years, or any plan available under the Affordable Care Act
because they're available only to people living in the United
States, lawyers argue in the suit.

One of the seven plaintiffs, only identified as "John Doe," is a
Mexican-born U.S. citizen who lives with his wife, a Mexican
citizen, in Beaverton with his 14-year-old son, but isn't able to
work because of a disability. He sponsored an immigrant visa for
his wife.

She has a consular interview on Nov. 6 for a visa to live and work
in the United States. Under the new requirements, the man and his
wife wouldn't be able to afford or qualify for an "approved" health
insurance option and fear she will be denied a visa as a result.

Another plaintiff, identified in the suit as "Blake Doe," lives in
Corvallis with his wife and is a full-time student at Oregon State
University. His parents, both Mexican citizens, are awaiting a
consular interview for immigrant visas to move to the United
States, but fear they won't be able to prove they can obtain
available and affordable health insurance within 30 days of their
entry into the U.S., as required.

Other plaintiffs live in New York, California, Chicago and
Massachusetts.

The nonprofit Portland-based Latino Network is also a plaintiff and
argues that the new requirements have forced the agency to divert
resources from its usual activities to address "the proclamation's
fallout'' within the community it serves. The network works to
support Latino residents by connecting them with housing, financial
and social support services, as well as early childhood services
and cultural programs.

Roughly 375,000 immigrants would be affected each year, according
to the suit. The class action suit includes family members who have
petitioned the U.S. government to sponsor a noncitizen relative for
an immigrant visa or will soon file such a petition, as well as
foreign nationals applying for immigrant visas. [GN]


UNITI GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Uniti Group
Inc. (UNIT). To determine your eligibility and get free access to
our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates,
automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please
contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

Uniti Group Inc. (UNIT)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 20, 2015 -
February 15, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 30, 2019

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Uniti
Group Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Uniti's financial results were
not sustainable because its customer Windstream had defaulted on
its unsecured notes; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Uniti's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]


UTOPIAN ACADEMY: Williams Seeks to Recover OT Pay for Custodians
----------------------------------------------------------------
TARLISHA WILLIAMS and MARCUS GLANTON v. UTOPIAN ACADEMY FOR THE
ARTS: THE MILLER FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-05206-AT (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant as custodians
since February 26, 2019. They allege that the Defendant
misclassified Ms. Williams as a salaried exempt employee and paid
Ms. Williams a set salary of $1,170.27 bi-monthly, regardless of
the number of hours she worked. The Defendant also misclassified
Mr. Glanton as a salaried exempt employee and he received a set
salary of $1,173.07 bi-monthly, regardless of the number of hours
he worked.

The Defendant's official work schedule for the Plaintiffs required
that they work 9 hour days, five days a week (45 hours a week).
Since the Defendant established the Plaintiffs' official work
schedules, the Defendant knew or should have known that the
Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours each week. The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant did not pay them overtime for
hours they worked beyond 40 each week.

According to its Web site, through a structured and supportive
environment, the Utopian Academy for the Arts will develop academic
and artistic students to enter and to succeed in the global society
with proficiency to enroll in a college, university or specialty
school of their choice. Utopian Academy for the Arts shall be a
community school; nurturing academic excellence for all students
and demonstrating leadership in character development. The Utopian
Academy is located in Ellenwood, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
          1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: 877-443-0999
          E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com


WALT DISNEY: Attempts to Stop Potential Pay-Equity Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Martin, writing for Fox Business News, reports that the Walt
Disney Company is taking steps to stop a potential class action
lawsuit filed against the company based on back pay, lost benefits
and other compensation.

The suit was first filed on April 3, 2019, by longterm employees
LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moorein and now includes 10 female
Disney employees, according to Deadline.

Disney pushed back on Oct. 18, 2019, with paperwork of its own
seeking to stop class action certification.  Stating the company
does not discriminate based on gender and added that determining if
the company violated California's Fair Pay Act would be impossible
to prove because of the complexity of the organization.

