CAR_Public/191226.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 258

                            Headlines

1287 ENTERPRISES: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
23 PIZZA WAYNE: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rosenblatt Questions Sale to Marubeni & Mizuho
ALABAMA PLUMBING: Plumbers Seek Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
ALAMEDA, CA: Ruelas Sues Over Deprivations of Detainees' Rights

ALLERGAN INC: A.B. Files PI Suit in New Jersey
ALLSTATE FIRE: Bloomgarden Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Court Grants FLSA Collective Action
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Patton et al. Suit Fails to Get Class Status
AUDENTES THERAPEUTICS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Astellas

AURORA CANNABIS: Wilson Seeks Damages Over Decline of Stock Price
AZZ INC: Faces Atayi Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
BARNES & NOBLE: Tavres Suit Alleges Systemic Age Discrimination
BRW INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Tappin Claims
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Crosby Seeks to Certify Beneficiaries Class

CANOPY GROWTH: Ortiz Sues Over Loss From Inflated Security Prices
CAR DEPOT: Faison Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Woods Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
CLINICAL RESOURCES: Adenekan Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses
COLDWATER LLC: Woodmore Seeks OT and Minimum Wages for Dancers

COLOR CRAFT: Schmitt Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Montague Seeks OT Pay for Security Guards
CONTROL GROUP: Bentley Files FCRA in S.D. California
CORPORATE AMERICA: Antoine Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Rowley Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA

CREDIT CORP: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
DA STEIN CULINARY: Real Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometrics
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
DES PLAINES MOBILE: Quinonez Seeks to Uphold the Tenants' Rights
DOLLAR LOAN CENTER: Godinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

DOORDASH INC: DeAnda Files Product Liability Suit in N.D. Calif.
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Yoo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
ENERGY TRANSFER: Reinhardt Sues Over Inflated Securities Prices
EXELON CORP: Flynn Hits Share Drop from Shady Lobbying Activities
FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Wilson Says

GENERAL MOTORS: Woronko Sues Over Power Steering Assist Defect
GEORGIA CLINIC: Nurse Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Assistants
GREAT HOME CARE: Pickney Seeks OT Pay for Healthcare Providers
HOMBRES LOUNGE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credits
KODIAK CAKES: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. California

KRIGER LAW: Faces Almada Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
LEDIC MANAGEMENT: Sparks Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Workers
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Faces Nathan Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
MARGARITAS MEXICAN: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suazo Says
MDL 2804: Chicago Public School Sues Over Sale of Opioid Drugs

MDL 2885: Drago Suit Over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2915: Minsky Class Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
MICROGENICS CORP: Steele-Warrick Sues Over Erroneous Test Results
MS. WINE SHOP: Urena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Tweed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Affidavit Filed in Kansas City ERS Suit
NATIONAL GOLF: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
NEW YORK CITY: Sarro Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW YORK: BOD Files Two Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
OC JEWISH DELI: Brown Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

OHIO NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Browning Class Suit
OLIVERS APPAREL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Parisotti Securities Class Suit in Utah
PERDUE FARMS: Williams Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM LLC: Williams Sues Over Violation of BIPA

PHH MORTGAGE: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
PRINCIPE & STRASNICK: Letter Violates FDCPA, Soremekun Claims
RACHEL'S TAQUERIA: Perez Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Khan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sosa Sues Over Inaccessible Gift Cards

RIDGEVIEW REHAB: Wheeler Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
RREAF HOLDINGS: Roberts Seeks OT Wages for Hourly-Paid Employees
RSA CATERING: Barnes Seeks to Recover Unlawfully Retained Tips
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Michelsen Sues Over Deductions, Expenses
SCHENKER INC: Orpilla Sues Over Improper Use of Credit Reports

SEARS-PEYTON GALLERY: Mendez Says Website Inaccessible to Blind
SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in LaSpina Suit
SILVER CREEK: Snow Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ginsberg Securities Suit Moved to Tennessee
SPECIALTIES BINDING: Ocon Sues Over Illicit Use of Biometric Data

SUMMIT HEALTHCARE: Blackburn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
TEAM HEALTH: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Unlawfully Depreciates Labor Costs, Russ Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Nicolas Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Waronker Securities Class Suit in Maryland

UNITED IRON: Romero-Quesada Seeks Overtime Wages for Welders
VIRIDIAN ARTISTS: Mendez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims
WAITR HOLDINGS: Sued by Bates Over Share Price Drop
WE COMPANY: Sojka Seeks to Enjoin $1.7BB Reward to Adam Neumann

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Rosenbaum Sues Over Sale of Defective Cooktops
WINTERS CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Soares Claims

                            *********

1287 ENTERPRISES: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1287 Enterprises LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1287
Enterprises LLC, doing business as: 4 Corners Cannabis, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07131 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019).

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

4 Corners Cannabis has been dedicated to creating the highest grade
CBD dominant products on the market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


23 PIZZA WAYNE: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Silva and Gerver Salmeron, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. 23 PIZZA WAYNE, INC. d/b/a BUONGUSTO
PIZZA RESTAURANT & CATERING; SAMEH GHOBRIAL, an Individual; FADY
YOUSSEF, an Individual; WASEEM HABIB, an Individual; JOHN DOES 1-5
and ABC CORPS. 1-5, Case No. 2:19-cv-21441 (D.N.J., Dec. 17, 2019),
is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages and all
available relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice that denied
restaurant workers the New Jersey State minimum wage and
appropriate overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, according to
the complaint. The Plaintiffs seeks unpaid overtime wages, minimum
wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and
declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful actions, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated restaurant workers.

Plaintiff Lucia Silva was employed as a food preparer by Buongusto
from August 2017 to September 2019.

Buongusto Pizza Restaurant & Catering sells pizza and other food
items, such as salads, sandwiches and pasta, and offers catering,
dine-in and delivery options.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell Schley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
          197 Route 18, Suite 3000
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Phone: (732) 325-0318
          Email: mschley@schleylaw.com


AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rosenblatt Questions Sale to Marubeni & Mizuho
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AIRCASTLE LIMITED, PETER V. UEBERROTH, RONALD
W. ALLEN, GIOVANNI BISIGNANI, MICHAEL J. CAVE, DOUGLAS A. HACKER,
JUN HORIE, TAKASHI KURIHARA, TAKAYUKI SAKAKIDA, RONALD L. MERRIMAN,
AGNES MURA, CHARLES W. POLLARD, and MICHAEL J. INGLESE, Case No.
1:19-cv-02295-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 18, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Aircastle will be acquired by
newly-formed entities controlled by affiliates of Marubeni
Corporation and Mizuho Leasing Company, Limited.

Marubeni and its affiliates own approximately 28.8% of the
outstanding common shares of the Company.

On November 5, 2019, Aircastle's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MM Air
Limited ("Parent") and MM Air Merger Sub Limited ("Merger Sub," and
together with Parent, "MM Air"). Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Aircastle's stockholders will receive $32 in cash
for each share of Aircastle common stock they own.

On December 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose
Citi's presentations: (i) provided to the Board at its October 4,
2019 meeting; (ii) provided to the Transaction Committee at its
October 16, 2019 meeting; (iii) provided to the Transaction
Committee at its October 27, 2019 meeting; and (iv) provided to the
Board at its November 4, 2019 meeting. The Proxy Statement also
omits material information regarding the process leading up to the
execution of the Merger Agreement. The Proxy Statement further
fails to disclose how and on what basis the members of the
Transaction Committee were selected, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, who is the owner of Aircastle common stock, contends
that the omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff adds that the Proxy Statement is an
essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.

Aircastle acquires, leases, and sells commercial jet aircraft to
airlines throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ALABAMA PLUMBING: Plumbers Seek Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul McAnally, Christopher Todd Clark, Jr. and Blaine Simmons,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff, v. Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC, Brent Vacarella,
Vicky Vacarella, Greg Johnson and Josh Martin, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02033 (N.D. Ala., December 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, prejudgment interest,
costs, expenses and all other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a plumbing service where McAnally worked as a
plumber while Clark and Simmons as a plumber's apprentice for more
than the past three years. Plaintiffs had travel time that was
mostly outside the typical workday but they were not paid overtime
for hours in excess of 40 per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Harwell, Esq.
      HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
      109 Foothills Parkway #112
      Chelsea, AL 35043
      Tel: (205) 999-1099
      Email: Scott@HarwellLaw.com


ALAMEDA, CA: Ruelas Sues Over Deprivations of Detainees' Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMIDA RUELAS, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES,
JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON, and LUIS
NUNEZ-ROMERO ARMIDA RUELAS; DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS;
KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS
NUNEZ-ROMERO; and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN, SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-07637 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to redress
deprivations, under color of state authority, of detainees' rights,
privileges, and immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiffs are pre-trial detainees, detainees facing
deportation, federal detainees, and post-conviction prisoners
confined in Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County.

Pursuant to a contract between the County of Alameda and Aramark
Correctional Services, LLC, the Plaintiffs were or are currently
employed by Aramark to perform industrial food preparation services
and cleaning.

Contrary to California law, the Plaintiffs are not paid for their
work and are forced to work for the profit of a private company
under threat of punitive measures by their jailers, the lawsuit
says.

Aramark is a private, for-profit company that sells food prepared
by prisoners to third parties outside the County of Alameda.

Santa Rita Jail is Alameda County's jail. It houses persons who are
awaiting trial, persons who have been convicted of a crime and are
awaiting sentencing.

Alameda County is a county in the state of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq.
          Emilyrose Johns, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA q94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com
                  abweills@gmail.com
                  emilyrose@siegelyee.com


ALLERGAN INC: A.B. Files PI Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan Inc., et al.
The case is styled as A. B., C. D., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC. formerly
known as: Inamed Corporaton, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN PLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-21600 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          ADAM E. POLK, ESQ.
          601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1400
          SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Email: apolk@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Christina H Connolly Sharp, Esq.
          Girard Sharp LLP
          601 California Street Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Fax: (415) 981-4846

The Defendants are represented by:

          Naoki S Kaneko, Esq.
          Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP
          Jamboree Center
          5 Park Plaza Suite 1600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 475-1500
          Fax: (949) 475-0017



ALLSTATE FIRE: Bloomgarden Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as David Bloomgarden, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allstate
Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Lauderdale) on Nov. 20, 2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-62879-XXXX to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an
insurance firm. The company offers auto, home, renters, condo,
motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
          Carly Abramson Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1986
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  ckligler@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
          Alexandra Jordan Schultz, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 474-7895
          Facsimile: (312) 878-2022
          E-mail: pvaleta@cozen.com
                  aschultz@cozen.com


ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Court Grants FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID LIEBERMAN, on behalf of
himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION, INC., an
Illinois Corporation and TODD ALTOUNION, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00910 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mary
M. Rowland entered an order on Dec. 2, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for step-one notice of his Fair
      Labor Standards Act collective action subject to the
      modifications ordered by the Court; and

   2. directing Plaintiff to submit on or before Dec. 17, 2019,
      to the court's proposed order box
      (Proposed_Order_Rowland@ilnd.uscourts.gov), a revised
      Notice form for the Court's review.

The Court will then rule on approval of the finalized notice and
distribution schedule. Status hearing is set for Jan. 20, 2020 at
9:30 a.m.

At the hearing before this Court on October 7, 2019, defense
counsel stated that Defendants did not object to conditional
certification generally, but objected because they believed the
scope of the proposed class was too broad. The Court gave
Defendants ample time to file a response brief to articulate the
basis for their objection. No response brief was filed nor did
Defendants request any extension. Therefore based on a review of
Lieberman's motion for conditional certification and the
accompanying attachments, applicable case law, as well as Local
Rule 78.3, the Court grants Lieberman's motion for conditional
certification subject to modifications.

The Plaintiff brings this putative collective action against the
Defendants for alleged violations the Fair Labor Standards.

Lieberman claims that he and other similarly situated Altounion
hourly employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek without pay at a rate of time and one-half.

Altounion is a construction business in Lake Bluff, Illinois.[CC]

ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Patton et al. Suit Fails to Get Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW PATTON, JAMES D.
DUNCAN, DEVIN D. BROWN, JOEY D. SEIBER, and ERMAN L. HARNESS, the
Plaintiffs, v. ANDERSON COUNTY, TN, SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, and
STATE OF TENNESSEE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00441-TAV-HBG
(E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order on
Dec. 2, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motions for class certification;

   2. denying Plaintiff Duncan's motion to join Plaintiffs;

The Plaintiffs are notified that they will not be allowed 11to
proceed jointly in the action.

While the Court may sever this action to allow each Plaintiff to
proceed separately, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court is mindful that
each Plaintiff may not wish to pursue a section 1983 action in
which he will be the sole Plaintiff and for which he will be
assessed the entire $350.00 filing fee.

