CAR_Public/191230.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 0

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Defends Bull Class Action in W.D.N.Y.
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Joseph Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ALI SHOBEIRI: Court Awards $8K in Attorney’s Fees in Johnson Suit
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Morris Files Civil Rights Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Escambia County School Files PI Suit in Florida

AMAIN.COM INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
ANTENNA STAR: Swanson Seeks OT Wages for Installation Technicians
APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Wheaton Lawsuit
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Robbins Geller Notes of Jan. 14 Deadline
ASHLEY FURNITURE: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Razo Suit

ASPEN NATIONAL: Hochstrasser Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
BAXTER INT'L: Silverman Sues Over Decline in Common Stock Price
BEE-LINE DELIVERY: McCallister Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
BLOOM ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 3 Plaintiff Deadline
BLUE CROSS: Sacked Workers Sue Over Denied Claims

BLYTHEVILLE, AR: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Carlock Tax Suit
BOBCAT NORTH: Huff Seeks to Certify Collective Action
CRST EXPEDITED: Broome Suit Moved From California to N.D. Alabama
CRUTCHFIELD NEW MEDIA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
DAVID STANLEY: Solberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

DECKERS OUTDOOR: Matzura Files Class Suit in New York
DOMAINE CHANDON: Pirali Sues Over Wine Club Membership Charges
DRIVER SOLUTIONS: App. Court Upholds Certification of Downey Suit
E-3 SYSTEMS: Bid to Remand Franco Suits to State Court Denied
EI DU PONT: Court Denies Certification of Class in Rolan Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Carl Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gil Files FCRA Suit in New York
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gil Files FCRA Suit in New York
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Deal in Hendrickson FDCA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
FSC SCHOOLS: Class Action Alleges Sexual Abuse by Priests in Quebec

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Suriaga Suit Without Prejudice
GEO GROUP: Hughes Files Prisoner Suit Indiana
GIANT EAGLE: Fitch et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
GREENBERG CLARK: Faces Baker Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
H&R BLOCK: Vazquez-Rivera "No Poach" Policy Suit Moved to Missouri

HERBALIFE INT'L: Rodgers Suit Moved From California to Florida
HERITAGE EQUIPMENT: Orzoco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HERTZ CORP: Fails to Reimburse Business Expenses, Molina Claims
J JACOBO FARM: Court Certifies Class in Gomez Labor Suit
KALISPELL REGIONAL: Possible Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach

KATE SPADE: Mendez Files ADA Class Action in NY
KELLOGG CO: Court Denies Continuation of Mohamed Suit Briefing Sked
LESLEY HELLER: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
MADISON COUNTY, AL: District Court Dismisses Korb Lawsuit
MCDANIEL TECHNICAL: Sandel Files Suit under FLSA in Oklahoma

MEN'S WAREHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MENARD INC: Bid for Corrective Notice in Astarita Partly Granted
MERIT MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
MERIT MEDICAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MIDLAND CREDIT: Lucente Files Suit Under FDCPA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Rader Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Vasquez Files Class Suit in California
MUNICIPAL WATER: App. Court Vacates Certification in Swope Suit
MUSH FOODS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Wilen Questions Merger of Viacom and CBS
NATIONAL EXEMPLAR GALLERY: Mendez Files Class Suit in New York
NEW SOHO GALLERY: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending
NISOURCE INC: Norman Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis

NORTHSTAR ALARM: Bid to Decertify Class in Braver Suit Denied
O'REILLY AUTO: Failed to Provide Suitable Seats, Stefan Claims
ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rianhard Class Action
PIEROGI INC: Mendez Files Suit in New York under ADA
PRADA USA CORP: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PRECISION SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Williams Says
PRIMAVERA GALLERY: Mendez Files Suit under Disabilities Act
PRO CUSTOM: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
PROGENICS PHARMA: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Lantheus
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Pieczonka Suit in N.D. Ohio

PUBLIC REPUTATION: Trajano Files Class Suit in Florida
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fenley Suit Denied
REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action in California Ongoing
RICHLINE GROUP: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
RICK WESTER FINE: Mendez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Wertzberger Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
SADIGH GALLERY: Mendez Files Suit in New York Over ADA Breach
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Pending
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Rosenauer Sues Over Zantac's Unsafe NDMA Level

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Compels Arbitration in Dowdy Suit
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Pendergraft Claims
SOFTBANK GROUP: Faces Won Securities Suit in California Super. Ct.
SOLARA MEDICAL: Wardrop Files Suit in California
STEELSERIES NORTH: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STOCKBRIDGE ENG: Wilkerson Seeks OT Pay for Manufacturing Workers
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Kassien Suit in District of New Jersey
SUPERIOR STAFFING: Jones Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
TARGET CORP: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts
TIGER EYE: Court Partly Grants Summ. Judgment Bid in Adkinson Suit

TIMBERLAND: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TURTLE BEACH: Agreement Reached in VTBH Merger-Related Suit
UNITED DEBT: $500K Deal in Blasi FCRA Suit Gets Final Approval
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Harrison Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
USA PROFESSIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Diaz FLSA Suit

USI SOLUTIONS: Motion to Certify Class in "Santos" Stricken
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Matthews Files Suit under ADA
VF OUTDOOR: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gjonbalaj Files Product Liability Class Action

WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Makeen ADA Suit Transferred to Ga. Dist. Ct.
WELLS FARGO: Show Cause Order for Expert Issued in Shareholder Suit

                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Defends Bull Class Action in W.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Matthew
Jackson Bull, which was transferred to the Western District of New
York.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled:
Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and
John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased shares of
the Company's common stock. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to
bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25,
2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in
Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.

The company believes that the claims are frivolous, meritless and
that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. The company
intends to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer against such claims.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Ian Finch, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased
shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually
and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and
October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly
contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are
liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation
filed a motion in both actions: (1) proposing Joseph Noto, Garden
State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr. Fitch as purportedly
representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to consolidate the Fitch
litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3) seeking to be
appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs’
counsel in the Bull litigation filed and then withdrew a comparable
motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be appointed as lead
counsel.

On May 28, 2019, plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed
that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court issued an order
designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens
Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties,
the Court transferred the class action to federal district court in
the Western District of New York, where it remains pending.

22nd Century Group said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Joseph Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control
Technology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Johanne Joseph,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Account Control Technology, Inc., Leisa Korn, Matt
Korn, Core Recoveries, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07147
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019).

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

ACT delivers consultative debt recovery, accounts receivable
management, business process outsourcing (BPO) and call center
services for education, government, consumer and commercial
markets.[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


ALI SHOBEIRI: Court Awards $8K in Attorney’s Fees in Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs in the case captioned SCOTT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ALI
SHOBEIRI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04816-VKD. (N.D.
Cal.).

The Order specifies that Mr. Johnson (for his attorneys) is awarded
$8,310 in fees and $870 in costs, for a total award of $9,180.

Under the class action complaint, Plaintiff Scott Johnson asserted
claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act).
He claimed that due to the presence of architectural barriers, he
was denied full and equal access during two visits to Navarra Auto
in San Jose, California. Specifically, he claimed that there was no
compliant accessible parking space and that the transaction counter
was too high. Defendants Ali and Ebi Shobeiri own Naravrra Auto.