Disney claims the allegations are purely individualized.

"Disney is firmly committed to equitable pay and is prepared to
engage with any individual who believes they are not paid equally,"
a Disney spokesperson told Deadline on November 6.

The plaintiff and their main lawyer Lori Andrus, Esq. want to let
the process continue, filing a 22-page opposition Wednesday,
Novemebr 6, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Whether the class action receives certification will be heard by
Judge Daniel Buckley in Los Angeles Superior Court on Dec. 11.
[GN]


WE COMPANY: Ex-Employee Files Shareholder Class Action vs. WeWork
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Weinberg, writing for The Information, reports that public
companies are accustomed to shareholder lawsuits if their stock
drops. WeWork, still private, is facing one now—from a former
employee—after a huge valuation hit and a cancelled IPO.

The former employee, Natalie Sojka, filed a class-action lawsuit in
a California court. It alleged the company's payments to former CEO
Adam Neumann and the price at which SoftBank plans purchase shares
from employees are unfair to minority shareholders. The lawsuit
hasn't yet been reported.

Sojka worked at WeWork for a year and a half between 2017 and 2019,
exercising her stock options "based on being told that [WeWork]
intended to go public soon and that the value of [WeWork] stock
would increase significantly," according to the complaint. Nearly
all WeWork employees who joined after 2016 now have worthless stock
after SoftBank's most recent financing last month.

A WeWork spokesperson said the company believes the lawsuit is
"meritless." Frank Bottini, Esq., Sojka's lawyer, did not return a
request for comment.

More employee angst at WeWork is sure to follow. The company plans
to undertake significant layoffs in the next several weeks. [GN]


WEST VIRGINIA: Foster Care Suit Defendants Hire Outside Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Mistich, writing for WV Public, reports that West Virginia
officials named in a federal class action lawsuit involving the
state's foster care system have retained outside counsel.

The lawsuit filed October 1 on behalf of 12 foster care children
says Gov. Jim Justice, Department of Health & Human Resources
Secretary Bill Crouch, and other state officials have failed to
protect the rights of nearly 6,800 children under the state's
guardianship.

The 100-page-plus complaint says West Virginia's foster children
are housed in temporary shelters, hotels, institutions, or
expensive out-of-state for-profit facilities where they never see a
caseworker and are subjected to abuse.

Days after the suit was filed, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey's
office issued a request for proposals for outside counsel to handle
the case.

Spokespersons for the Governor's office and DHHR confirmed on Oct.
28 that Washington-D.C. based law firm Brown and Peisch was granted
a contract at a rate of $575 an hour for legal fees.

"There were five bidders and DHHR narrowed the selection to those
with experience with this type of litigation and picked the firm
with the lowest bid," DHHR spokewoman Allison Adler said in a
statement.

Macia Lowry, executive director of A Better Childhood -- one of the
organizations representing plaintiffs in the case -- said they
agreed to extend a deadline for the state to respond. Attorneys for
the state originally had until November to respond to the complaint
-- but with that extension granted, Lowry said the state had until
December 2.

She said the selection of a firm outside of West Virginia -- and
the case being represented exclusively by outside counsel -- is
unlike similar cases A Better Childhood has handled.

"We have never, I think, seen a case where a state was solely
represented by outside counsel," Lowry said, noting that her
organization has been involved in similar litigation in other
states. "So, I think that was a little bit of a surprise to us."
[GN]


WHOLE FOODS: Warren Sues Over False and Misleading Label on Oats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06448 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of placing false and misleading label on its instant
oatmeal products.

The Products are instant oatmeal containing oats and flax, under
the Defendant's 365 Everyday Value brand. The Products are
available to consumers from the Defendant's hundreds of stores
across all 50 states, directly from the Defendant's Web site and
from Amazon.com. The Products are sold in boxes, which contain
packets of 40 g.