Accordingly, each Plaintiff shall have up to and including 21 days
from the date of entry of the order to file a notice with the Court
indicating whether he wishes to proceed as the sole Plaintiff in a
section 1983 action for which he will be assessed the entire
$350.00 filing fee.

If any Plaintiff files a notice that he does not want to pursue his
own cause of action or fails to timely comply with this order, this
matter will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply
with Court order as to that Plaintiff.

The Court finds that the complaint demonstrates that Plaintiffs
have alleged separate, personal claims for relief that arise out of
different underlying facts.

Thus, while all five Plaintiffs have similar claims due to their
complaints of medical and dental treatment in the same facility,
they do not assert a right to relief "with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences" as Rule 20(a)(1) requires for them to proceed
jointly in the matter.

Moreover, given the significant practical issues arising out of
prisoners filing joint complaints, the Court finds that even if
Rule 20(a) permitted joinder of all five Plaintiffs, it would be
impractical and inefficient for the Court to allow them to do so.
Therefore, Duncan's motion to join existing and future potential
Plaintiffs will be denied.[CC]

AUDENTES THERAPEUTICS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Astellas
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AUDENTES THERAPEUTICS, INC., MATTHEW R. PATTERSON,
LOUIS G. LANGE, MARK GOLDBERG, JENNIFER JARRETT, SCOTT MORRISON,
THOMAS J. SCHUETZ, JULIE ANNE SMITH, ASTELLAS PHARMA INC., and
ASILOMAR ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 1:19-cv-02294-UNA (D. Del.,
Dec. 18, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Audentes will be acquired by Astellas Pharma Inc. and
Asilomar Acquisition Corp.

On December 2, 2019, Audentes' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Astellas. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Audentes' outstanding
common stock for $60 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on January 14, 2020.

On December 16, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.

The Plaintiffs contends that the Solicitation Statement omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC. With respect to Centerview's
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails to
disclose: (i) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the
discount rates ranging from 11.0% to 13.0% and the perpetuity rates
ranging from 10.0% to 20.0%; (ii) the terminal values of Audentes;
and (iii) Audentes' fully diluted shares outstanding. When a
banker's endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to
shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion,
as well as the key inputs and range of ultimate values generated by
those analyses must also be fairly disclosed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Audentes common stock. The Plaintiff
contends that the omissions in the Solicitation Statement are
material in that a reasonable shareholder will consider them
important in deciding whether to tender their shares in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Plaintiff adds that because of
the false and misleading statements in the Solicitation Statement,
the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

Audentes is a leading AAV-based genetic medicines company focused
on developing and commercializing innovative products for serious
rare neuromuscular diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AURORA CANNABIS: Wilson Seeks Damages Over Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WILSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., TERRY BOOTH, STEPHEN
DOBLER, GLEN IBBOTT, CAM BATTLEY and MICHAEL SINGER, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-20588-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Nov. 21, 2019), is brought
on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Aurora securities between September 11,
2019, and November 14, 2019, inclusive, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 11, 2019, Aurora filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year
ended June 30, 2019. The Annual Report continually touted Aurora's
continued year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter growth.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(i) as opposed to the Company's representations, Aurora's revenue
would decline in its first quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September
30, 2019; (ii) the Company would halt construction on its Aurora
Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun facilities; and (iii) 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.

On November 18, 2019, MarketWatch published an article entitled
"Aurora Cannabis stock suffers worst day in more than five years,
analyst says it would be fair for investors not to believe them".

On this news, shares of Aurora fell $0.44 per share or over 16% to
close at $2.28 per share on November 18, 2019, further damaging
investors.

The Plaintiff purchased Aurora securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby. The Plaintiff asserts that as
a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Aurora purports to produce and distribute cannabis products. It is
vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various
segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility
engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research,
production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home
cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution. The Company
produces various strains of dried cannabis, cannabis oil and
capsules, and topicals kits. Aurora is a Canadian corporation with
its principal executive office located in Alberta, Canada.

Terry Booth has served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
a Director of the Board during the Class Period. Stephen Dobler has
served as the Company's President and a Director during the Class
Period. Glen Ibbott has served as the Company's Chief Financial
Officer during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
         South Orange, NJ 07079
         Telephone: (973) 313-1887
         Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AZZ INC: Faces Atayi Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
OMID ATAYI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AZZ INC., THOMAS E. FERGUSON, and PAUL W. FEHLMAN, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00928-A (N.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired AZZ securities between
July 3, 2018, and October 8, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 17, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed a
material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting
related to preparation and review of revenue reconciliations after
adopting a new revenue recognition standard.

On May 20, 2019, before the market opened, the Company announced
that it had replaced its independent auditor, BDO US, LLP, with
Grant Thornton LLP.  On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$1.21, nearly 3%, to close at $43.35 per share on May 20, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 8, 2019, AZZ delayed its second quarter 2020 financial
results "to allow the Company additional time to complete the
review of the Form 10-Q for its fiscal year 2020 second quarter
ended August 31, 2019."  On this news, the Company's stock price
fell $5.89, nearly 14%, to close at $37.12 per share on October 8,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Mr. Atayi alleges that throughout the Class Period, the 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, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting were not effective; (2) that the
Company improperly implemented ASC 606 which resulted in improper
revenue reconciliations; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.  Mr. Atayi says he purchased AZZ
securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a
result of the Defendants' federal securities law violations and
false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions.

AZZ is incorporated under the laws of Texas with its principal
executive offices located in Fort Worth, Texas.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

AZZ provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding
solutions, specialty electronic equipment and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining, and industrial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


BARNES & NOBLE: Tavres Suit Alleges Systemic Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA TAVRES, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC. a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-07655 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20,
2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act as a result of its employment practices, including wide-spread
and systemic age discrimination.

Despite its longstanding status as one of the nation's largest book
retailers, Barnes & Noble has struggled to remain competitive in an
increasingly digital and online literary marketplace, according to
the complaint. In an aggressive effort to reverse its fortunes,
Barnes & Noble has pursued an uncompromising course of action
designed to cut costs, increase sales, and revamp its public
persona from that of a stale, aging retail operation to that of a
fresh and exciting literary sales enterprise.

A profile in Publisher's Weekly (the industry's leading trade
publication), appearing shortly after CEO James Daunt took the top
spot at Barnes & Noble, stated that he believed the book retailer's
"look has grown stale." "Chain stores are exciting when they are
shiny and new," he said. "But they don't age well."

Barnes & Noble's strategic makeover under Mr. Daunt, according to
an August 8, 2019 profile in the New York Times, was designed to
mimic Waterstones's: "Once Mr. Daunt commences his overhaul of
Barnes & Noble, he will again try to turn a large chain into what
looks and feels like a collection of independent bookstores. Again,
he will do battle with a culture of stifling uniformity."

According to Mr. Daunt, this strategy entailed "empowering store
managers and other booksellers to create stores that meet the needs
of their local communities." As Publisher's Weekly put it,
"improvement will be led by the company's booksellers."

"Booksellers" is corporate-speak for Barnes & Noble's entry-level
employees, whose duties entail operating cash registers, restocking
empty shelves, and cleaning restrooms.

In its effort to avoid growing "stale" and to foster its "shiny and
new" public image, Barnes & Noble determined that these older
workers no longer looked the part.

To accomplish this goal, Barnes & Nobel engaged in a campaign of
age discrimination. It terminated its employees age 40 and older
and replaced them with a younger workforce. And in doing so, Barnes
& Noble violated these workers' rights to be free from age
discrimination in the workplace under both federal and California
law, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Tavres is a U.S. citizen born in 1960 and has been 40 years of
age or older at all pertinent times. She currently resides in
Hayward, California, and has resided in California.

Ms. Tavres seeks to recover back pay and front pay; liquidated
damages equal to the amount of back pay; actual damages;
compensatory damages including, but not limited to, damages for
pain and suffering; punitive and exemplary damages; attorney's fees
and costs; and statutory penalties in the amount of $750 for
violation of California Labor Code.

Barnes & Noble is one of the nation's largest booksellers. Its
business consists of the sale of trade books (hardcover and
paperback titles), mass market paperbacks, children's books, eBooks
and other digital content, bargain books, textbooks, magazines,
gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys and games,
music, and movies. It conducts these sales through its bookstores
and online through its Web site located at
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/.

Barnes & Noble operated 627 bookstores in all fifty states and
employed approximately 24,000 employees (7,000 full-time and 17,000
part-time).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Given, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 - The Presidio
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: 415 398-0900
          Facsimile: 415-398-0911
          E-mail: dmg@phillaw.com
                  nac@phillaw.com
                  bsc@phillaw.com


BRW INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Tappin Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toquata Tappin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRW, INC., and BERNARD R. WAIT, Case No.
4:19-cv-00912-JM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 18, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to pay proper overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Supervisor from
February of 2019 until September of 2019.

Ms. Tappin says that she regularly worked more than forty hours in
a week. She asserts that she frequently worked more hours than she
was scheduled, which went unrecorded and uncompensated.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was
working additional off-the-clock hours for which she was not
compensated, says the complaint.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Crosby Seeks to Certify Beneficiaries Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT CROSBY and KARISSA CROSBY, individually
and on behalf of their son, JAKE CROSBY, and all others similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA; MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC.; and HUMAN AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL
OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 8:17-cv-01970-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs move for certification of a plaintiff class:

     All participants or beneficiaries in a Blue Shield health
     insurance plan governed by ERISA and administered by
     Magellan (a) who are currently deemed covered for Applied
     Behavioral Analysis therapy for treatment of autism spectrum
     disorder, or (b) who were deemed covered for Applied
     Behavior Analysis therapy for treatment of autism spectrum
     disorder, and (c) since January 1, 2016 made a request for
     continued coverage that was reduced or denied based upon the
     Magellan medical necessity criteria for Applied Behavior
     Analysis therapy.

     Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any parent,
     subsidiary, affiliate, or controlled person of Defendants,
     as well as officers, directors, agents, servants or
     employees of Defendants, and the immediate family member of
     any such person, and any class member who has previously
     released a claim for benefits under a settlement agreement.
     Id.  Also excluded is any judge who may preside over this
     case.

The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as Class
Representatives; and the appointment of Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.,
of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, and Randy D. Curry,
Esq., of The Law Offices of Randy D. Curry as Class Counsel for the
Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 20, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          Kimberly Page, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com
                  kpage@bffb.com

               - and -

          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          922 Davis Street
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: ndjordjevic@bffb.com

               - and -

          Randy D. Curry, Esq.,
          LAW OFFICES OF RANDY D. CURRY
          2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 258-4381
          Facsimile: (949) 258-4382
          E-mail: randydcurrylaw@gmail.com


CANOPY GROWTH: Ortiz Sues Over Loss From Inflated Security Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO ORTIZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, BRUCE LINTON,
MARK ZEKULIN, and MIKE LEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19- cv-20543
(D.N.J., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Canopy securities
between June 21, 2019, and November 13, 2019, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that the market price of Canopy securities
was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Had Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class been aware that the market price
of Canopy securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by
the Defendants' misleading statements and by the material adverse
information which the Defendants did not disclose, they would not
have purchased Canopy securities at the artificially inflated
prices that they did, or at all.

Among other things, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company was experiencing weak demand for its softgel and
oil products; (2) as a result, the Company would be forced to take
a CA$32.7 million restructuring charge due to poor sales, excessive
returns, and excess inventory; and (3) 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.

On November 14, 2019, before the market opened, the Company issued
a press release announcing their earnings for the second quarter of
fiscal year 2020, posting a larger-than-expected loss for the
quarter.  The Company announced it would be modifying its retail
pricing architecture and taking a CA$32.7 million restructuring
charge.

On this news, shares of Canopy fell $2.36 per share or nearly 14.4%
to close at $15.84 per share on November 14, 2019, damaging
investors, including the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.  The Plaintiff and other members of the Class
have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial, the
lawsuit says.

Canopy engages in production, distribution, and sale of cannabis in
Canada. Canopy is incorporated in Canada and has its principal
executive offices located in Ontario, Canada. Bruce Linton founded
the Company and served as the Company's co-Chief Executive Officer
until July 2019. Mark Zekulin served as the Company's President and
co-CEO from June 2018 until July 2019, and CEO after July 2019.
Mike Lee has served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer since
June 1, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CAR DEPOT: Faison Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Andrienna Faison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Car Depot of Detroit, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-13688 (E.D. Mich., December 16, 2019),
seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Car Depot is a used car dealership located in Detriot MI. To
promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en
masse via an auto dialer. Faison did not give express consent to
receive such texts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Woods Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WOODS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF v. CENIKOR FOUNDATION, DEFENDANT, Case No.
4:19-cv-04569 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and others
minimum wage compensation and overtime compensation for the hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in each single week that they were
made to work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cenikor required Mr. Woods and others similarly situated employees
to perform employment duties as part of its workforce development
program with employers affiliated with Cenikor and refused to
provide them with compensation, the lawsuit says.