The Order specifies that multiplying the reasonable hourly rates
and the hours reasonably expended, yields a lodestar amount of
$8,310:

                       Rate    Hours      Total
                       ----    -----   ---------
   Mark Potter         $475     3.6    $1,710.00
   Phyl Grace          $475     0.2       $95.00
   Dennis Price        $350     5.35   $1,855.00
   Chris Carson        $350     8.9    $3,115.00
   Amanda Seabock      $350     4.3    $1,505.00
   Jennifer McAllister $300     0.1       $30.00
                                       ---------
   TOTAL                               $8,310.00

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4kx28pq from Leagle.com

Scott Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Chris Carson , Center for
Disability Access, Amanda Lockhart Seabock , Center for Disability
Access, Dennis Jay Price, II , Center for Disability Access & Mark
Dee Potter , Center for Disability Access, 9845 Erma Rod, Ste 300,
San Diego, CA 92196

Ali Shobeiri, in individual and representative capacity as trustee
of the Ebi and Eli Shobeiri 2002 Living Trust & Ebi Shobeiri, in
individual and representative capacity as trustee of the Ebi and
Eli Shobeiri 2002 Living Trust, Defendants, represented by Michael
David Welch  - mdwelch@mail.com - Michael Welch & Associates.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Morris Files Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County of
Allegheny. The case is styled as Bianca Morris both individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Orlando Harper, individually and in his official capacity as Warden
of the Allegheny County Jail, David Zetwo, individually and in his
official capacity as Chief Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County
Jail, Simon Wainwright, individually and in his official capacity
as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail and The County of
Allegheny, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01639-NR (W.D., Penn., Dec.
18, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.

Allegheny County is a county in the southwest of the U.S. state of
Pennsylvania. As of 2018 the population was 1,218,452, making it
the state's second-most populous county, following Philadelphia
County. The county seat is Pittsburgh.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
   Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
   707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 281-7229
   Fax: (412) 281-4229
   Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Escambia County School Files PI Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altria Group Inc. The
case is styled as Escambia County School District, individually and
as representatives of other similarly situated School Districts,
Plaintiff v. Altria Group Inc, Juul Labs Inc, Altria Client
Services, Altria Group Distribution Company, NU Mark, LLC, Philip
Morris USA Inc and John Does 1-100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-04967 (N.D., Fla., Dec. 18, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury.

Altria Group, Inc. is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Henrico County, Virginia, just outside the city of Richmond.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Nixon Daniel, Esq.
   Beggs & Lane RLLP - Pensacola FL
   501 COmmendencia St
   Pensacola, FL 32502
   Tel: (850) 469-3306
   Fax: (850) 469-3330
   Email: jnd@beggslane.com


AMAIN.COM INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAIN.COM, INC. The
case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAIN.COM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11722 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2019).

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

AMain Sports & Hobbies is anl online and local Chico, CA
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          Shalom Law, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



ANTENNA STAR: Swanson Seeks OT Wages for Installation Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SWANSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTENNA STAR SATELLITES, INC. d/b/a COLONIAL
SMART HOME SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05539-RBS (E.D.
Pa., Nov. 25, 2019), seeks to recover for installation technicians
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified the
installation technicians as independent contractors to avoid
compliance with the labor laws when the installation technicians in
fact are covered employees under the FLSA and PMWA. The
installation technicians were compensated primarily on a flat-rate
basis by completion of jobs regardless of how many hours they
worked per week, plus small amounts of commission pay from sales of
any soundbars, television mounts, and Wifi routers, etc.

By and through this alleged illegal scheme, the Defendant failed to
pay the installation technicians overtime wages at a rate of at
least one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective and class members
were installation technicians employed by the Defendant to install
and maintain Dish Network Systems in customers' homes.

The Defendant is a "home technology company that provides
Television, Home Theater, Audio, Video, Security, Lighting, Wifi,
and connectivity to Google Home, Amazon and other home automation
products and services."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Wheaton Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has dismissed the case captioned LEIGH
WHEATON; JILL PAUL; and TREVOR PAUL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 19-02883 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

Under the putative class action, plaintiffs bring claims under
Rhode Island and Michigan law against Apple Inc. for selling,
renting, transmitting, or disclosing a customer's information
without consent.

As a result of Apple's alleged failure to protect customers'
private information, plaintiffs claim (1) overpayment, (2) loss of
value of their personal listening information, (3) unwarranted junk
mail and telephone solicitations, and (4) risk of identity theft.

Based on the allegations, plaintiffs bring three claims against
Apple: (1) violation of Rhode Island's Video, Audio, and
Publication Rentals Privacy Act or RIVPRA; (2) violation of
Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act or MIPPPA; and (3)
unjust enrichment.

Apple moved to dismiss the complaint in full.

On review, the Court finds that the complaint fails to plausibly
allege with enough facts that Apple disclosed plaintiffs' personal
listening information to third-party data brokers and similar
entities, which caused plaintiffs overpayment, loss of value in
personal information, unwarranted junk mail, and risk of identity
theft.  Thus, Apple's motion to dismiss as to the third-party data
brokers under Rhode Island and Michigan law is GRANTED, the Court
rules.

The Court further finds that the complaint also does not provide
enough facts to plausibly show that Apple disclosed plaintiffs'
identities in connection with their music selection information to
iOS mobile application developers for any of the three methods: (1)
metadata, (2) tokens, and (3) gifting.  

Accordingly, Apple's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim as to
metadata, tokens and gifting under Rhode Island and Michigan law is
thus GRANTED, the Court rules.

As to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, both Rhode Island
and Michigan state laws require the defendant to receive a benefit
from the plaintiff, resulting in inequity because of the benefit.
Plaintiffs' complaint has not sufficiently established their unjust
enrichment claims, the Court finds.

Thus, the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim is also
granted, the Court further rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2zkpop3 from Leagle.com

Leigh Wheaton, Jill Paul & Trevor Paul, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lawrence Timothy Fisher - ltfisher@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., Blair E. Reed - breed@bursor.com - Bursor and Fisher, P.A.,
David William Hall - dhall@hedinhall.com - Hedin Hall LLP, Joseph
I. Marchese -  jmarchese@bursor.com - Bursor Fisher P.A., pro hac
vice, Philip Lawrence Fraietta -pfraietta@bursor.com - Bursor and
Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice, Robert Ahdoot –
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter
Maya  -tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Frank S.
Hedin - fhedin@hedinhall.com - Hedin Hall LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn -
ehenn@cov.com - Covington & Burling LLP, Simon J. Frankel -
sfrankel@cov.com - Covington & Burling LLP, Ethan Clark Forrest -
eforrest@cov.com - Covington & Burling LLP & Sarah Jean Guerrero -
sguerrero@cov.com - Covington and Burling LLP.  


ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Robbins Geller Notes of Jan. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE:AFI)
securities between March 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Chupa v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc.,
No. 19-cv-09840, and is assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder. The
Armstrong Flooring securities class action lawsuit charges
Armstrong Flooring and certain of its current and former officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Armstrong Flooring securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Armstrong
Flooring securities class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the Armstrong
Flooring securities class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Armstrong Flooring
securities class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Armstrong Flooring securities
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Armstrong
Flooring securities class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Armstrong Flooring securities
class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or
contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Armstrong Flooring securities class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than January 14, 2020.

Armstrong Flooring manufactures and sells flooring products
primarily used in the construction and renovation of commercial,
residential, and institutional buildings. The Armstrong Flooring
securities class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose that Armstrong Flooring's
internal control over inventory levels was not effective and that
Armstrong Flooring had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially
boost sales. As a result of this information being withheld from
the market, Armstrong Flooring securities traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, with Armstrong Flooring's
stock price reaching a high of more than $20 per share.