The Products' front labels representations include "Instant
Oatmeal," "Oats & Flax," "Low Fat," "Vegan," "Good Source of
Fiber," "Whole Grain Stamp," "Non-GMO Project Verified," "USDA
Organic" and pictures of fresh raspberries on top of and around a
heaping bowl of the product.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's label is misleading
because sugar is disguised as "Organic Dehydrated Cane Juice
Solids." According to the complaint, where an ingredient contains
the term "juice," consumers expect that ingredient to be derived
from a consumable fruit or vegetable.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant's false and
misleading labeling of the Products, which are sold at premium
prices, approximately no less than $4.29 per eight packets,
excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the
truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or
would have paid less for it.

Whole Foods was founded in 1990. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of a range of canned foods and dry
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. removes the case captioned as
CARMEN LEPE, on behalf of herself, behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN,
INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1930360 (Filed Oct. 9, 2019),
from the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Nov. 15, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02213-JGB-SHK to the proceeding.

The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation; failure to provide meal periods and/or pay missed
meal period premiums; failure to maintain and provide accurate and
itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages owed in a timely
manner and upon separation of employment; unfair competition; and
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

XPO Logistics, Inc. is one of the 10 largest providers of
transportation and logistics services in the world. It operates in
30 countries, with approximately 100,000 employees and over 50,000
customers, including 69 of the Fortune 100. XPO's corporate
headquarters are located in Greenwich, Connecticut.[BN]

XPO is represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: 858 652-3100
          Facsimile: 858 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                  jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com


[*] Australian Government Targets Environmental Activist Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Grattan, writing for The Conversation, reports that the
Australian government has the activist group Market Forces squarely
in its sights as it considers ways to stop environmental
organisations persuading financial and other businesses to boycott
companies in the mining sector.

It is also targeting funders of class actions, in its proposed
crackdown on those running climate change campaigns that hit
firms.

Attorney-General Christian Porter singled out Market Forces in a
Nov. 4 statement that said he was co-ordinating advice across
several portfolios on what could be done to protect resource
businesses from such activism.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Nov. 1 condemned "an escalating
trend towards a new form of secondary boycotts" which had
potentially serious economic consequences, especially for regional
economies.

"Environmental groups are targeting businesses and firms who
provide goods or services to firms they don't like, especially in
the resources sector," Morrison told the Queensland Resources
Council.

Market Forces was launched in 2013, and is affiliated with Friends
of the Earth. The organisation's website says it "exposes"
institutions, such as banks, superannuation funds and governments
that are financing environmentally destructive projects.

Market Forces has lobbied heavily against Adani's proposed
Carmichael mine in central Queensland. Its website lists the
companies it says have links to the project, and asks supporters to
contact those companies to demand they cut ties.

The organisation's chief executive Julien Vincent hit back at the
government on Nov. 4, saying that where it saw something it did not
like "its response is to get it shut down".

"We simply allow people to make informed decisions on who they do
business with," Vincent said.

"That's a right that we thought, until recently, that this
government was prepared to uphold".

But Porter said it was "simply not OK" for any Australian business
to be targeted by groups seeking to do it financial harm "when all
they are doing is working in an industry like mining and resources
that a small number of domestic and international activists have an
ideological objection to.

"There are a growing number of examples where we have seen radical
activist groups like Market Forces that try and impose their
political will on companies across the country through widespread,
co-ordinated harassment and threats of boycotts," he said.

The government was looking at multiple options, across portfolios,
Porter said, and the work would be prepared urgently.

The government was also considering regulatory action against "the
growing presence of litigation funders who are receiving
disproportionately large shares of payments in class action
litigation which is becoming increasingly politicised by a focus on
companies that operate in the mining and resources sector".

Casting the net even wider, Porter said the government would
consider other areas of activists' "lawfare" which was "designed to
delay, frustrate and cause unnecessary expense to mining and other
legitimate commercial projects and businesses".