Cenikor Foundation provides products and services in relation with
alcohol and drug addiction treatment and behavioral health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLINICAL RESOURCES: Adenekan Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses
------------------------------------------------------------
OLUWASEUN "SEUN" ADENEKAN, DONNA EDMONDS, DONNA MILLER, TISHA
APPLINE, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees
v. CLINICAL RESOURCES, LLC, and JENNIFER SCULLY, Individually, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00436 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to,
among other things, pay overtime wages to nurses.

The Plaintiffs work or have worked for the Defendants as a nurse,
either as a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse.

Clinical Resources is a Georgia limited liability company that is
registered with the Tennessee Secretary of State and conducts
significant business operations in this State.  Jennifer Scully is
the President, CEO, and founder of Clinical Resources.

Clinical Resources is, among other things, a healthcare staffing
firm.  Its business model consists of selecting and placing its
healthcare professionals, such as nurses, with clients, who need
those professionals.  Clinical Resources has contracts with
facilities in all 50 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@NLGattorneys.com


COLDWATER LLC: Woodmore Seeks OT and Minimum Wages for Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHONTA WOODMORE, an individual, Plaintiff v. COLDWATER, LLC dba
DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS, a California Limited Liability Company; DOE
MANAGERS 1-3; and DAVID KRONTZ, an individual, and DOES 4-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02230 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum
wage owed to the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated tipped employees, current and former under the
Fair Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2017
and continued through approximately 2018.

The Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers they employed
as "independent contractors" and have failed and refused to pay
wages to such dancers.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 7350 Coldwater Canyon, in North Hollywood,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310 507 7924
          Facsimile: 310-507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                  jacob@kristensenlaw.com


COLOR CRAFT: Schmitt Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SCHMITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLOR CRAFT GRAPHIC ARTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01705-WCG (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful compensation system failed
to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, commissions, shift differentials, incentives,
awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated are current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

Color Craft is an all-inclusive folding carton company that's been
providing customers of every size with hands-on, individualized
attention for over 75 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 3005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Montague Seeks OT Pay for Security Guards
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONNET MONTAGUE, NATHANIEL DIAZ, RAUSHANAH MEDINA, and HAYWOOD
GERST, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTEMPORARY SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06572 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated co-workers, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant to provide
security services and crowd control to the Defendant's clients, who
organize large-scale public events that are generally attended by
large crowds.

The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Class/NYLL Class to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime
compensation, the lawsuit says.

Contemporary Services is an international company, which provides a
variety of services to organizers of high-profile special events,
including venue operations management, security, pedestrian and
vehicle security screening, 24-hour site security, etc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 206
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (202) 766 9870
          E-mail: mfz@fzapatalaw.com


CONTROL GROUP: Bentley Files FCRA in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Control Group
Media Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christopher
Bentley, Nicholas Longo, Hendry Idar, III, Vincent Hardy, Jesus
Sanchez, Taryn Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Control Group Media Company,
Inc., Instant Checkmate, LLC, TruthFinders, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02437-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2019).

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

The Control Group Inc. is a web development and digital marketing
company headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephanie Renee Tatar, Esq.
          Tatar Law Firm, APC
          3500 West Olive Ave., Ste. 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Phone: (323) 744-1146
          Fax: (888) 778-5695
          Email: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


CORPORATE AMERICA: Antoine Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinnari P. Antoine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Corporate America Family Credit
Union (CAFCU), Defendant, Case No. 2019CH14484, (Ill. Cir.,
December 16, 2019) seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief arising from unfair and unconscionable
assessment and collection of overdraft fees resulting from breach
of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and the Illinois Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

Corporate America Family Credit Union is a credit union
headquartered and with its principal place of business in Elgin,
Illinois. It has over $600 million in assets.

Antoine maintained a checking account with CAFCU. She claims that
CAFCU disregarded the actual amount of money in the account or
whether there is a negative balance and instead assessed overdraft
fees without informing its accountholders and using a calculation
that it does not disclose. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 750-1265
     Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
            kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
            nlange@carlsonlynch.com

            - and -

     Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
     Daniel Tropin, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 525-4100
     Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
     Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
            tropin@kolawyers.com
            streisfeld@kolawyers.com

            - and -

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


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Rowley Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberlee Rowley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-02290 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

The Defendant Credit Control, a debt collector, contracted with
Capital One, N.A. to collect an alleged debt. The Defendants Credit
Control and Defendant LVNV collect and attempt to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet.

On January 25, 2019, Defendant Credit Control sent the Plaintiff an
initial contact notice regarding an alleged debt owed. The Letter
states in part: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt.
Because of the age of your debt, LVNV Funding LLC will not sue you
for it, and LVNV Funding LLC will not report it to any credit
reporting agency."

In the Letter, the Defendant Credit Control on behalf of the
Defendant LVNV, failed to inform the consumer that making a partial
payment would result in restarting the statute of limitations for a
lawsuit to be filed against the Plaintiff, according to the
complaint. The Letter contains an invitation for the Plaintiff to
choose a settlement offer and begin making monthly payments.
However, the Letter is deceptive in that it failed to inform the
Plaintiff of the true ramifications of making a payment.

The Defendants' omission could likely lead to the Plaintiff making
a partial payment which would have had the consequence of
restarting the statute of limitations, the Plaintiff avers. As a
result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware.

Defendant Credit Control is a "debt collector".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW O.FFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Phone: (302) 722-6885
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


CREDIT CORP: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. dba Tasman Credit, et al. The case is styled as Shifra Gordon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc. dba Tasman Credit, John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-11651 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19,
2019).

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

Credit Corp Solutions Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DA STEIN CULINARY: Real Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Real, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. D.A. STEIN CULINARY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a BRETT ANTHONY FOODS, Case
No. 2019CH14486 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 17, 2019), is brought
under the Biometric Information Privacy Act to put a stop to the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric
data.

Individuals, who perform work for the Defendant in Illinois have
been required to place their finger on the Defendant's biometric
time clocks. That is because since at least June or July 2018, the
Defendant has used a biometric time tracking system that requires
workers and employees to use their fingerprint as part of a means
of authentication.

Illinois enacted the BIPA as an informed consent statute,
specifically imposing safeguards to (a) ensure that individuals'
privacy rights and control over their biometric identifiers and
biometric information are properly honored and protected, and (b)
subject private entities who fail to follow the statute's
requirements to substantial potential liability. The Defendant
disregards its workers' statutorily protected rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges.

Specifically, the Defendant has committed four distinct violations
of (and continues to so violate) the BIPA because it did not (and
continues not to): properly inform Plaintiff and Class members in
writing that their biometric information or identifiers were being
collected; properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members of the
specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints
were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA;
create or make available a publicly available retention schedule
and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the
Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a prior
written authorization from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain their fingerprints, as
required by the BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ismael Real is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Illinois, who performed work for the Defendant at its Elk Grove
Village location.

BAF is an Illinois corporation registered to do business in the
State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          Katherine Stryker, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 763-6880


DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Robin Lambert Mells D.D.S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brings this action for injunctive relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of dentists in the Delta Dental
provider network; and damages on behalf of a California class of
dental service providers, against the Delta Dental Plans
Association and its subsidiary Delta USA and 39, independent Delta
Dental companies for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act and Sections 16700 and 17203 of the California's Business and
Professions Code, docketed under Case No. 19-cv-08182 (N.D. Cal.,
December 16, 2019).

Delta Dental is a network of independent companies conducting
business in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.

According to the complaint, each individual plan contracts with
dental service providers to reimburse the providers for dental
services provided to patients with Delta Dental insurance
contracts. Plaintiff alleges that the plan providers, who are meant
to compete with each other, have agreed to allocate exclusive
geographic markets through license agreements that limit and
restrict competition outside of their respective territorial
markets.

Robin Lambert Mells of Robin Lambert Mells, D.D.S. is a dental
services provider located at 1150 Scott Boulevard, Suite C2, Santa
Clara, California, 95050. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
     Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
     Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
     James S. Dugan, Esq.
     ZELLE LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 693-0700
     Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
     Email: jzahid@zelle.com
            cmicheletti@zelle.com
            hrankie@zelle.com
            jdugan@zelle.com

            - and -

     James R. Martin, Esq.
     Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
     ZELLE LLP
     1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: (202) 899-4100
     Email: jmartin@zelle.com
            jhackett@zelle.com


DES PLAINES MOBILE: Quinonez Seeks to Uphold the Tenants' Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUINONEZ and YOLANDA CASAS-GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DES PLAINES MOBILE
HOME PARK, INC.; CALVIN M. LEUNG; and KATHLEEN LEUNG, Defendants,
Case No. 2019CH13418 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to vindicate
the rights of the residents of Des Plaines Mobile Home Park and
restore their living conditions.

The Defendants own and operate "Des Plaines Mobile Home Park" in
Elk Grove Township.

The Plaintiffs were the tenants of Lot 40A in Des Plaines Mobile
Home Park.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants operate the park in a
predatory manner, from charging tenants for undrinkable water laced
with toxic uranium and cleaning services they never provide, to
issuing tickets to tenants, who complain about the unlivable
conditions at the Park.

Des Plaines Mobile Home Park is the mobile home park located at 500
West Touhy Avenue in unincorporated Des Plaines, Illinois. The
property contains over two hundred mobile homes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501-5760
          E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org


DOLLAR LOAN CENTER: Godinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johana Godinez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Aron Kespradit, individually,
and on behalf of the members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dollar Loan Center California, LLC, an
unknown business entity and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV36656 (Cal. Super., October 15, 2019),
was removed to the U.S. District Court for Central California on
December 16, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-10619.

Godinez and Kespradit were employed by Dollar Loan Center in Los
Angeles from October 2017 to January 2018. They allege violations
of the California Labor Code and demand monetary relief. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Phone: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021

Dollar Loan is represented by:

      Dora V. Lane, Esq.
      Matthew W B. Hippler, Esq.
      S. Jordan Walsh, Esq.
      HOLLAND & HART LLP
      441 Kietzke Lane, Suite 200
      Reno, NV 89511-2094
      Telephone: 775.327.3000
      Facsimile: 775.786.6179
      Email: dlane@holandhart.com
             mhippler@hollandaart.com
             sjwalsh@hollandhart.com


DOORDASH INC: DeAnda Files Product Liability Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doordash, Inc. The
case is styled as YVETTE DeANDA, individually and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Doordash,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-08305 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

DoorDash, Inc. provides on-demand restaurant food delivery services
connecting customers with local businesses in Honolulu and Ottawa
areas. It also serves customers in Rochester, Greenville, and Reno.
DoorDash, Inc. was formerly known as Palo Alto Delivery and changed
its name to DoorDash, Inc. in October 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 891-9880
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com



DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Yoo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as APRIL JIHYUN YOO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-21601 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2019).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Reinhardt Sues Over Inflated Securities Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM D. REINHARDT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L.
WARREN, JOHN W. MCREYNOLDS, and THOMAS E. LONG, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02771-K (N.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants and certain of its top
officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Energy Transfer securities between February 25,
2017, and November 11, 2019, both dates inclusive.

The Plaintiff asserts that he acquired Energy Transfer securities
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures.

Energy Transfer's projects include the Mariner East pipeline, a
multibillion-dollar pipeline project to carry highly volatile
natural gas liquids across Pennsylvania.

According to the Partnership's Securities and Exchange Commission
filings, the Mariner East pipeline transports NGLs from the
Marcellus and Utica Shales areas in Western Pennsylvania, West
Virginia and Eastern Ohio to destinations in Pennsylvania,
including the Partnership's Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the
Delaware River, where they are processed, stored and distributed to
local, domestic and waterborne markets.

Additionally, the first phase of the project, referred to as
Mariner East 1, consisted of interstate and intrastate propane and
ethane service and commenced operations in the fourth quarter of
2014 and the first quarter of 2016, respectively. The second phase
of the project, referred to as Mariner East 2, began service in
December 2018.

On February 13, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) approved water-crossing and sedimentation
permits for the Mariner East 2 pipeline, which would transport
natural-gas liquids across Pennsylvania to a terminal in Marcus
Hook.