On May 3, 2019, Armstrong Flooring announced that, "pursuant to a
mutual agreement between the Company and Donald R. Maier [Armstrong
Flooring's CEO], Maier's employment with the Company [had] ceased
and he [had] resigned as a member of the Board of Directors." On
this news, Armstrong Flooring's stock price fell nearly 12%.

Then, on November 5, 2019, before the market opened, Armstrong
Flooring reported $165.6 million in net sales for the third quarter
of 2019, a nearly 21% decline year over year, and a net loss of
$31.4 million. Armstrong Flooring also cut its full year 2019
guidance for adjusted EBITDA to a range of $20 million to $25
million from its prior guidance range of $46 million to $54
million, citing "larger distributor movements on inventory" than
anticipated. On this news, Armstrong Flooring's stock price fell
nearly 44%.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

Contact:

         Brian Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]


ASHLEY FURNITURE: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Razo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming a district court judgment granting the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
NICHOLAS RAZO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES,
INC., a Wisconsin corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 17-56770, (9th Cir.).

Nicholas Razo's class action complaint alleged violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
and False Advertising Law against Ashley Furniture.

On review, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court properly
granted summary judgment on Razo's claims because a reasonable
consumer would have read the unambiguous and truthful disclosures
placed on the front and back of Ashley's DuraBlend hangtag. A
reasonable consumer reading that list of features would also read
those disclosures and discover that DuraBlend is not genuine
leather, the Ninth Circuit holds.

The Ninth Circuit also opines that the district court also
correctly held that Ashley was not responsible for representations
made by the Casa Linda salesperson about DuraBlend. Instead, Razo
must prove Ashley's personal participation in the unlawful
practices and unbridled control over those deceptive practices.  

Moreover, based on the evidence before it, the district court
properly declined to hold Ashley responsible for the actions of
Casa Linda's employees, the Ninth Circuit opines.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling
on summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 24, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ktjjha from Leagle.com


ASPEN NATIONAL: Hochstrasser Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspen National
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Hochstrasser,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Aspen National Financial, Inc. dba Aspen National
Collections and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07087
(E.D., N.Y., Dec. 18, 2019).

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

Aspen National Collections or ANC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




BAXTER INT'L: Silverman Sues Over Decline in Common Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN E. SILVERMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., JOSE E.
ALMEIDA, JAMES K. SACCARO, and BRIAN C. STEVENS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07786 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019, and October
23, 2019, inclusive, seeking damages for harm caused by the decline
in the Company's share price.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically,
the Plaintiff says, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose that (i) certain intra-Company transactions, undertaken
for the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains and losses,
used foreign exchange rate conventions that were not in accordance
with GAAP and enabled intra-Company transactions to be undertaken
after the related exchange rates were already known; (ii) the
Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting;
(iii) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
misstated and would likely require correction or amendment; (iv)
due to the Company's internal investigation, Baxter would not be
able to file its quarterly report for the period ending September
30, 2019, with the SEC on Form 10-Q in a timely manner; and (v) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business and operations lacked a reasonable basis.

Before the markets opened on October 24, 2019, Baxter announced
that it "recently began an investigation into certain intra-Company
transactions undertaken for the purpose of generating foreign
exchange gains or losses."

According to the Company, "these transactions used a foreign
exchange rate convention historically applied by the Company that
was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP and enabled intra-Company transactions to be undertaken after
the related exchange rates were already known."

Baxter further admitted that "these intra-Company transactions
resulted in certain misstatements in the Company's previously
reported non-operating income related to net foreign exchange
gains" and acknowledged that, "upon completion of the investigation
and the Company's evaluation of the materiality of the
misstatements, the Company expects to either amend its periodic
reports previously filed with the SEC to include restated financial
statements that correct those misstatements, or include in reports
for future periods restated comparative financial statements that
correct those misstatements."

As noted in the announcement, "the Company previously reported net
foreign exchange gains of $8 million, $113 million, $28 million,
$50 million, $73 million, and $22 million, for the years 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and the first half of 2019, respectively."

The Company further explained that "the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors is overseeing this investigation with
the assistance of independent, experienced external advisors," that
"Baxter voluntarily advised the staff of the [SEC] that the
internal investigation is underway and intends to provide
additional information to the SEC as the investigation progresses,"
and that "the Company does not expect to file its quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2019 on a timely
basis."

On this news, the price of Baxter common stock declined $8.87 per
share, or 10.1%, from a close of $87.95 per share on October 23,
2019, to close at $79.08 per share on October 24, 2019, the lawsuit
says.

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

Baxter provides a broad portfolio of essential healthcare products,
including acute and chronic dialysis therapies, sterile intravenous
(IV) solutions, infusion systems and devices, parenteral nutrition
therapies, inhaled anesthetics, generic injectable pharmaceuticals,
and surgical hemostat and sealant products. Baxter common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"BAX."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 373-3880
          Facsimile: (312) 794-7801
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com


BEE-LINE DELIVERY: McCallister Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK MCCALLISTER, ET. AL., Plaintiffs v. BEE-LINE DELIVERY
SERVICE, INC. and HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A THE SAN ANTONIO
EXPRESS NEWS, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01372 (W.D. Tex. Nov.
22, 2019), alleges that Mr. McCallister and other similarly
situated delivery drivers of the Defendants were required to work
in excess of 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. McCallister contends that the Defendants improperly classified
him and other present and/or former delivery drivers as independent
contractors when they were employees of the Defendants. The
Plaintiff drives a truck owned by the Defendants to make deliveries
at their request, the lawsuit says.

Since 1964, Bee-Line Delivery Service is doing business in the
delivery and transportation industry providing same day delivery
and truckload services throughout Texas and the United States.
Bee-Line has a fleet of over 100 trucks, operating 24 hours per
day, 365 days each year.

Hearst owns newspapers, magazines, television channels, and
television stations, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the
Houston Chronicle, Cosmopolitan and Esquire.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Braun, Esq.
          Adam Poncio, Esq.
          Lorna Griffin, Esq.
          PONCIO LAW OFFICES
          A Professional Corporation
          5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 310
          San Antonio, TX 78229
          Telephone: (210) 212-7979
          Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
          E-mail: salaw@msn.com
                  abraun@ponciolaw.com
                  Lgriffin@ponciolaw.com

               - and -

          Chris McJunkin, Esq.
          4510 Anthony St.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78415
          Telephone: (361) 882-5747
          Facsimile: (361) 882-8926
          E-mail: cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com


BLOOM ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 3 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Bloom Energy Corporation (NYSE: BE) of the
January 3, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you invested in Bloom stock or options pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's July 26, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO")
and/or during the period between July 26, 2018 and September 16,
2019 (the "Class Period") and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/BE. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:

         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased Bloom securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's July 26, 2019 IPO and Class Period. The case, Bolouri v.
Bloom Energy Corporation et al., No. 19-cv-07259 was filed on
November 4, 2019, and has been assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1)
Bloom's technology produced emissions comparable to that of a
modern natural gas plant; (2) Bloom's estimates of useful life for
its energy servers and fuel cells were inaccurate; (3) Bloom used
misleading accounting to mask the effect of future servicing
expenses; (4) consequently, Bloom will potentially be liable for up
to $2.2 billion in undisclosed servicing liabilities; and (5) 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 September 17, 2019, before the market opened, Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report entitled "Bloom Energy: A
"Clean" Energy Darling Wilting to its Demise" (the "Report"). The
Report claimed that Hindenburg had uncovered an estimated $2.2
billion in undisclosed servicing liabilities, and that Bloom's
technology was "not sustainable, clean, green or remotely
profitable" despite Bloom's claims to the contrary.