Secondary boycotts are already outlawed under the competition and
consumer legislation but there is an exemption where the dominant
reason is for environmental or consumer protection.

An obvious course for the government would be to seek to remove the
exemption. Another option would be to remove the tax deductibility
status of groups.

Labor has accused Morrison of "virtue signalling" in his planned
attack on activist groups. [GN]


[*] CBD Companies Expect to Face Wave of Consumer Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the first few class actions against CBD
companies have popped up in federal courts in recent weeks, marking
the beginning of what attorneys say will be a wave of consumer
litigation against cannabis businesses. [GN]



[*] Data Breach Damages Issues to Remain Contentious in 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Sear, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that data privacy
litigators have clashed over one question above all others in 2019:
Does a consumer suffer a legally cognizable harm once a data breach
occurs, or does the harm -- and the resulting damages -- kick in
only after the consumer suffers an adverse effect of that breach?

It's an issue that will remain contentious in 2020 in both federal
and state courts—except when the plaintiffs are California
residents.

Standing Battles Continue

At the federal level, U.S. Circuit Courts are split on whether a
consumer whose data has been exposed, but has not yet been the
subject of fraudulent activity, has constitutional standing to sue
in the wake of a data breach.

Plaintiffs have been arguing for years that there's already enough
harm -- from both the heightened risk of post-breach identity theft
and the cost of taking identity protection measures to avoid such
crimes -- to qualify a data breach as an injury-in-fact. Thus far,
the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have agreed with such
plaintiffs, while the Second, Fourth and Eighth Circuits generally
have not. The Third Circuit has straddled the issue.

Until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in or Congress answers the
growing calls for federal privacy legislation, standing battles
will likely continue.

Duels on Damages

Some defendants, on the other hand, have tried to get cases
dismissed by arguing that plaintiffs failed to allege "actual
damages." Rather than focus on the injury-in-fact threshold
required for standing, which some courts view as a lower bar to
meet, defendants have had some success focusing on actual damages
as a required element of a claim.

In early 2019, for example, the D.C. District Court dismissed, for
a second time, all of the claims that alleged only future harm on
the grounds that those plaintiffs failed to identify the actual
damages to support the relevant claims. (An appeal on the damages
dismissal is currently pending.)

Defendants are likely to take notice of this strategy, and may
increasingly focus on it in the coming year.

California Flips the Script

Similar debates also are percolating at the state court level,
including the supreme courts of Georgia and Illinois.

But in California, where the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
goes into effect Jan. 1, privacy-related litigation is expected to
surge in 2020.

That's because the CCPA establishes a private right of action for
California residents for breaches arising from a business's failure
to implement and maintain "reasonable security measures" and "cure"
an alleged violation, even if the consumer is not harmed by the
disclosure.

Under this action, a California consumer can recover the greater of
$100 – $750 per incident or actual damages, statutorily bypassing
the lack-of-standing fight and limiting damages-related defense
strategies.

Because data breaches can involve millions of individuals, and each
individual can collect statutory damages, the enormous potential
payouts under the CCPA will likely draw a huge increase in class
action filings.

But businesses are unlikely to go down without a fight in 2020.
Some defendants may argue that California's law is
unconstitutionally vague and doesn't comport with due process
because it does not define "reasonable security measures," nor what
qualifies as a "cure." Others may argue that their organization is
not covered under the law's definition of "business."

Defendants may also argue that consumers' claims are subject to
binding arbitration. The law can be read as prohibiting arbitration
clauses and class action waivers, but defendants can point to a
growing number of U.S. Supreme Court cases that enforce arbitration
agreements and class action waivers, arguing that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempts the CCPA.

The CCPA authorizes California's Attorney General to begin
enforcing the statute in mid-2020. So there's not much time before
businesses subject to a data breach may begin to face both private
and public actions. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

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 ***