According to news sources, the permits were believed to be the
final regulatory hurdle to begin construction of the pipeline.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Partnership's business,
operational and compliance policies, the Plaintiff alleges.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Energy Transfer's
permits to conduct the Mariner East pipeline project in
Pennsylvania were secured via bribery and/or other improper
conduct; (ii) the foregoing misconduct increased the risk that the
Partnership and/or certain of its employees would be subject to
government and/or regulatory action, thereby depreciating the
Partnership's unit value; and (iii) as a result, the Partnership's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 12, 2019, the Associated Press reported that Energy
Transfer's Mariner East pipeline project was under investigation by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On this news, Energy Transfer's unit price fell $0.81 per share, or
6.77%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $11.16
per share on November 13, 2019.

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

Energy Transfer provides energy-related services in the U.S. and
China. The Partnership owns and operates approximately 9,400 miles
of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines.

Energy Transfer was founded in 2002 and is based in Dallas, Texas.
The Partnership was formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
and changed its name to Energy Transfer LP in October 2018. Energy
Transfer operates as a subsidiary of LE GP, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: 972-521-6868
          Facsimile: 281-254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


EXELON CORP: Flynn Hits Share Drop from Shady Lobbying Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Exelon Corporation, Christopher M. Crane,
Joseph Nigro, Joseph Dominguez and Jeanne M. Jones, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-08209 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2019), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws.

Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy
generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. and Canada.

Defendants failed to disclose that Exelon was engaged in unlawful
lobbying activities. On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.32
per share on November 1, 2019, a total decline of 2.83% since the
initial announcement of the SEC investigation, thus damaging
investors including Flynn. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Wilson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., STANLEY HIRSCH, STANLEY
STERN, REX BRIGHT, ANNA KAZANCHYAN, TONY BRUNO, DAVID DOMZALSKI,
AARON SCHWARTZ, SHARON BARBARI, MENLO THERAPEUTICS INC., and MENLO
MERGER SUB, Case No. 3:19-cv-21563 (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2019), is
brought public on behalf of stockholders of Foamix against Foamix
and the Company's Board of Directors, Menlo Therapeutics Inc., and
Menlo Merger Sub, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934.

Mr. Wilson accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary
duties in connection with their efforts to sell the Company to
Menlo as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and he
seeks to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on the proposed
stock-for-stock transaction.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
November 10, 2019, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan
of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Foamix will
become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Menlo, and Foamix
stockholders will receive 0.5924 of a share of Menlo common stock
and a contingent stock right.

On December 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a Registration Statement
on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction.
Notably, the Plaintiff contends, the Proposed Transaction is unfair
and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the
Registration Statement describes an insufficient process in which
the only end goal was a sale to the Menlo. Such a sales process, or
lack thereof, clearly indicates that the interest of the common
stockholders of Foamix was not of overriding concern to the
Individual Defendants.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Foamix
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Menlo without regard for Foamix public
stockholders, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, the action seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual
Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Foamix
stockholders.

The Plaintiff has been a Foamix stockholder.

Foamix is a specialty pharmaceutical company in the United States
and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          1040 Kings Highway N., Suite 650
          Cherry Hills, NJ 08034
          Phone: (856) 795-7250
          Facsimile: (856) 795-1799
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Woronko Sues Over Power Steering Assist Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE WORONKO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-13449-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., Nov. 21, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act in connection with its sale of vehicles
fitted with a defective steering gear torque sensor.

The lawsuit arises from the sale or lease of thousands of 2015-2016
Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon vehicles throughout Michigan and
the United States manufactured by the Defendant that are equipped
with a defective electrical connection within the torque-sensor
harness connector that cause the vehicles to lose power steering
while driving under a variety of conditions.

The defect manifests with a significant and abrupt reduction of the
power steering assist that makes turning of the steering wheel
difficult (the Power Steering Assist Defect).

The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased GM vehicles fitted with a
defective steering gear torque sensor cover assembly that causes
them to abruptly lose the power steering assist. It is a major
safety concern because drivers have reported that the defect can
cause a loss of control that may require a restart to temporarily
ameliorate the issue, the lawsuit says.

GM sold, leased, and continues to sell and lease the Class Vehicles
despite its awareness of the defect, according to the complaint. GM
chose and continues to choose financial gain at the expense of
consumers by concealing and omitting a disclosure of this critical
powertrain component and potential safety hazard to consumers who
purchase or lease Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff says he and Class Members have suffered harm because
of GM's decision not to disclose the defect by overpaying for their
vehicles and by paying significant sums for GM to attempt, and
fail, to properly diagnose and repair their vehicles that exhibit
the Power Steering Assist defect.

The Plaintiff seeks award of damages in excess of $5,000,000,
including the costs of inspecting and replacing the defective
electronic steering gear torque sensor cover assembly and equitable
relief, including an order requiring GM to adequately disclose and
repair the defect.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles
throughout the United States, including in the State of Michigan,
under the brand names Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          220 South Sixth Street No. 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mstevens@gustafsongluek.com


GEORGIA CLINIC: Nurse Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Assistants
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL NURSE, and ELMISA WHIGHAM, individually, and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. GEORGIA CLINIC, PC and
NARESH K. PARIKH, MD, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05246-JPB (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 20, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages to their medical assistants, in violation to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nurse was employed by the Defendants working from the Decatur
office as a Medical Assistant from March 2018. Whigham was also a
Medical Assistant working for the Defendants from September 26,
2018, until October 4, 2019. The Plaintiffs' job duties and
requirements involved setting appointments for patients, following
up with patients for appointments, completion of forms, data entry,
records maintenance, clerical duties, customer service, office
supply and stocking of rooms preparing for patients to be examined
and treated.

The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated working in the
same position or job have been treated and classified by the
Defendant as exempt from overtime wages without any premium for
overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says.

Naresh K. Parikh, MD, is the CEO of Georgia Clinic, PC, the primary
shareholder, partner and the highest ranking officer of the
Company. Georgia Clinic is a health care provider in Norcross
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6940 W. Linebaugh Avenue, No. 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
                  lschindler@feldmanlegal.us


GREAT HOME CARE: Pickney Seeks OT Pay for Healthcare Providers
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES PICKNEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff v. GREAT HOME CARE, INC., GREAT HOME
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., NAY-VEL SKILL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
RODOLFO D. VELASCO, and NATIVIDAD VELASCO, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-04552 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime for healthcare providers under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have a business plan
that includes paying non-exempt hourly employees the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, even those hours over 40 per workweek.
The Defendants' failure to pay the overtime premium required by law
allows them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow
the law in their employment practices, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Pickney has worked for the Defendants as a healthcare provider
since 2001. Mr. Pickney's duties include bathing, clothing, and
feeding residents, and accompanying residents to the various
locations, including doctors' appointments.

The Defendants provide services for individuals that have physical,
mental, and developmental disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOMBRES LOUNGE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credits
----------------------------------------------------------
Jhonny Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Zuluaga, Golen Perez, individually
and Hombres Lounge Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07033, (E.D.
N.Y., December 16, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest
associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Martinez worked for Hombres Lounge as a bartender from February
2016 through November 4, 2019. He claims to have regularly worked
in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. Martinez
also claims that Hombres took out a tip credit to pay non-tipped
employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      39 Broadway Suite 1530
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 344-9022
      Fax: (212) 344-0301


KODIAK CAKES: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kodiak Cakes, LLC.
The case is styled as Ty Stewart, Jocelyn Fielding, Laureene Buck,
Anna Altomare, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Kodiak Cakes, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Kodiak Cakes is a brand of pancake and waffle mix.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Adam Fox, Esq.
          The Plaza Building
          225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: (858) 256-7616
          Fax: (858) 256-7618
          Email: Dave@foxlawapc.com



KRIGER LAW: Faces Almada Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated class members v. KRIGER LAW FIRM, A.P.C., Case No.
3:19-cv-02109-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks remedies for
Krieger's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with
regard to its attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt
allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

Krieger is a professional corporation, with its principal place of
business in San Diego, California.

Krieger is in the business of collecting debt or "delinquent
assessments" on behalf of its homeowner association clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com


LEDIC MANAGEMENT: Sparks Seeks OT Wages for Maintenance Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SPARKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. LEDIC MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and DAVID
DUNAVANT, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00823-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov.
21, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and all other hourly-paid employees, who received commissions,
lawful overtime compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours per
week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid maintenance
worker from February 2014 until October 2019.

Ledic is one of the largest multi-family affordable and workforce
housing property owners, managers, and redevelopers in the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES TIMES: Faces Nathan Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Nathan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 8:19-cv-02435 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
17, 2019), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing auto-dialed calls to
cellphone owners, and to obtain damages for all persons similarly
injured by the Defendant's conduct.

Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant, in an attempt to secure
new customers (and sales) and leads for the merchant processing
companies, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign—often
stepping outside the law in the process, says the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone
numbers. While such calls to landlines may be permitted under the
Act, it is a plain violation of the TCPA to make such calls to
cellphones. The Defendant made repeated unsolicited calls to the
cellphones of the Plaintiff and others.

Plaintiff Nathan is a natural person residing in Los Angeles,
California.

LA Times is a newspaper that recruits new subscribers via
telemarketing (and potentially through other means).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristian Peirano, Esq.
          PEIRANO & ASSOCIATES INC.
          1616 E 4th St Ste 210
          Santa Ana, CA 92701-5145
          Phone: (714) 881-5985
          Fax: (714) 558-4854

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                 tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


MARGARITAS MEXICAN: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suazo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellissa Suazo, and Yessica Eloisa Jimenez Cuevas, for themselves
and on behalf of all of those similarly situated v. MARGARITAS
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, LLC, a Florida for Profit Corporation; and
GLORIA SANCHEZ, individually, Case No. 9:19-cv-81685-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants arising
from their willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that they worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours within one or more workweeks but the Defendants failed
to compensate the Plaintiffs at rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single work week. The Plaintiffs should be compensated at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate for those hours that
they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly-paid servers.

MARGARITAS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, LLC was a Florida profit
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 327-3039
          Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com


MDL 2804: Chicago Public School Sues Over Sale of Opioid Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
299 ("CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS"), on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. CEPHALON, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ENDO INTERNATIONAL
PLC, ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NORTH-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
n/k/a/ JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
MALLINCKRODT, PLC, MALLINCKRODT LLC, ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS
PLC, WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a/ WATSON
PHARMA, INC., AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,
McKESSON CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS
ALLIANCE, INC., A/K/A WALGREEN CO., and WALMART INC., F/K/A
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-46042-DAP (N.D.
Ohio., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from challenges the Plaintiff
experiences resulting from the impact of the nationwide opioid
epidemic on its students and employees.

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

The case is being consolidated in MDL 2804, IN RE: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.

Along with public school districts all over the country, Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) is experiencing unprecedented challenges and
costs resulting from the impact of the nationwide opioid epidemic
on its students and employees. As they have across the nation,
opioids have become the main source of drug overdoses in Chicago,
home to the students, teachers and other employees of CPS.

In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact
on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid
crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as
much as $500 billion per year.

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

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

The Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors
and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced
them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat
chronic pain. The Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like
family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the
elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors and
patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment guidelines,
medical education programs, medical conferences and seminars, and
scientific articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the
way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid
prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed
class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the
Defendants every year.

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

The Board of Chicago School District No. 299 (Chicago Public
Schools, CPS) is the school district, which provides all K-12
public education for the City of Chicago.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          Steve Skalet, Esq.
          Lauren Nussbaum, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephpone: 202 822 5100
          E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
                  sskalet@findjustice.com
                  lnussbaum@findjustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Emily R. Brown, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
          RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 580 0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  ebrown@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          Neil Henrichsen, Esq.
          Victoria Kroell, Esq.
          HENRICHSEN SIEGAL, PLLC
          301 W. Bay Street, Suite 1400
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904 381 8183
          E-mail: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com
                  vkroell@hslawyers.com

               - and -

          Wayne Hogan, Esq.
          Leslie Goller, Esq.
          TERREL HOGAN, P.A.
          233 E. Bay Street, Suite 80
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904 722 2228
          E-mail: hogan@terrellhogan.com
                  lgoller@terrellhogan.com


MDL 2885: Drago Suit Over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL DRAGO, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, and
AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11663 (Filed
Aug. 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on Nov. 21, 2019.

The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04808-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage he
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection.

3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close
collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary
breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2
helped service members better maintain situational awareness (e.g.,
to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some
protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds.  3M claims
CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the
military provide hearing protection to service members.