Since Bloom's IPO, the Company's share price has declined from its
IPO price of $15.00 by approximately over 60%.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Bloom's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


BLUE CROSS: Sacked Workers Sue Over Denied Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Yelvie Gray, Gary Honbarger, Monica Raney, Crystal Reese And Norman
Richard Rufty, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of
North Carolina, Frank Papa, Erwin Bette and FTI Consulting, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01234 (N.C. Super., December 18, 2019),
seeks recovery of damages and for equitable relief arising out of
the failure of Blue Cross to properly manage, administer and pay
claims under their group health coverage with Durafiber
Technologies.

Plaintiffs were employed by Durafiber, an industrial fiber producer
with pertinent plants in Salisbury and Shelby. Blue Cross provided
group health benefits for those workers based on stripped-down
coverage under an "Administrative Service Only." Blue Cross was
paid premiums but Blue Cross then denied their claims and refused
to pay them, disclaiming any responsibility after the closure of
Durafiber, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
      John Hughes, Esq.
      WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
      525N Main Street
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Phone: (704) 633-5244
      Fax: (704) 633-9434
      Email: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
             jhughes@wallacegraham.com


BLYTHEVILLE, AR: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Carlock Tax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming a trial
court judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in
the case captioned JAMES CRAIG CARLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant,
v. THE CITY OF BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS, Appellee, Case No. CV-18-992.
(Ark.).

James Craig Carlock, individually and as a representative of a
class of persons similarly situated, appealed from an order of the
Mississippi County Circuit Court dismissing his illegal-exaction
complaint against the City of Blytheville, Arkansas.

In September 2014, Carlock filed the class-action complaint
alleging that the excess revenue was an illegal exaction because
the tax was approved for the sole purpose of paying the City's debt
to the federal government.  Carlock sought to certify a class
defined as "[a]ll citizens of Blytheville, Arkansas, during the
period of September 1, 2012, through December 1, 2013."   

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.

The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor
of the City and dismissing Carlock's complaint. In the order, the
trial court recited case law from the Supreme Court of Arkansas
holding that the determination of whether the use of tax revenue
for a specific purpose is to be based on the wording of the ballot
title. The trial court found that, based on the wording of the
ballot title, the City's use of the excess funds to pay payroll
taxes was authorized and there was no illegal exaction.

On appeal, Carlock argued that the trial court should have been
permitted to look beyond the wording of the enabling ordinance and
ballot title in determining whether tax money is being spent for an
approved purpose.  He contended that case law from the Supreme
Court of Arkansas to the contrary should either be overruled or not
applied in the case.  

The Appeals Court notes that Carlock does not dispute the plain
language of the ordinance and ballot title, which clearly permit
the City to use the funds to pay payroll and employment taxes. He
also does not contend that the City used the funds for some purpose
other than paying payroll and employment taxes.

Because the trial court properly utilized the enabling ordinance
and ballot title in determining the approved uses for the excess
funds, the order dismissing the complaint is affirmed, the Appeals
Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's October 24, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyy27hm3 from Leagle.com

James W. Harris and Zachary W. Morrison of the Law Offices of
Harris & Morrison, 118 West Walnut PO Box 185, Blytheville, AR
72316, for Appellant.

William Clark Mann III, 500 W Markham St., Little Rock, AR 72201,
for appellee.


BOBCAT NORTH: Huff Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN HUFF, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BOBCAT NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
d/b/a ORION WASTE SOLUTIONS, BOBCAT DISPOSAL OF SARASOTA, LLC.,
RUSSO AND SONS, LLC, M&MR OPERATIONS, INC. formerly RUSSO AND SONS,
INC., MIKE RUSSO, and MARILYN RUSSO, the Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00861-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the class representative asks
the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;

   2. appointing N. Ryan LaBar and Scott C. Adams of LaBar &
      Adams, P.A. as class counsel;

   3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative to have
      authority to make any and all decisions on behalf all class
      members/opt-in plaintiffs concerning this litigation, the
      method and manner of conducting the litigation up to and
      including final judgment, the entering of any agreement with

      Class Counsel concerning attorneys' fees and costs, the
      entering of any settlement agreement, executing the
      settlement agreement, and all other matters pertaining to
      the lawsuit;

   4. issuing permit and supervise notice to:

      "similarly situated current and former employees of
      Defendants who: (a) were employed as drivers at the Ocoee
      location during the three years preceding March 8, 2019; (b)

      were paid hourly; (c) were victims of Defendants' timesheet
      manipulation and/or automatic lunch deduction policy; and
      (d) worked more than forty hours in a work week but were not

      paid for all overtime hours worked";

   5. conditionally certify classes in which it deems sufficient
      interest and similarly situated has been demonstrated. See
      Monserrate, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86610 9-10;

   6. approving Class Representative's Notices and Opt-In Forms;

   7. directing Defendants, within 10 calendar days of the Order,
      to provide Class Representative with the full name, job
      title, dates of employment, last known address, telephone
      numbers, and email addresses for each individual in the
      Certified Class in a computer readable format; and

   8. any other relief the Court deems equitable and just under
      the facts and circumstances of this case.

The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the action is intended to correct and provide
recompense for two unlawful corporate practices that affected a
group of employees in Central Florida.

The Defendants provide waste disposal services, including
dumpsters, portable bathrooms, grade crew services, and debris
removal services to residential and commercial customers.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
          Scott C. Adams, esq.
          LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
          2300 East Concord Street
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 835-8968
          E-mail: rlabar@labaradams.com
                  sadams@labaradams.com

CRST EXPEDITED: Broome Suit Moved From California to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as BARRY BROOME, an individual; on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CRST EXPEDITED, INC.; CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CRST MALONE, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-07664 (Filed Sept. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the  Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern) on
Nov. 25, 2019.

The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01917-JEO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge John E Ott.

The case is a collective and class action for violations of federal
and state laws for wage and labor. The lawsuit arises out of the
Defendants' misclassification of their drivers as independent
contractors, and their per mile pay plan, which fails to compensate
for non-driving time.

The Defendants operate a large trucking company, employ many
drivers in California and nationwide, and engage in a pattern and
practice of misclassifying them as independent contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile:: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles Andrewscavage, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          Elizabeth M Bolka, Esq.
          James H Hanson, Esq.
          Jared S Kramer, Esq.
          R Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
          30 West Monroe Street; Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7200
          Facsimile: (312) 422-1224
          E-mail: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com
                  cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
                  ebolka@scopelitis.com
                  jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  jskramer@scopelitis.com
                  jtaylor@scopelitis.com


CRUTCHFIELD NEW MEDIA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crutchfield New
Media, L.L.C. The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crutchfield
New Media, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11724 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 22, 2019).