The Drago case is being consolidated with MDL 2885, In re: 3M
Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions and centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In its April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          Facsimile: (877) 599-8890
          E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com


MDL 2915: Minsky Class Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MARCUS MINSKY, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RICHARD FAIRBANK, and R. SCOTT BLACKLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05594 (Filed Oct. 2, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Alexandria) on Nov. 21, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19md2915 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The Minsky case is being consolidated with MDL 2915, In re: CAPITAL
ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues
concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual
gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained
on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit
card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit
card products.

All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all
allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and
other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern
District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation.
Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district
in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and
witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants
maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS
facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is
an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will
steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that
centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga.
The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICROGENICS CORP: Steele-Warrick Sues Over Erroneous Test Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROGENICS CORPORATION and THERMO
FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06558
(E.D.N.Y., NOV. 20, 2019), alleges that the Defendants breached
their duty to the Plaintiff and the Class by failing to ensure that
their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers yielded accurate and
reliable test results.

The case is a class action on behalf of hundreds of current and
former incarcerated New Yorkers, who were unjustly punished for
false positive drug test results in 2019.

Microgenics Corporation is the company hired by the New York
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to
provide, install, maintain, and train DOCCS employees on urinalysis
analyzers used to conduct drug testing at all DOCCS facilities.

Microgenics was required to ensure that the urinalysis analyzers
ran properly and produced accurate results. Due to its negligent
failure to fulfill this basic responsibility, hundreds of
individuals incarcerated in New York State prisons tested positive
for Suboxone/buprenorphine, and perhaps other substances, in 2019
even though they had not consumed that substance, any substance
known to trigger a false positive result, or any other illicit
substance, the Plaintiff contends.

Microgenics knew that DOCCS would use positive drug tests to
discipline individuals in DOCCS's custody, and that is what DOCCS
did. Relying on the false positive results generated by
Microgenics's urinalysis machines, DOCCS charged and severely
punished hundreds of individuals for drug use when they were
innocent of those charges, according to the complaint. The
punishments DOCCS levied for false positive results were
devastating to Class members, who had done nothing wrong and were
bewildered by the false accusations.

These punishments included weeks or months in solitary confinement,
weeks or months in keeplock (where the wrongfully accused
individuals were not permitted to leave their cell or dorm area),
loss of privileges like recreation, commissary, mail packages, and
phone, loss of visitation, loss of good time credit, loss of merit
time, loss of an open conditional release date, loss of a preferred
work assignment, denial of parole release, denial of participation
in the Family Reunion Program, removal from a necessary or desired
program, and transfer from a preferred facility or hub. In some
cases, individuals who lost good time credit or who had open parole
dates rescinded were held in prison months beyond their scheduled
release dates because of the faulty test results.

Because of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered pain and suffering, mental and emotional
distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of liberty, and monetary
damages. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory and punitive
damages for the injuries they suffered.

Microgenics and its parent company, Thermo Fisher Scientific, are
liable to the individuals currently and formerly incarcerated in
New York State prisons who received false positive test results due
to their negligent failure to ensure accurate and reliable test
results, the lawsuit says.

Nadezda Steele-Warrick is a 36-year-old woman, who resides in
Queens County, New York. From 2014 to 2019, Ms. Steele-Warrick was
in the custody of DOCCS.

Microgenics specializes in the development, manufacture, marketing,
and sale of products relating to clinical diagnostics. Microgenics
Corporation is a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of Defendant
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
          Andrew G. Celli, Esq
          Alanna Kaufman, Esq
          EMERY CELL BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000

               - and -

          Karen L. Murtagh, Esq.
          Michael Cassidy, Esq.
          David Bentivegna, Esq.
          Betsy Hutchings, Esq.
          Nicole Jolicoeur, Esq.
          PRISONERS LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK
          State Street, Suite M112
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 445-6050


MS. WINE SHOP: Urena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL URENA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MS. WINE SHOP INC. d/b/a BEST BUY WAREHOUSE WINES &
LIQUOR, and JUAN LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06562
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt stock
person, delivery worker, and cashier at the Store from April 20,
2015, until October 23, 2019, where his responsibilities included,
among other things, stocking merchandise, delivering orders to
customers, and working as a cashier.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
his lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the
FLSA and New York Labor Law, the lawsuit says.

MS. Wine Shop owns and operates a liquor and wine warehouse/store
located at 701 Fulton Street, in Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Lopez is
the President and Chief Executive Officer of MS. Wine Shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Tweed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA TWEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAPLETON ENTERPRISES, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07654 (N.D.
Ill.), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant owns automotive dealerships that sell vehicles for
individuals and businesses. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Affidavit Filed in Kansas City ERS Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY
OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI TRUST, and ERIC GILBERT, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated holders of VIACOM, INC. v.
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, SHARI
REDSTONE, ROBERT M. BAKISH, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH MCHALE, RONALD L.
NELSON, and NICOLE SELIGMAN, Case No. 2019-1017 (Del. Ch., Dec. 18,
2019), Eric Gilbert filed an affidavit and verification in
connection with the filing of a Verified Class Action Complaint.

Mr. Gilbert discloses that he was a beneficial owner of common
stock of Viacom, Inc. alleged in the Verified Stockholder Class
Acton Complaint and that he makes this affidavit in support of the
Complaint filed in the case. Mr. Gilbert makes this verification
and affidavit under penalty of perjury. He has read the Complaint
and consulted with counsel. He avers that the facts alleged in the
Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief.

In accordance with Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa), Mr.
Gilbert says he has not received, been promised or offered, and
will not accept any form of compensation, directly or indirectly,
for prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this action
except for: (a) such damages or other relief as the Court may award
him as a member of the class; (b) such fees, costs or other
payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to him or on
his behalf; or (c) reimbursement, paid by his attorneys, of actual
and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him directly in
connection with prosecution of this action.[BN]


NATIONAL GOLF: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rodriguez, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA and
WILLIAM MULLER, Case No. 2:19-cv-07052 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019),
is brought to recover from the Defendants, for the Plaintiff and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees:

   * overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
     hours per week;

   * unpaid "spread-of-hours" compensation;

   * liquidated damages; and

   * an award of attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
     Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Despite being one of America's most exclusive golf courses, the
Defendant does not compensate the caddies who, by policy of the
club, serve its members, the Plaintiff asserts. Although caddies,
such as the Plaintiff, work up to 12 hour days, 7 days a week, they
are only paid for each golf-bag they carry. The rate for doing so
is predetermined by the Defendant.

Under this system, the Defendant classifies their caddies as
neither employee nor independent contractor, and in the process
deprives them of the basic rights and entitlements under Federal,
State, and Local laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired to fill the role of caddy for the National
by Mr. Muller in 2003.

National is a private 18-hole course covering 253 acres on the
Peconic Bay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
          Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
          Rolando Delacruz, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Phone: (631) 589-7242
          Fax: (631) 563-7475
          Email: SZabell@laborlawsny.com
                 CCollorra@laborlawsny.com
                 RDelacruz@laborlawsny.com


NEW YORK CITY: Sarro Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sarro and Robert Giallanzo, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11596 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover earned but unpaid overtime
compensation owed to the Plaintiffs and members of the putative
collective for services performed while employed by the
Defendants.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to recover earned but unpaid
"Compensatory Time."

The Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay
the Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members for the Compensatory
Time which they had earned, in violation of the FLSA and its
implementing regulations. The Defendants have undertaken a willful
policy and practice of violating the FLSA by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs for their earned but unused compensatory time at the
time of their termination of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the City of New York with
the Department of Transportation.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the Constitution and laws of the State and City of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          Michele Moreno, Esq
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080


NEW YORK: BOD Files Two Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment
entered on September 24, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 19-3492; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 19-3483.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Viviane Kirchhoffer and Jeannette Consoro
Green are represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
          INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2400
          E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov


OC JEWISH DELI: Brown Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Dawn Brown and Johnna Hopkins, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. OC Jewish Deli and Diner, LLC, Warren
Steven Rosenfeld, Case No. 1:19-cv-03584-SAG (D. Md., Dec. 17,
2019), is brought against the Defendants under Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Maryland's Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and other relief.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week. The Defendants maintained a
practice and policy of not paying employees overtime wages and paid
employees at their straight wage or an incorrect and inadequate
overtime wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants have, therefore, violated the FLSA, the MWHL, and
MWPCL insofar as they failed to properly pay Plaintiff Brown, and
other similarly situated employees, overtime when they worked over
40 hours per week, in the amount of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay, for overtime hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a kitchen manager and
as an assistant manager at the Defendants' restaurant,

Defendants are engage in the operation of a restaurant and related
activities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
          Scott E. Kraff, Esq.
          Jordan S. Liew, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Phone: (301) 251-3752
          Fax: (301) 251-3753


OHIO NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Browning Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lance Browning filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Lance Browning v. Ohio National Life Ins. Co., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00763, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman recommended that the motion for judgment
on the pleadings filed by Defendants Ohio National Life Insurance
Co., Ohio National Life Assurance Co., Ohio National Equities,
Inc., and Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. ("ONFS"), be
denied.

The Plaintiff is one of the many licensed securities
representatives of the broker-dealer LPL Financial, LLC, who have
sold variable annuities to customers nationwide that feature a
guaranteed minimum income benefit ("GMIB") rider, offered by The
Ohio National Life Insurance Co. and its subsidiaries Ohio National
Life Assurance Corp. and Ohio National Equities, Inc. ("Ohio
National").  All of these entities operate under the umbrella of
Ohio National Financial Services, Inc.

Pursuant to the Selling Agreement entered into by Ohio National and
LPL, LPL and its affiliated securities representatives, including
the Plaintiff, marketed and sold the Ohio National GMIB variable
annuities to customers, with all customer premiums from those sales
being paid directly to Ohio National.  In return for promoting,
selling, and servicing these complex Annuities, LPL and its
affiliated securities representatives received commissions,
including "trailing commissions," that were paid to LPL and
affiliated securities representatives on a regular basis until and
unless the Annuities were surrendered or annuitized.

On Sept. 28, 2018, Ohio National announced that it was terminating
the Selling Agreement with LPL, and numerous other broker-dealers,
with regard to the Annuities.  As part of that termination, it also
announced that it would no longer pay trailing commissions stemming
from Annuities that were already in existence.  Effective Dec. 12,
2018, Ohio National stopped paying LPL and its affiliated
securities representatives any trailing commissions on the
Annuities.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference and promissory
estoppel, the Plaintiff also seeks an injunction to require Ohio
National to live up to its obligations under the Selling Agreement
and cease causing damage and irreparable harm, including the loss
of goodwill and the negative impact to the business relationships
and reputation of the Plaintiff and the proposed class.  The
Plaintiff additionally seeks declaratory relief resolving Ohio
National's future obligations pursuant to the Selling Agreement
with LPL.

The Plaintiff also brings the suit as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
himself and all members of the following Class: All persons who:
(1) act as securities representatives of LPL; and (2) have
solicited the sale of an Ohio National guaranteed minimum income
benefit Variable Annuity that that has not been surrendered or
annuitized.

The appellate case is captioned as Lance Browning v. Ohio National
Life Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 19-4082, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LANCE BROWNING, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43206
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com

Defendants-Appellees OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OHIO
NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, OHIO NATIONAL EQUITIES, INC.,
and OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., are represented by:

          Marion H. Little, Jr., Esq.
          ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
          41 S. High Street, Suite 3500
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-9900
          E-mail: little@litohio.com


OLIVERS APPAREL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olivers Apparel, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olivers Apparel,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07132 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019).

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

Olivers Apparel is an independent brand who makes premium athletic
staples.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Parisotti Securities Class Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Parisotti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Overstock.com, Inc., Patrick M.
Byrne and Gregory J. Iverson, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00932-EJF
(D. Utah, Nov. 20, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in that they:

   -- employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud;

   -- made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to
      state material facts necessary to make the statements not
      misleading; and

   -- engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business, which
      operated as a fraud and deceit upon those who purchased or
      otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the
      class period.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock.com. Inc.
common stock between May 9, 2019, and November 11, 2019,
inclusive.

Between May 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019, facts were revealed to
the investing public regarding: (i) the weakness of the Company
retail segment; (ii) the Companies inadequate internal controls and
procedures; and (iii) the Defendants manipulation of the market for
the Company's common stock.

According to the complaint, these facts were disclosed that were
contrary to Company's public statements made beginning on May 9,
2019. These disclosures caused Overstock's stock to decline by
$5.18 or 20% September 16, 2019 and $2.15 or 12% on September 17,
2019.

Mr. Parisotti is an individual residing in Tamarac, Florida, who
acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period. His acquisition of these shares was
made contemporaneously with inside-trading activity. He has been
damaged by the revelation of the Defendants' material
misrepresentations and material omissions, and the impact of these
revelations on his investment in Overstock.