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

Crutchfield New Media, L.L.C. provides Car Audio Installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          Shalom Law, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


DAVID STANLEY: Solberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SOLBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID STANLEY CHEVROLET, INC., an Oklahoma
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01096-R (W.D. Okla, Nov.
25, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The 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 himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Waller, Esq.
          J. David Jorgenson, Esq.
          WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC
          401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: 918-629-3350
          E-mail: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com
                  djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Matzura Files Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Deckers Outdoor Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11562 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands, is a
footwear designer and distributor based in Goleta, California,
United States. It was founded in 1973 by University of California,
Santa Barbara alumni Doug Otto and Karl F. Lopker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



DOMAINE CHANDON: Pirali Sues Over Wine Club Membership Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PIRALI, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, and himself, individually, Plaintiff v. DOMAINE
CHANDON, INC., a Delaware corporation, dba CHANDON; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01114284-CU-BT-CXC (Cal.
Super., Nov. 25, 2019), arises from the Defendants' automatic
charging on a recurring basis for "Club Chandon" membership,
without proper disclosures.

In selling "Club Chandon" membership to California consumers on its
Web site, the Defendant fails to comply with the requirements of
California's Automatic Renewal Law, Business & Professions Code, by
failing to provide consumers with legally compliant notices and
disclosures, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are
individuals, who purchased membership to the Defendant's wine club,
entitled "Club Chandon," through the Defendant's Web site,
http://chandon.com/,and whose credit cards or debit cards were
automatically charged on a recurring basis for such wine club
membership.

Chandon sells its products, including sparkling wine and still
wine, throughout the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Hoodack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE HOODACK
          500 N. State College Blvd., Suite 1200
          3 Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (714) 634-2030
          Facsimile: (714) 685-6719
          E-mail: LHoodack@LHDLegal.com


DRIVER SOLUTIONS: App. Court Upholds Certification of Downey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming the
Circuit Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Appellant, v. MICHAEL DOWNEY, PAUL MITCHELL, AND JOSEPH McAFEE,
Appellees. No. CV-18-799. (Ark.)

Driver Solutions LLC is in the business of providing education and
placement services to individuals who wish to work in the
commercial truck-driving industry.  Driver Solutions and C-1 Truck
Driver Training, LLC (C-1), are both owned by Driver Holding, LLC.


Driver Solutions filed separate lawsuits in North Little Rock
District Court against Michael Downey, Paul Mitchell, and Joseph
McAfee (counter-plaintiffs). In each case, Driver Solutions sought
to recover "unpaid principal balance for . . . Tuition Charge(s)."
Downey, Mitchell, and McAfee all filed class-action counterclaims.
The cases were transferred to the Pulaski County Circuit Court and
consolidated.

Counter-plaintiffs allege that Driver Solutions attracts potential
students from around the country to the C-1 facility in North
Little Rock, Arkansas by advertising "company-paid training" and
good-paying driver jobs ("up to $50,000 per year") with large
carriers, such as P.A.M. Transport.

The counterclaim alleges that after completing the program,
participants find that their earning potential with the designated
carrier is nowhere near what had been represented when they signed
the enrollment agreements with Driver Solutions.

The counterclaim further alleges that Driver Solutions has filed at
least 433 lawsuits in North Little Rock District Court, and that
Driver Solutions has failed to obtain proper service in every
single one of those lawsuits, including 143 cases in which Driver
Solutions already obtained default judgments. Additionally, the
counterclaim alleges that Driver Solutions is operating its
driver-education program without ever obtaining the applicable
licenses statutorily required to do so, while also violating
numerous regulations established by the State Board of Private
Career Education.

After consolidation, the counter-plaintiffs moved for class
certification. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an
order granting class certification. The order certified the
following class:

   All individuals who attended C-1 Truck Driving School in North
   Little Rock between January 19, 2009, and the present, through
   Driver Solutions' company-paid training and did not complete
   one year of employment with the carrier.

Driver Solutions requested findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and the circuit court entered a supplemental order on June 27,
2018. The supplemental order explained that the phrase
"company-paid training" refers to "Driver Solutions' program or
programs that Counterclaimants and others enrolled in whereby those
individuals did not pay tuition ahead of time and signed an
agreement whereby they would not pay tuition (or would only pay a
portion of the tuition through payroll deductions) if they worked
for an assigned motor carrier for one year."

Driver Solutions filed its notice of appeal on July 3, 2018.

In its appeal, Driver Solutions contends that the certified class
fails to satisfy the requirements of commonality, predominance,
typicality, superiority, and ascertainability.

The Appeals Court finds that Driver Solutions' contention is
overbroad. There is no dispute that each class member manifested
assent by signing the agreement, nor is there any indication that
the terms of the signed agreements vary from class member to class
member in any material way.

On review, the Appeals Court finds that the requirements of
commonality, predominance, typicality and ascertainability are
satisfied in the present case.

The circuit court's determination that each requirement for class
certification was satisfied in this case was not an abuse of
discretion, the Appeals Court opines.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court affirms the circuit court's class
certification order.

A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's October 24, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y589tu22 from Leagle.com

Conner & Winters, LLP, by: Robert L. Jones III - bjones@cwlaw.com -
and Kerri E. Kobbeman - kkobbeman@cwlaw.com - for appellant.

Holleman & Associates, P.A., by: John Holleman and Timothy A.
Steadman , 200 W Capitol Ave Ste 1620, Little Rock, AR, 72201, for
appellees.


E-3 SYSTEMS: Bid to Remand Franco Suits to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned JOSE FRANCO, Plaintiff, v. E-3 SYSTEMS,
Defendant, JOSE FRANCO, Plaintiff, v. E-3 SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case
Nos. 19-cv-01453-HSG, 19-cv-02854-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the actions
back to state court.

Franco filed these putative class and representative actions in
state court.  The Defendant removed the actions to federal court
based on federal preemption under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1974 ("LMRA").

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California and worked as a non-exempt
hourly employee for Defendant E-3 Systems from Aug. 18, 2014 to May
15, 2018.  E-3 Systems is a California corporation with its
headquarters in Union City, California.

On Feb. 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative labor class
action alleging claims under the California Labor Code, including a
claim for failure to pay overtime under Section 510.  The putative
class period is any time within four years of the filing of the
lawsuit.

After the Defendant removed the putative class action on March 20,
2019, the Plaintiff filed another action in state court, Case No.
19-cv-2854-HSG.  The complaint is based on the same set of facts as
those in his putative class action complaint, although the
Plaintiff asserts that the complaint is a representative and
"PAGA-only" action.  That complaint only includes PAGA claims, but
the predicate California Labor Code violations for which the
Plaintiff seeks penalties are the same as those in Case No.
19-cv-1453-HSG.  The Defendant removed that action on May 23,
2019.

The Ninth Circuit has employed a two-step test to ensure that
Section 301 preemption extends only as far as necessary to protect
the role of labor arbitration in resolving CBA disputes.  First,
the court asks whether the asserted cause of action involves a
right that exists solely as a result of the CBA.  If the right
exists solely as a result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted,
and the analysis ends there.  If not, the court proceeds to the
second step and asks whether a plaintiff's state law right is
substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA, which turns on
whether the claim cannot be resolved by simply looking to versus
'interpreting' the CBA.  Interpretation is construed narrowly in
this context.  If claims are dependent on interpretation of the
CBA, then the claim is preempted by Section 301; if not, the claim
may proceed under state law.