The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for the Company's common stock. They would not have
purchased the Company's common stock at the price paid, or at all,
if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially
and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements.

Overstock is an American internet retailer founded in 1997 and sold
to Mr. Byrne in 1999. The Company initially sold exclusively
surplus and returned merchandise through an online e-commerce
marketplace, liquidating the inventories of at least 18 failed
dot-com companies at below-wholesale prices. The company continues
to sell home decor, furniture, bedding, and many other goods that
are closeout merchandise; however, it now sells new merchandise as
well.

Patrick M. Byrne is an American entrepreneur and founder of
Overstock. He was its Director and Chief Executive Officer until
his abrupt resignation on August 22, 2019. Byrne purportedly
resigned because he was "far too controversial" after claiming that
he had been involved in the "deep state" investigation of the 2016
presidential election. During the class period, Byrne made
materially false and misleading statements regarding Overstock's
business operations and prospects, which he knew or should have
known were materially false and misleading when made.

Also during the class period, Byrne sold more than $90 million of
his Overstock share while in possession of non-public, materially
adverse information regarding the Company. The Plaintiff avers that
those shareholders, who purchased shares contemporaneously with
Byrne's insider trading were also damaged and should receive a pro
rata share of Byrnes's profit from such trading.

Gregory J. Iverson was the Chief Financial Officer of Overstock
until his resignation on September 17, 2019. No reason was given
for Iverson's departure from the Company. During the class period,
Iverson made false and misleading statements regarding Overstock's
business operations and prospects, which he knew or should have
known were materially false and misleading when made.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          HARPER LAW PLC
          P.O. Box 581468
          Salt Lake City, UT 84158
          Telephone: (801) 910-4357
          E-mail: jharper@jonharperlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com
                  medlaney@blockesq.com


PERDUE FARMS: Williams Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Perdue Farms, et al., removed the case captioned as RONNIE
WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PERDUE FARMS INC., a Maryland corporation; PERDUE
FOODS LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; PETALUMA
ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; COLEMAN
NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; COLEMAN NATURAL
FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. Case No. CGC-19-579954
(Filed Oct. 11, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 21, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07671 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims arising from the Defendants' failure
to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages,
failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage
statements, and failure to timely pay all final wages under the
California Labor Code.

Perdue Farms provides chicken, food gifts, pork, lamb and other
great meats.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916 840 3150
          Facsimile: 916 840 3159
          E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com
          rabia.reed@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213.239.9800
          Facsimile: 213.239.9045
          E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com


PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM LLC: Williams Sues Over Violation of BIPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LaTonia Williams and Dequrvia Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Personalizationmall.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13507 (Ill.
Cir., Nov. 21, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture,
collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods, the
Defendant has instead implemented an invasive program that relies
on the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers'
fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute
and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant does this in
the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and
then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identify that same person
in the future.

The Plaintiffs worked at Defendant's warehouse in Burr Ridge,
Illinois in 2017 and 2018. The Plaintiffs seek damages and
injunctive relief for Defendant's BIPA violations.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of designing, producing
and distributing for sale via the Internet, framed, engraved and
personalized items.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312 201 0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 726 3400


PHH MORTGAGE: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Robert M. Moore, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH
Mortgage Corporation doing business as: PHH Mortgage Services,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00540 (N.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2019).

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

PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions. The
Company offers real estate and private label solutions,
correspondent lending, loan subservicing, and relocation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRINCIPE & STRASNICK: Letter Violates FDCPA, Soremekun Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
OLADUNNI SOREMEKUN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCIPE & STRASNICK, P.C.,
Defendant, Case NO. 1:19-cv-12389-DPW (D. Mass., Nov. 21. 2019),
seeks damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

On March 18, 2019, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a collection
letter regarding an alleged consumer debt. The Letter was the first
communication from the Defendant to the Plaintiff with regards to
the alleged consumer debt.

The Letter provided the Plaintiff with the following validation
notice: "Unless you, within thirty days after receipt of this
notice, notify us that you dispute any portion of this debt, the
debt will be assumed to be valid."

The Plaintiff, as would any least sophisticated consumer, read the
above language and was left unsure as to whom would assume the debt
to be valid. The Defendant confused and misled the Plaintiff by
stating that unless the Plaintiff disputes the debt, the debt will
be assumed to be valid, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a law firm with its principal office located at 17
Lark Avenue, in Saugus, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
          RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1400
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 340-9225
          Facsimile: (888) 622-3715
          E-mail: k.crick@rightsprotect.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@marcuszelman.com


RACHEL'S TAQUERIA: Perez Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Perez, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Rachel's Taqueria Inc., Felipe
Arellano Carlos Arellano and Ronny Jaramillo, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07025, (E.D. N.Y., December 16, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours"
pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Chela Restaurant" at 408 Fifth Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11215 where Perez worked as a dishwasher,
general helper, kitchen preparation assistant, cleaner and cook. He
generally works over 40 hours per week without the appropriate
overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      10 Grand Central
      155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Khan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recovery Solutions
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Mudasar Khan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Recovery
Solutions Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07107 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 19, 2019).

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

Recovery Solutions Group (RSG) is a debt collection agency located
in in Delaware, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sosa Sues Over Inaccessible Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10746 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Defendant operates REI Co-op retail stores as well as stores
for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State
of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIDGEVIEW REHAB: Wheeler Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clotill Wheeler, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RIDGEVIEW REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, LLC, and
STAY CARE MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 2019CH14577 (Ill., Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. Dec. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail their unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's
sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

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

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

Plaintiff Clotill Wheeler is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

Ridgeview is a short-term rehabilitation facility and nursing home
in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com


RREAF HOLDINGS: Roberts Seeks OT Wages for Hourly-Paid Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARIUS ROBERTS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF v. RREAF HOLDINGS, LLC, and BEACON
HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00812-KGB (E.D.
Ark., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid employees, who received
commissions, lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as both a leasing agent
and an assistant manager at their apartment complex in Little Rock
since June 2018.

RREAF Holdings operates apartment complexes primarily across the
South, Southeast and Southern Atlantic regions of the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RSA CATERING: Barnes Seeks to Recover Unlawfully Retained Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Barnes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RSA CATERING LLC d/b/a ELEGANT AFFAIRS; ANDREA
CORREALE; RANDY NAROD; and any other related entities, Case No.
527339/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Dec. 17, 2019), is brought
pursuant to New York Labor Law and 12 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations, to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities
owed to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully
retaining employees' gratuities at all of the Defendants' bar,
restaurant and catering venues located in New York, according to
the complaint. The Defendants failed to properly disclaim that the
Service Charge was not a gratuity for the staff. The Defendants
have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Service
Charge to the Plaintiff and instead retained the money for their
own benefit in violation of Labor Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for himself, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, compensation, including
gratuities that they were deprived of--plus interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants on multiple occasions at
the Defendants' off-premises catered events.

RSA CATERING LLC is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York and is engaged in the
hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Michelsen Sues Over Deductions, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Michelsen, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-02143 (M.D. Pa. December 16, 2019), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

S-L Distribution Company is a wholesale distributor of various
snack food products where Michelsen distributed its products
outside of Illinois to retail stores and other customers within
specific geographic areas. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
takes out deductions from her earnings that include route loan
repayments, truck loan repayments, truck rental payments and
electronic equipment. She claims to regularly incur work-related
expenses for gas, vehicle maintenance/repair and insurance which
are not reimbursed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Phone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

             - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Matthew Thomson, Esq.
      Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             mthomson@llrlaw.com
             zrubin@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      J. Chadwick Hatmaker, Esq.
      J. Keith Coates, Jr., Esq.
      WOOLF, McCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
      Post Office Box 900 Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-0900
      Tel: (865) 215-1000
      Fax: (865) 215-1001
      Email: chatmaker@wmbac.com
             kcoates@wmbac.com


SCHENKER INC: Orpilla Sues Over Improper Use of Credit Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ORPILLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHENKER, INC., a New York company; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV358821 (Cal.
Super. Nov. 20, 2019), arises from Defendants' violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar California laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports
(credit and background reports) to conduct background checks on the
Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and
use information from credit and background reports in connection
with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and
obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all class members, seek all
available remedies including statutory damages and/or actual
damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Schenker, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services. The
company offers land transport, air and ocean freight, and contract
logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS-PEYTON GALLERY: Mendez Says Website Inaccessible to Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
Himelda Mendez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Sears-Peyton
Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11506 (S.D. N.Y., December
16, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates an art gallery located at 210 11th Avenue, New
York with an online site, www.searspeyton.com. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      John M. Gurrieri, 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
      Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
             jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com

             - and -

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


SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in LaSpina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bethany LaSpina filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Bethany LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State, et
al., Case No. 3-18-cv-02018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 31, 2019, the
District Court issued a memorandum granting the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The Plaintiff is an employee of SPL, which is a Pennsylvania
non-profit corporation and represented in collective bargaining by
Local 668.  The Plaintiff joined Local 668 in October 2015 and was
a dues-paying member of this union until she resigned her
membership.

In this case, plaintiff essentially claims that she was
unconstitutionally required to pay union dues. She raises three
federal claims in her SAC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

In Count 1, a putative class action claim, the Plaintiff alleges
that she and other public employees were employed in
unconstitutional agency shops before the Court decided Janus
because non-union members were required to pay fair-share fees for
union representation.

In Count 2, the Plaintiff alleges that Local 668 and SPL violated
her constitutional rights and state law by failing to stop
deductions for dues from her pay after she resigned from the
union.

In Count 3, the Plaintiff alleges that the receipt of membership
dues by all of the union defendants is unconstitutional until the
unions obtain affirmative consents from employees authorizing them
to deduct dues pursuant to Janus, and obtain new agreements to
allow them to deduct dues from the pay of their members.

The appellate case is captioned as Bethany LaSpina v. SEIU
Pennsylvania State, et al., Case No. 19-3484, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BETHANY LASPINA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shannon Conway, Esq.
          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C.
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730
          E-mail: sconway@talcottfranklin.com
                  tal@talcottfranklin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (650) 723-1397
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

               - and -

          Edmond R. Shinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDMOND R. SHINN, ESQ., LTD.
          7032 Lafayette Avenue
          Fort Washington, PA
          Telephone: (610) 308-6455

               - and -

          Walter S. Zimolong, III, Esq.
          ZIMOLONG LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 552
          Villanova, PA 19085
          Telephone: (215) 665-0842
          E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 32BJ and PENNSYLVANIA JOINT BOARD OF WORKERS UNITED are
represented by:

          Martin W. Milz, Esq.
          Samuel L. Spear, Esq.
          SPEAR WILDERMAN PC
          230 South Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 732-0101
          E-mail: mmilz@spearwilderman.com
                  sspear@spearwilderman.com

Defendants-Appellees SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
668 and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE INC
PENNSYLVANIA are represented by:

          Lauren M. Hoye, Esq.
          WILLIG WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          E-mail: lhoye@wwdlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON NUSSBAUM BERZON & RUBIN
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

Defendant-Appellee SCRANTON PUBLIC LIBRARY is represented by:

          J. Timothy Hinton, Jr., Esq.
          HAGGERTY HINTON & COSGROVE LLP
          203 Franklin Avenue
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 344-9845
          E-mail: timhinton@haggertylaw.net


SILVER CREEK: Snow Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Snow, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVER CREEK MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC and
SILVER CREEK MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00241-ABJ (D. Wy., Nov. 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other
welding inspectors under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Snow and the other SCM employees
regularly work more than 40 hours in a week, but SCM does not pay
them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead of paying overtime, Snow received a daily rate
with no overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

Mike Snow worked for SCM from the beginning of March 2019 until
June 2019. The Plaintiff was a welding inspector.

SCM is a private midstream company focused on providing crude oil
gathering, transportation, and storage services in Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Gage, Esq.
          RICHARD GAGE, P.C.
          1815 Pebrican Ave.
          P.O. Box 1223
          Cheyenne, WY 82003-1223
          Telephone: (307) 433-8864
          Facsimile: (307) 635-1511

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ginsberg Securities Suit Moved to Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled BARRY GINSBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC.,
DAVID KATZMAN, KYLE WAILES, STEVEN KATZMAN, ALEXANDER FENKELL, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and CAMELOT VENTURE GROUP, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09794 (Filed Oct. 23, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Nov.
19, 2019.

The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01040 to the proceeding

The suit pursues claims against Smiledirectclub, Inc., certain of
its top officials, and certain banks which acted as underwriters to
the initial public offering (IPO) under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub
Class A common stock (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's September 12, 2019 initial public offering, or (b) during
the period from September 8, 2019 through October 2, 2019,
inclusive, and suffered damages in connection with the Defendant's
wrongdoing.