As for whether the Plaintiff's overtime right exists solely as a
result of the CBA, Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff does not
challenge the substance of the CBAs, but instead argues that Curtis
is distinguishable because in that matter the Plaintiff conceded
that the CBA is applicable to the Plaintiff.  But the Plaintiff
does not (and apparently cannot) dispute that his employment is
governed by the CBAs, so the absence of an express concession is of
no consequence.  Further, his entire motion relies on cases decided
years before Curtis.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for
overtime is controlled by the CBAs, exists solely as a result of
the CBAs, and is therefore preempted by the LMRA.  The Court has
federal question jurisdiction over the overtime claim.

The Defendant asserts that because the Court has exclusive federal
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's overtime claim, it should
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.  The Plaintiff's remaining claims under California law
arise from the same working conditions and relationship with
Defendant during the same period as his overtime claim. See Compl.
Therefore, the Judge finds that the claims derive from a "common
nucleus of operative fact" and asserts supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining claims.

Finally, as for the PAGA claims, the Plaintiff, without citing any
supporting authority, argues that his PAGA claims cannot be
preempted because an employee who brings an action pursuant to
Section 2699 stands in the shoes of the Labor Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") so it is immaterial if said employee is subject to
any collective bargaining agreement during his or her employment.
According to the Plaintiff, if the LWDA is not a party to the CBA,
then the CBA cannot affect or impact in any way an employee's
Section 2699 claims.  

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's argument misunderstands the
nature of PAGA claims.  That the Plaintiff demands civil penalties
under PAGA does not change the underlying nature of the predicate
California Labor Code violations, which in the case include the
same claims asserted in his putative class action complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gilliam denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IVivS3 from Leagle.com.

Jose Franco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Roman Shkodnik -- roman@yeremianlaw.com
-- David Yeremian and Associates, Inc.

E-3 Systems, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
John Franklin McIntyre, Jr. -- jmcintyre@sheamcintyre.com -- Shea &
McIntyre, A P.C. & Kevin Robert Elliott --
kelliott@sheamcintyre.com -- Shea and McIntyre A. P.C..


EI DU PONT: Court Denies Certification of Class in Rolan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LERITHEA ROLAN, and LAMOTTCA BROOKS,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant,
Cause No. 1:16-CV-357-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), Judge Holly A. Brody of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort
Wayne Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to grant class
certification for the negligence claim against DuPont.

The Court conducted a telephonic scheduling conference on Nov. 4,
2019, for the purpose of setting the matter for an evidentiary
hearing on Plaintiff Rolan's and Brooks' motion to certify as a
class action their negligence claim against the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs allege that DuPont breached a duty of care when it
caused environmental contamination of the Class Area, and that this
contamination proximately caused their damages.  The issue before
the Court is how the Plaintiffs propose to prove such contamination
and injury.  

The Court previously withheld ruling on whether to certify the
Plaintiffs' negligence claim as a class action.  It concluded that
an evidentiary hearing was necessary to allow the Plaintiffs to
establish that they could present credible evidence connecting
DuPont's actions to injuries to the class that would justify a
class action on behalf of all residents of the West Calumet Housing
Authority.  The Plaintiffs believe that additional discovery is
necessary, and that the bifurcation of discovery has impacted their
ability to make the requisite showing of predominance.  DuPont
asserts that it will be impossible for Plaintiffs to identify a
common methodology to show that DuPont's contamination impacted the
entire class.

Having considered the parties' arguments and having reviewed the
record of the case to this point, Judge Brody will deny the amended
motion for class certification, without prejudice to refiling.
This, of course, eliminates the need for an evidentiary hearing.
Additionally, Judge Brody finds that bifurcation of discovery is no
longer the most efficient manner of proceeding.

Judge Brody finds that bifurcation of discovery, first approved
nearly three years ago -- in January 2017 -- is no longer the most
appropriate or efficient manner to proceed.  First, bifurcated
discovery will not aid the Court in reaching a decision on the
issue of class certification more expeditiously than it otherwise
would.  What is more, the Plaintiffs have made no indication that,
absent certification, they do not intend to proceed with their
individual claims.  Additionally, the boundary between the class
inquiry and the merits have proven blurry with respect to the
negligence claim against DuPont.

Having found that there is nothing to gain in terms of judicial
economy by bifurcating discovery, Judge Brody also finds that there
is nothing to gain by keeping the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for
Class Certification under advisement.  The Plaintiffs have not yet
presented credible evidence of how they intend to connect DuPont's
actions to injuries to the class that would justify a class action
on behalf of all residents of the West Calumet Housing Authority.
Accordingly, Judge Brody denies the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Class Certification.  This is in keeping with the 2003 Amendments
to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), which eliminated the provision that a class
certification "may be conditional."  If, upon further discovery,
the Plaintiffs believe they can meet the requirements for class
certification, they can file the appropriate motion.

Again, Judge Brody understands the Plaintiffs to be asserting that
the limits on discovery have hampered their ability to meet the
predominance standard for class certification.  Until further
discovery is conducted, no judicial economy is served by
withholding ruling for a showing that may never be forthcoming.
Neither is there any prejudice in denying the request for class
certification and continuing with the litigation on behalf of the
individual named parties.

For the reasons stated, Judge Brody denied the motion to grant
class certification for the negligence claim against DuPont without
the need for an evidentiary hearing.  Judge Brody referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Susan Collins to set case related
deadlines, including discovery, which is no longer bifurcated.

A full-text copy of Judge Brody's Nov. 5, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/FJTUid from Leagle.com.

LeRithea Rolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Lamottca Brooks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by James D.
Brusslan -- jbrusslan@lplegal.com -- Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC,
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law
Offices PC, Sharon A. Harris, Zimmerman Law Offices PC & Jason B.
Hirsh, Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company & The Chemours Company,
Defendants, represented by Dina M. Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com --
Lewis Wagner LLP, Honor R. Costello -- hcostello@crowell.com --
Crowell & Morning LLP, pro hac vice, Janelle P. Kilies --
jkilies@lewiswagner.com -- Lewis Wagner LLP, Kathleen Taylor Sooy
-- ksooy@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice & Tracy
A. Roman -- troman@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac
vice.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Carl Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC et al. The case is styled as Wanda Carl, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02189-RDM (M.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2019).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 WALNUT ST., STE 900
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 351-0200
          Fax: (215) 922-3874
          Email: rcocco@rcn.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gil Files FCRA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Geovanny Gil, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, First Premier Bank, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07137 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gil Files FCRA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Geovanny Gil, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Solomon and Solomon, P.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07143 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Deal in Hendrickson FDCA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted preliminary approval of the class
settlement in the case captioned Kelley L. Hendrickson, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fifth
Third Bank, 11th Hour Recovery, Inc., and John Doe Repossession
Agencies 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-86 (TNL) (D. Minn.).

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed and considered all papers filed
in connection with the Plaintiff's request for class settlement
approval. Based on the filings, record, and pleadings in the
matter, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Agreement resolves all
claims alleged in the Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the
Action on Dec. 6, 2018 and the Released Claims, as defined in the
Agreement.  Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted preliminary
approval of the Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Magistrate Judge certified, solely for purposes of the Settlement,
the following:

     a. The Repossession Class is defined as all Minnesota
        consumers whose vehicles were repossessed by or on behalf
        of Fifth Third between December 12, 2013, and Feb. 18,
        2019, who, prior to the repossession, made two or more
        late payments on their vehicle(s) that were accepted by
        Fifth Third.

     b. The FDCPA Class is defined as all Minnesota consumers
        whose vehicles were repossessed by or on behalf of Fifth
        Third between Dec. 12, 2016 and Feb. 18, 2019, who,
        prior to the repossession, made at least two or more
        late payments on their vehicle(s) that were accepted
        by Fifth Third Bank.