On September 12, 2019, SmileDirectClub completed its IPO, issuing
shares at a price of $23.00 per share (the "Offering Price").

The Company sold approximately 58.54 million shares of Class A
common stock and received proceeds of approximately $1.27 billion,
net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from
the IPO were purportedly to be used for employee incentive bonuses,
certain equity arrangements, and general corporate disclosures.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Price was inflated, and the
shares have not traded remotely close to that price since becoming
publicly available.

On September 24, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Middle District of Tennessee by dentists, orthodontists, and
consumers against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors for false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that
inaccurate statements were made in the Registration Statement and
that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a
dentist without proper licensing in several states, among other
litigation.

On this news, the SDC share price fell $1.47 (or nearly 9%), from
$17.15 to $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually high
trading volume. The price continued to decline over the next two
trading sessions to close at $14.51 on September 25, 2019, and
$12.94 on September 26, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. The
cumulative decline as a result of this disclosure was $4.21.

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

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the Defendants' wrongdoing.

SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company that purports to be the
"first direct-to-consumer medtech platform for transforming
smiles." The Company produces 3D-printed clear dental aligners on
3D printers at its Tennessee headquarters, which are utilized by
consumers to correct orthodontic issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 699-1194
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com


SPECIALTIES BINDING: Ocon Sues Over Illicit Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Ocon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPECIALTIES BINDING, INC. d/b/a SPECIAL TY FINISHING
GROUP, Case No. 2019CH14525 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 17, 2019),
is brought against the Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative
Class members' sensitive biometric data.

When employees first begin their jobs at Specialty, they are
required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking
system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs
or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits
to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also
serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the
employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from
situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and
store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Despite this law, the Plaintiff contends, Specialty disregarded its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA. Specifically, Specialty has violated the BIPA because it did
not: properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in writing
of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff and the Class's
fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a written
release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect,
capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA,
says the complaint.

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

Defendant Specialty is a binding and printing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: 630.355.7590
          Fax: 630.778.0400
          Email: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                 dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                 jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
                 mara@fishlawfirm.com


SUMMIT HEALTHCARE: Blackburn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Justin Blackburn, Carson Miller and Michelle Stoddart
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled
Justin Blackburn, et al. v. Summit Healthcare Association, et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01956-JAS-LCK, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
involves several White Mountain people and organizations that were
allegedly involved in recruiting patients for surgeries in Mexico.

The case involves people who say they have been injured as a result
of weight loss surgery referred to as lap band surgery which they
received in Mexico, but was promoted and organized by Arizona
residents and companies, some who were based in the White
Mountains.  Described by many providers as a "quick, minimally
invasive surgery," it comes with inherent risks as do all
surgeries. Some former patients say the information they received
about the surgeries was fraudulent, and the care they received was
dangerously negligent.

The appellate case is captioned as Justin Blackburn, et al. v.
Summit Healthcare Association, et al., Case No. 19-17227, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on December 30, 2019;

   -- Appellants Justin Blackburn, Carson Miller and Michelle
      Stoddart's opening brief is due on February 7, 2020;

   -- Appellees Kristie Blackman, Walter Blackman, Does, Fill
      Centers USA, Kathy Fox, S. Ross Fox, Grossbard, Lee
      Grossbard, Gwendolyn Hall, Heber Women's Clinic, Holmes,
      Katie Holmes, Mariposa Surgical Services LLC, Ortiz, Ariel
      Ortiz, S3 Investors Incorporated, Snowflake Women's Clinic,
      Stratton, Daniel Stratton, Iris Stratton, Jason Stratton,
      Summit Healthcare Association and Twigs Link Corporation's
      answering brief is due on March 9, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JUSTIN BLACKBURN, CARSON MILLER and MICHELLE
STODDART, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Robert Miles Gregory, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY, P.C.
          1425 West Elliot Road, Suite 201
          Gilbert, AZ 85233
          Telephone: (480) 664-0855
          E-mail: robert.gregory@azbar.org

Defendant-Appellee SUMMIT HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION, an Arizona
non-profit entity, DBA Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center,
DBA Summit Healthcare Snowflake Medical Center, is represented by:

          Carl Francis Mariano, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          2929 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 385-1040
          E-mail: Carl.Mariano@lewisbrisbois.com

Defendants-Appellees S3 INVESTORS INCORPORATED, an Arizona
corporation; TWIGS LINK CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, DBA
T.W.I.G.S., DBA Weight Is Gone Surgically; IRIS STRATTON; DANIEL
STRATTON, a married couple; S. ROSS FOX, M.D.; KATHY FOX, a married
couple; and FILL CENTERS USA, an Arizona partnership, are
represented by:

          Michael R. Ellsworth, Esq.
          RIGGS, ELLSWORTH & PORTER, P.L.C.
          240 North White Mountain Road
          Show Low, AZ 85901
          Telephone: (928) 537-3228

Defendants-Appellees HEBER WOMEN'S CLINIC, an Arizona sole
proprietorship; SNOWFLAKE WOMEN'S CLINIC, an Arizona sole
proprietorship; and GWENDOLYN HALL, a single woman, are represented
by:

          William W. Drury, Jr., Esq.
          John Anthony Klecan, Esq.
          RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA
          One North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 307-9900
          E-mail: wdrury@rcdmlaw.com
                  jklecan@rcdmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ARIEL ORTIZ and ORTIZ, named as Jane Doe
Ortiz, a married couple, AKA Cynthia Ortiz, are represented by:

          Vaughn Alan Crawford, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One Arizona Center
          400 East Van Buren Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6000
          E-mail: vcrawford@swlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees LEE GROSSBARD, M.D.; and GROSSBARD, named as
Jane Doe Grossbard, a married couple, AKA Shelley Grossbard, are
represented by:

          James Christopher Goodwin, Esq.
          J. GOODWIN LAW PLLC
          250 N Litchfield Rd., Suite 245
          Goodyear, AZ 85338
          Telephone: (480) 565-3780

TEAM HEALTH: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC. and TEAM HEALTH,
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00517 (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 17, 2019), is brought
to secure redress for the Defendants' violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

In order to recruit individuals to place with its clients, the
Defendants obtained the cellular telephone number of the Plaintiff
and thousands or tens of thousands of other medical professionals,
including Class Members, and then proceeded to send or cause others
to send unsolicited telemarketing text messages to those
individuals, using ATDS equipment. The Plaintiff and the other
Class Members never consented to receive such text messages, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, a physician, and a citizen of
the state of Illinois.

Team Health is a nationwide physician practice that provides
emergency medicine, hospital medicine, anesthesiology, critical
care, obstetrics, orthopedic surgery, general surgery, ambulatory
care, post-acute care, and medical call center solutions, to acute
and post-acute facilities nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Unlawfully Depreciates Labor Costs, Russ Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Russ, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents
similarly situated v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-05487-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 17, 2019),
arises from the Defendant's breach of its contractual duty to pay
the Plaintiff and other proposed class members the actual cash
value of her claims by unlawfully depreciating labor costs.

On September 1, 2019, Ms. Russ's house located at 11016 Santa
Barbara Drive, in Plain City, Ohio, suffered damage covered by
policy number OHF687993953894633 1, issued to Russ by Travelers.
The damage to the Insured Property required replacement and/or
repair. While Travelers did compensate her for certain damage to
her property, under its ACV calculations, Travelers systematically
and improperly depreciated the cost of the labor required to repair
the damage to the Insured Property, Ms. Russ alleges.

As a result, Ms. Russ contends, Travelers underpaid her claim,
thus, leaving her under-indemnified. By underpaying her claim,
Travelers denied her access to funds necessary to pick up the
pieces during a period of great need and tremendous stress, the
Plaintiffs avers. She adds that this is directly contrary to the
purpose of insurance--to protect insureds when they are in such
need. Ohio law allows an insurer to depreciate the value of
building materials, but does not allow the depreciation of the cost
of labor.

As a result, by depreciating labor costs from its ACV calculations
around Ohio, Travelers has engaged, and continues to engage, in a
systematic and unlawful pattern of underpayment of insurance
claims, says the complaint.

Ms. Russ contracted with Travelers for an insurance policy
providing coverage for certain losses to the Insured Property.

Travelers is authorized to sell property insurance policies in the
State of Ohio and is engaged in the insurance business in the State
of Ohio, including Union County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
          WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
          P.O. Box 6
          2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
          Thornville, OH 43076
          Phone: 740.974.7730
          Facsimile: 614.829.3070
          Email: steve@whetstonelegal.com

               - and –

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-225-3731
          Facsimile: 859-225-3830
          Email: edp@austinmehr.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Nicolas Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jericho Nicolas, Juan Montalvo, Gary Baumgarten, Christine
Tringali, Carlos Alvarez, Rick Anderson, Kamal Suri, Jorge Jimenez,
Jaime Del Real, Lisette Castillo, Benjamin Laney, Kelly Clifton,
Eric Calvillo Hernandez, Steven Robert Callahan, William Fredrick
Hooper, Juan Jamarron, Mark Glinoga, Richard Trujillo, David Kim,
Marcos Montes, Barton Lasheem, Michael Kramer, Dora Waters, Kevin
Neely, Rolando Vega, Shamar Drew, Zuleyma Torres, Gerardo Madrigal,
Sevak Vartanpour, Claudia Duque, Timothy Kershaw, Kevin Byler, Yhon
Lara, Yazmine, Royal Gatson and Majd Isikandafi, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated and Aggrieved v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 3:19-cv-08228 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2019), is brought
pursuant to California Labor Code, California Code of Regulations,
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, for unpaid wages,
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants intentionally misclassified the Plaintiffs and other
Class Members as independent contractors when they were employees
under the law, according to the complaint. From April 2018 and
continuing to the present, and pursuant to company policy and/or
practice and/or direction, the Defendant failed to: (1) provide
final paychecks immediately upon involuntary termination or within
72 hours of voluntary separation; (2) pay final wages at the
location of employment; and (3) include all wages due in the final
paychecks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as "ride-share drivers" for the Defendant.

UBER developed and maintains a technology platform that connects
riders with ride-share drivers through an application on their
respective mobile devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Patatanyan, Esq.
          Neama Rahmani, Esq.
          Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
          WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 927-3700
          Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
          Email: filings@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                 allen@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                 nr@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                 ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Waronker Securities Class Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Waronker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., KEVIN A. PLANK, PATRIK
FRISK, DAVID E. BERGMAN, BRAD DICKERSON, and LAWRENCE "CHIP"
MOLLOY, Case No. 1:19-cv-03581-GLR (D. Md., Dec. 17, 2019), is
brought on behalf of persons other than the Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Under Armour
securities between September 16, 2015, and November 1, 2019,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued financial
statements that were materially false and/or misleading because
they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining
to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Plaintiff avers, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) Under
Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier,
including to keep pace with their long-running streak of
year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; and 2) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on the U.S.
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission
investigations into Under Armour's accounting practices and related
disclosures. The article, entitled "Under Armour Is Subject of
Federal Accounting Probes," noted that the investigations are
concerning whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to
quarter to appear healthier. Justice Department prosecutors were
conducting a criminal inquiry into the matter in coordination with
civil investigators at the SEC.

The Wall Street Journal updated its article the next morning with a
response from the Company, confirming that it had been cooperating
with the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange
Commission since July 2017.

On this news, Class C shares of Under Armour (UA) fell $3.47 per
share or 18.35% to close at $15.44 per share and Class A shares of
Under Armour (UAA) fell $4.00 per share or 18.92% to close at
$17.14 per share on November 4, 2019, damaging investors, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Under Armour securities during the Class
Period.

Under Armour is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of
business located at Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin H. Schreiber, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN H. SCHREIBER II, LLC
          3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Phone: (410) 366-4777
          Facsimile: (443) 303-5688
          Email: mhs@schreiber-law.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                 mdees@holzerlaw.com
                 lkennedy@holzerlaw.com


UNITED IRON: Romero-Quesada Seeks Overtime Wages for Welders
------------------------------------------------------------
YUNIESKI ROMERO-QUESADA, and other similarly situated individuals
v. UNITED IRON WORKS, INC. and FERNANDO COLOMA, Case No.
1:19-cv-24809-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by United Iron as a welder. He alleges
that he worked approximately an average of five hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed.