The Magistrate Judge appointed:

    (i) the Plaintiff to act as the representative of the
        Settlement Class;

   (ii) Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center P.A.
        and Adam R. Strauss, Tarshish Cody, PLC as Class Counsel;
        and

  (iii) Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for Feb. 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

The Plaintiff was directed to file papers in support of the Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses and the
service award to the Plaintiff by mid-December 2019.  No later than
Feb. 4, 2020, which is seven days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing, papers in support of final approval of the Settlement and
response to any written objections must be filed.  If a Settlement
Class Member would like to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, the
Settlement Class Member must file a notice with the Court providing
name, address, telephone number and the signature of the Settlement
Class Member no later than Feb. 4, 2020.

The Magistrate Judge approved the proposed Notice Plan.  He
directed the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to complete
all aspects of the Notice Plan.  The Settlement Administrator will
file with the Court by no later Feb. 4, 2020, which is seven days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing, proof that notice was provided
in accordance with the Agreement and the Order.

Persons in the Settlement Class who wish to either object to the
Settlement or request exclusion from the Settlement Class must do
so by Jan. 6, 2020.  The Settlement Administrator will retain a
copy of all requests for exclusion.  On Feb. 4, 2020, the
Settlement Administrator will file with the Court, under seal, a
declaration that lists all of the exclusion requests received.  If
a timely and valid exclusion request is made by a person in the
Settlement Class, then the Agreement and any determinations and
judgments concerning the Settlement will not bind the excluded
person.

Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, all pre-trial proceedings and briefing schedules in the
Action are stayed.

The following are the deadlines by which certain events must
occur:

     a. Dec. 5, 2019 - Deadline for notice to be provided in
        accordance with the Agreement and the Order (Notice
        Deadline)

     b. Jan. 6, 2020 - Deadline to file objections or submit
        requests for exclusion (Opt-Out and Objection Deadline)

     c. Dec. 16, 2019 - Deadline for filing of Plaintiff's Motion
        for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Award

     d. Feb. 4, 2020 - Deadline for Parties to file the following:
        (1) List of persons who made timely and proper requests
        for exclusion (under seal); (2) Proof of Class Notice;
        and (3) Motion and memorandum in support of final
        approval, including responses to any objections

     e. Feb. 11, 2020 - Final Approval Hearing

A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/C7JKkL from Leagle.com.

Kelley L. Hendrickson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam R. Strauss,
Tarshish Cody, PLC, Andrew C. Walker, Curtis Walker Attorney at
Law, Bennett Hartz & Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center
P.A.

Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, represented by C.J. Schoenwetter --
cj.schoenwetter@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman & Brooke LLP, David
J. Carrier -- david.carrier@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and
Brooke LLP & Patrick T. Lewis -- plewis@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.

11th Hour Recovery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael G.
Phillips -- mike@phillipslawmn.com -- Phillips Law, PLLC.


FSC SCHOOLS: Class Action Alleges Sexual Abuse by Priests in Quebec
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that in a ruling published December 5,
Superior Court Judge Christian Immer wrote that claims of
widespread abuse within the religious order were credible enough to
warrant a class-action lawsuit. The suit names 26 FSC (Freres du
Sacre-Coeur) schools across Quebec and names 25 priests suspected
of sexually assaulting children between the 1940s and 1980s.

One of the main plaintiffs - given the alias "F" in the lawsuit -
claims that, as a teenager, he was repeatedly abused by Brother
Leon Maurice Tremblay while attending an FSC summer camp. This
would have taken place in 1978 or 1979.

This led to a lifetime of pain, suffering, drug and alcohol abuse
as well as a total loss of confidence by the plaintiff, according
to the lawsuit.

Brother Tremblay died two years ago.

F is seeking $950,000 in damages, and lawyers for the plaintiffs
want FSC to pay $15 million for victims affected by the alleged
rampant abuse within the religious order's schools and day camps.

Victims involved in the class action come from schools in Verdun,
LaSalle, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, Vaudreuil, Rosemere and
Chertsey, among others.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the claims of abuse heard so far
could only be the tip of the iceberg.

Two years ago, lawyers representing victims of an FSC school in
Granby launched a class action against the order. But while
preparing for court, they found they were inundated by calls from
former students across the province.

That's why they decided, in early 2019, to request a second, larger
lawsuit against the religious order. [GN]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Dismisses Suriaga Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned DANIEL SURIAGA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-16288 (ES) (MAH), (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated to recover damages for
alleged violations of law in connection with Defendant's design,
manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting,
servicing, and repairing of its microwaves.

Under the class action, Plaintiff alleged (i) breach of express and
implied warranties under New Jersey law (Counts II and III); (ii)
breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act  (Counts IV and V); (iii) violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act  (NJCFA) (Count I); and unjust enrichment (Count
VI). Defendant moves to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6).

* New Jersey Breach of Warranty Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached express and implied
warranties under New Jersey law and attaches GE's warranty to the
Complaint for the Court's review.

Plaintiff alleges that the warranty's limitations do not bar his
claims because they are substantively and procedurally
unconscionable, and as a result, Plaintiff and the putative class
members are entitled to a remedy under the Uniform Commercial Code.


Defendant argues that Plaintiff's New Jersey breach of warranty
claims fail for two reasons: (i) they are time-barred and (ii) they
are insufficiently pled.  

Judge Esther Salas for the District of New Jersey holds that it is
clear on the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff's breach of
warranty claims are time-barred. Plaintiff's breach of warranty
claims are governed by a four-year limitations period. Plaintiff's
cause of action accrued in or around December 2012 when he
purchased the microwave, and Plaintiff had four years from that
date to bring his breach of warranty claims. Because Plaintiff did
not file his complaint until November 2018, nearly six years after
tender of delivery, Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims are
time-barred unless the Complaint sufficiently alleges a reason to
toll the limitations period.  

Plaintiff alleges that the statute of limitations has been tolled
by GE's knowing and active concealment of the paint peeling problem
and that Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the fact
that his microwave would exhibit the paint peeling problem due to
the manufacturing/design defects.  For its part, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff's allegations are too conclusory to survive a motion
to dismiss.  

The Court concludes that Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims are
time-barred, and Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that
equitable tolling applies. Counts II and III of the Complaint are
DISMISSED without prejudice, the Court rules.

* Federal Breach of Warranty Claims

Plaintiff also brings breach of warranty claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act(MMWA).  The MMWA provides a private
right of action in federal court for consumers who are damaged by
the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to
comply with any obligation under a written or implied warranty.
MMWA claims based on breaches of express and implied warranties
under state law depend upon those state law claims.

Thus, where state law claims warrant dismissal, an accompanying
MMWA claim must also be dismissed. Because such is the case here,
the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts IV and V of
the Complaint.

* New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Claims

Count I requests relief under the NJCFA. Defendant argues that this
claim fails because Plaintiff fails to support his claim with any
well-pled facts, let alone with the specificity required to satisfy
Rule 9(b).  The Court agrees with the Defendant.  

In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in
both affirmative acts and knowing omissions. Plaintiff argues that
he adequately pleads an affirmative act and a knowing omission
because he alleges that GE continued to sell the microwave, despite
knowing about the paint peeling problem, and that GE failed to
disclose the problem to consumers. Plaintiff alleges that but for
these unlawful acts he would not have purchased the microwave or
would have paid a lower price for it. However, Plaintiff's
allegations are too conclusory to state a claim based on
affirmative acts or knowing omissions, the Court opines.