The Plaintiff was employed as a welder performing the same or
similar duties as that of those other similarly situated welders,
whom he observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

United Iron was founded in 1955. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing fabricated structural metal and steel or
other metal products for structural purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres Rivera-Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES RIVERA-ORTIZ, P.A.
          3350 SW 1481 Ave., Ste. 110
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Telephone: (305) 643-2255
          E-mail: riveraortizpa@gmail.com


VIRIDIAN ARTISTS: Mendez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Himelda Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VIRIDIAN ARTISTS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11558
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its Web site--
http://www.viridianartists.com/--andtherefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Because
the Defendants' Web site is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.

The Defendants' art gallery operates as a place of public
accommodation, as a sales establishment and/or place of
exhibition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10782-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Defendant operates Vitamin Shoppe retail stores as well as
stores for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State
of New York and throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


WAITR HOLDINGS: Sued by Bates Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
KELLY BATES, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated v. CHRISTOPHER MEAUX, DAVID PRINGLE, JEFF YURECKO, TILMAN
J. FERTITTA, RICHARD HANDLER, WAITR HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a LANDCADIA
HOLDINGS, INC., JEFFERIES FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., and JEFFERIES,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01427 (W.D. La., Nov. 4, 2019), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Old-Waitr's
going public transaction and business combination on November 15,
2018, with Landcadia Holdings, Inc., and the follow-on secondary
offering on May 16, 2019, of Waitr securities.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of making materially false and
misleading statements that were published into the market from May
17, 2018, to August 8, 2019, in connection with the Going Public
Transaction and the Secondary Offering.  The Plaintiff adds that
the Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded the materially
false and misleading statements when made and/or that omitted
information necessary to make the Defendants' statements, in light
of such omissions, true, accurate and reliable.

Formed in 2013 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Waitr Inc. ("Old-Waitr")
(pre-merger entity) began operations in 2014 as a platform for
online mobile food ordering and delivery service from restaurants.
Christopher Meaux ("Meaux) was co-Founder of Waitr Inc. and during
the Class Period he served as Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Chairman of the Board of Directors.  After a slow start, the
Company expanded rapidly, connecting restaurants, diners, and
delivery drivers predominately in non-urban "underserved"
tertiary-markets as the popularity of third-party online food
delivery mobile application "apps" grew.

At the same time Waitr was created, nationally, well-known,
well-funded and even profitable competitive brands had already
emerged.  Thus, by the inception of the Class Period, Waitr faced
strong competition from Grubhub, DoorDash, and UberEats, which were
each dominant primary market participants who had set their sights
on secondary markets.

Prior to the Going Public Transaction, Landcadia was a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or "blank check company") whose
business was to effect a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses.  Landcadia was founded in
2008, and in May 2016, completed an initial public offering raising
approximately $250 million.

Pursuant to the terms of its offering, Landcadia and its
co-chairmen, Tilman Fertitta--a billionaire sports, restaurant and
casino owner--and Richard Handler--the CEO of global investment
bank, Jefferies Financial Group, Inc--were required to complete an
acquisition within 24 months, or by June 1, 2018.  If, however,
Landcadia, Fertitta, and Handler were unable to complete an initial
business combination within that time, Landcadia would be forced to
redeem 100% of its public shares and to liquidate itself at a
per-share price, payable in cash and including interest.

It was with two weeks left before Landcadia's deadline that it
announced the last-minute agreement to enter a combination with
Old-Waitr, whereby Landcadia would acquire Old-Waitr for cash and
stock valued at $308 million--with $50 million cash and the
remainder in stock--and whereby post-acquisition entity Waitr
shares would immediately begin trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

While this was never discussed by the Defendants or disclosed as a
risk in Landcadia's SEC filings related to the Going Public
Transaction, in fact, the use of the blank-check/SPAC--Landcadia
initially formed as an SPAC whose business was to effect a
merger--to acquire Waitr was fraught with additional risks that
were undisclosed at the time of the merger, but which ultimately
subjected investors to devastating and almost complete losses--90%
from the Class Period high of $15, the Plaintiff alleges.

According to the complaint, as investors ultimately learned, a SPAC
facing the end of its redemption period combined with an immature
under-developed company that would otherwise have remained private
is a recipe for disaster.  A SPAC (with notoriously weak internal
controls) incentivized by its high-fee, low-risk structure faced
with an impending redemption is also incentivized to rush deal(s)
and foist heightened and often (as here) undisclosed risks onto
investors.  While SPACs may be referred to as "Poor Man's Private
Equity" because of their high 20% fee structure, SPACs differ from
most private equity ("PE") firms, which invest significant
expertise, conduct massive due diligence, and do not rush into
deals.

Unfortunately for investors, none of these additional risks were
properly disclosed and at the time Waitr shares began trading
investors did not know that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve
profitability and, contrary to Defendant Meaux's statements, Waitr
was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created the
illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of illegal
and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues and
earnings--such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses--both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage, and again contrary to representations
by Defendant Meaux, the Company could not obtain the developer,
programming, or engineering resources necessary to enhance,
maintain and develop industry-leading software from its headquarter
location in Lake Charles, Louisiana, the Plaintiff contends.

As investors like the Plaintiff also ultimately learned at the end
of the Class Period, Waitr's business plan would not work, and the
Company could not fund growth with operations because Waitr could
not provide services in remote locations to small customers at a
rate that they could afford and that also allowed Waitr to be
profitable, the Plaintiff asserts. In fact, the Plaintiff adds,
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants had been clandestinely
raising prices in breach of low-rate agreements Waitr had
previously entered into and/or were preparing for massive price
increases to cover the subsidies of providing delivery service.
Moreover, it now has been estimated that Waitr may also owe drivers
as much as $800 million in withheld mileage reimbursement payments
that acted as illegal wage kickbacks to the Company, and which
resulted in Waitr drivers earning less than minimum wage of $7.25
per hour (less than half the rates Meaux reported drivers earned in
the Class Period).

The final shoe fell on Waitr investors on August 8, 2019, the last
day of the Class Period, according to the complaint.  That day,
Waitr shares collapsed, falling over 50% in active trading as Waitr
reported abysmal financial and operational results for the second
quarter of 2019, and after it was reported that Defendant Meaux had
been terminated as CEO of the Company (but allowed to remain as
Board Chairman).  Investors then learned that Meaux had been
replaced by a 35-year-old with very limited relevant work
experience, who was promoted within Waitr three times since joining
the Company in February 2019.

At that time, Waitr also reported massive losses, terrible
operating performance, huge cost increases, diminishing prospects,
and losses accelerating far in advance of any growth.  Waitr also
announced that it had failed to meet guidance, which had recently
been reaffirmed. Despite raising prices dramatically, Waitr also
reduced earnings forecasts by at least 20% on a forward-looking
basis, the lawsuit says.

In response to Waitr's shocking disclosures on August 8, 2019, the
price of Waitr stock crashed from $3.76 per share on August 8 to an
intraday low of $1.31 before closing the trading--day at $1.89 per
share on August 9--a single-day decline of nearly 50% and a decline
of almost 90% from the Class Period high above $15, and a loss of
almost $800 million of market capitalization, all in under five
months, the Plaintiff notes.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The Plaintiff acquired the common stock of Waitr in connection with
the Going Public Transaction and/or the Secondary Offering, and/or
Waitr securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, and has been damaged thereby.

Waitr Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  According to
the Company's profile, Waitr purports to be a leading online food
ordering and delivery service connecting local restaurants to
diners in underserved markets via its Web site and mobile
application ("app") Waitrapp.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
          O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
          3500 North Hullen Street
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 456-8677
          Facsimile: (504) 456-8653
          E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


WE COMPANY: Sojka Seeks to Enjoin $1.7BB Reward to Adam Neumann
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE SOJKA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of THE WE COMPANY, Plaintiff v.
ADAM NEUMANN, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, RONALD FISHER, LEWIS FRANKFORT,
STEVEN LANGMAN, MARK SCHWARTZ, JOHN ZHAO, MASAYOSHI SON, SOFTBANK
GROUP CORPORATION, and DOES 1-25, Defendants, and THE WE COMPANY,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. CGC19580474 (Cal. Super., Nov. 4,
2014), accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties
by engaging in self-dealing and by mismanaging We so badly that its
initial public offering had to be withdrawn.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for the minority shareholders and the
Company and also seeks to enjoin the proposed self-dealing
transactions with SoftBank that would reward Mr. Neumann with $1.7
billion but offer minority shareholders with nothing other than a
coercive tender offer to buy back some of their shares at depressed
and unfair prices.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' actions are
substantially unfair to The We Company's minority shareholders and
have caused and will continue to cause significant damage to the
Company and its shareholders.

According to the complaint, Defendants Adam Neumann and Softbank
are attempting to use their control of the Company to benefit
themselves to the detriment of the Company's minority shareholders.
Neumann has recently abused his control of the Company to usurp
$1.7 billion in payments to himself, which payments were approved
by Softbank.

Softbank stands to benefit from the proposed transactions because
it is increasing its stake by buying up shares at depressed values,
which were created by the Defendants' own wrongdoing, the Plaintiff
says. Mr. Neumann is being offered a staggering $185 million
"consulting fee" despite the fact that Softbank seems to concede
that Neumann ruined the Company.

It is beyond comprehension why Neumann would be paid $185 million
to provide strategic guidance to the Company when his "guidance"
resulted in the virtual destruction of the Company, the Plaintiff
contends. Instead, the fee simply represents self-dealing and an
improper personal payment to Neumann.

We had reportedly been reduced to less than $10 billion immediately
prior to the proposed IPO, the consummation of the IPO would have
required Softbank to write down the value of its investment by a
huge amount, thus reducing the value of its Vision fund, alienating
investors in its fund, and making it harder for Softbank and
Masayoshi Son to raise capital from new and existing investors in
Softbank's Vision IT Fund which is currently being pedaled to
well-heeled investors, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff, who is a current shareholder of the We Company,
avers that the harm proved so devastating that We was forced to
withdraw its IPO, which was supposed to be the second largest IPO
in 2019 after Uber's IPO, thus, eliminating the liquidity and
substantial premium that We's minority shareholders had been
promised.

Adam Neumann is the founder, Chairman, CEO, and controlling
shareholder of The We Company. We is an American commercial real
estate company that provides shared workspaces for technology
startups and services for other enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Rosenbaum Sues Over Sale of Defective Cooktops
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. ROSENBAUM individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
KITCHENAID, INC., JENN-AIR CORP, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02942
(D. Minn., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from Whirlpool's failure to
adequately design, manufacture, and/or test its defective cooktops
to ensure that they were free from defects before offering them for
sale to the Plaintiff and Class members.

Whirlpool represents that the company is committed to delivering
significant, long-term value to consumers through innovative,
high-quality products that solve everyday problems. Whirlpool also
represents in its Electric Cooktop User Instructions that its
electric cooktops touch controls offer a variety of heat settings
and that, to use, the consumer must touch the ON/OFF control for
the desired element, affirming that users should follow basic
precautions to reduce the risk of fire.

Despite these representations, Whirlpool has designed,
manufactured, distributed, and sold "Defective Cooktops" that
present a serious safety risk to its consumers, and an accompanying
risk of property loss, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defective
Cooktops that the Plaintiff and Class members purchased have
serious material safety defects that cause or will cause the
Defective Cooktops to malfunction during the expected and
foreseeable useful life of the Defective Cooktops.

The Defects represent an unreasonable risk of spontaneous ignition
and fire, resulting in property damage and loss, personal injury,
and/or death. The defects include, at minimum, a negligent design
that allows the Defective Cooktops to turn on by themselves,
creating a fire hazard.

Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of the serious
safety Defects within the Defective Cooktops, they would not have
purchased the Defective Cooktops or would have paid substantially
less for the Defective Cooktops, the lawsuit says.

Whirlpool Corporation is the world's leading major home appliance
company, with approximately $21 billion in annual sales.
Whirlpool's products are advertised and sold worldwide under the
primary trademarks of Whirlpool (TM), KitchenAid (TM), Maytag (TM),
Consul (TM), Brastemp (TM), Amana (TM), Bauknecht (TM), Jenn-Air
(TM), Indesit (TM), and other major brand names in nearly every
country around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Gabrielle Olivieri Sliwka, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  gsliwka@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibralter Road, Ste. 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          Sean R. Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                  Sean@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com


WINTERS CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Soares Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Soares, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Winters Construction, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-1460 (W.D.
Tex., Dec. 17, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid a salary but not
paid overtime for all hours over 40 in a work week. The Plaintiff
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff and
the Class Members were not "exempt" employees.

This lawsuit covers the period of time the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members were not paid time and one-half his regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an equipment operator.

The Defendant is a construction company building roads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Office: 817-416-5060
          Fax: 817-416-5062
          Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***