Plaintiff's NJCFA claims based on knowing omissions are also
DISMISSED without prejudice, the Court rules.

* Unjust Enrichment

The Court declines to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim based on
the presence of the written warranty because alternative pleading
is permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. However, the
Court will dismiss the unjust enrichment claims because Plaintiff
alleges that he purchased his microwave from Best Buy, not the
Defendant, and thus fails to allege a direct relationship between
himself and Defendant.

Count VI of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, the Court
rules.

Upon review of the facts on record, Judge Salas GRANTED the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, and the Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 12, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/qlkf4q6 from Leagle.com

DANIEL SURIAGA, Plaintiff, represented by JASON TRAVIS BROWN of
BROWN, LLC, 304 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07302

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by STEPHEN GERARD
TRAFLET -- straflet@trafletfabian.com -- TRAFLET & FABIAN, ESQS. &
DEBRA MARIE ALBANESE of TRAFLET & FABIAN, ESQS., 264 South Street,
Morristown, NJ 07960


GEO GROUP: Hughes Files Prisoner Suit Indiana
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEO GROUP, INC., et
al. The case is styled as MARK S. HUGHES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEO GROUP,
INC., WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., STACIE SCOTT N.C.C.F. Healthcare
Administrator, KEITH BUTTS N.C.C.F. Warden (Ret.), SEVERE Mr.,
acting N.C.C.F. Warden, DOES 1-100 N.C.C.F., in their official and
individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04997-TWP-TAB
(S.D. Ind., Dec. 20, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison
Condition.

The GEO Group, Inc. is a Florida-based company specializing in
privatized corrections, detention, and mental health
treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

GIANT EAGLE: Fitch et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW FITCH, RICHARD D'ALESSANDRO, and MICHELLE
HUTCHISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GIANT EAGLE, INC. d/b/a GETGO CAFE
JONES ACTION + MARKET, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01534-DSC-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the court for
authority to send notice of the lawsuit to the following
individuals for the purpose of informing them of the lawsuit and
providing them with an opportunity to join pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

   FLSA Team Leaders Collective:

   "all persons who are or were formerly employed by Giant Eagle
   in the United States as "Team Leaders" on or after November 22,

   2014, including individuals holding comparable salaried
   positions with different titles, and who were classified by
   Giant Eagle as exempt from overtime compensation"; and

   FLSA Team Leaders Trainee Collective:

   "all persons who are or were formerly employed by Giant Eagle
   in the United States on or after November 22, 2014 who
   participated in Giant Eagle's training program for TLs, and
   who were classified by Giant Eagle as exempt from overtime
   compensation."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Camar Jones, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 951
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

GREENBERG CLARK: Faces Baker Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenberg Clark Inc.
The case is styled as Shawn Baker, and Others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Greenberg Clark Inc., Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00271926-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
23, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other employment".

Greenberg Clark Inc. was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes providing plumbing, heating, air-conditioning,
and similar work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is epresented by Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.


H&R BLOCK: Vazquez-Rivera "No Poach" Policy Suit Moved to Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Brenda Vazquez-Rivera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. H&R Block Inc. and &R Block Tax Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00035 (Filed Jan. 3, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City) on Nov. 13, 2019.

The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00911-GAF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. District Judge Gary A. Fenner.

The case challenges Defendants' anti-competitive No Poach
agreements for corporate and franchise employees in violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

H&R Block, Inc. is the 'largest consumer tax services provider' in
the United States. In the 2018 fiscal year, H&R Block reported
revenues of over $3.1 billion with over 23 million tax returns
prepared worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (312) 645-8433
          E-mail: bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          MUCH, SHELIST, FREED, DENENBERG
          AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, P.C.
          191 N. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60605-1615
          Telephone: (312) 521-2000

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Len Allen Fisher, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: lfisher@srkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4507
          E-mail: rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          David J Lender, Esq.
          Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8153
          E-mail: david.lender@weil.com
                  eric.hochstadt@weil.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Rothstein, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN, LLC
          The Rookery Building
          209 South LaSalle Street, Seventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762-9450
          E-mail: mrothstein@tdrlawfirm.com

              - and -

          Uriel B. Abt, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
          209 S. Lasalle Street, 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762-9450
          E-mail: uabt@tdrlawfirm.com

HERBALIFE INT'L: Rodgers Suit Moved From California to Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Patricia Rodgers, Jeff Rodgers,
Jennifer Ribalta, and Izaar Valdez, Individually and on Behalf of
all Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Herbalife International
of America, Inc., Defendant and Keith Ribalta, the Movant, Case No.
2:18-cv-07480-JAK, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Nov. 25, 2019.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-mc-00115-MSS-AAS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

Herbalife is a global multi-level marketing corporation that
develops, markets, and sells dietary supplements, weight
management, sports nutrition, and personal-care products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq.
          Mark T. Drooks, Esq.
          Paul S. Chan, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS,
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100

The Movant is represented by:

          Etan Mark, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 SW 8th St., Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
                  yaniv@markmigdal.com


HERITAGE EQUIPMENT: Orzoco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HERITAGE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY. The case is styled as Luis A. Orzoco, Jose Rosalia Garcia
Garcia, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HERITAGE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103569 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec.
20, 2019).

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

Heritage Equipment Company provide equipment for the dairy,
beverage, brewery and distillery, and industrial fluid industries
as well as offering engineering, reconditioning, transport, and
on-site repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by KRISTINA A. DE LA ROSA, ESQ.



HERTZ CORP: Fails to Reimburse Business Expenses, Molina Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
S. SHARMA, 0. MOLINA, and P. BOBADILLA, on behalf Of themselves and
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 19CV359023 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019),
alleges that Hertz has violated and continues to violate the
California Labor Code by failing to reimburse the Plaintiffs for
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs worked as Location Managers (LMS) for The Hertz
Corporation in their California locations. LMS are employed in
Hertz's rental locations and are primarily responsible for
inspecting rental vehicles, moving vehicles to required locations,
washing vehicles, assisting customers with vehicle rentals or
returns, and other customer service tasks.

Due to their workplace responsibilities, LMS incur necessary and
reasonable business expenses related to using their personal cell
phones to make business-related calls and checking work email and
their home internet to perform work-related tasks, and paying for
employee meals and automobile tolls when they move vehicles to
other Hertz locations, the lawsuit says.

The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc.,
is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida, that
operates 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Blen, Esq.
          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4050
          Telephone: (323) 673 9900
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2058
          E-Mail: rmb@outtengolden.com
                  imattes@outtengolden.com


J JACOBO FARM: Court Certifies Class in Gomez Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the case captioned MARISOL
GOMEZ and IGNACIO OSORIO, Plaintiffs, v. J. JACOBO FARM LABOR
CONTRACTOR, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-AWI-BAM (E.D.
Cal.).

In the lawsuit, a farm labor contractor is being sued by two of its
employees for violating California's wage-and-hour laws and the
federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act of
1983 ("MAWPA").  The two employees are Plaintiffs Gomez and Osorio.
The farm labor contractor is Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor
Contractor, which is not to be confused with Javier Jacobo, who is
the president of J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor Inc.

The original complaint against the Defendant was filed in September
2015 by Gomez, but not Osorio.  The complaint was amended in August
2018 to add Osorio as a Named Plaintiff.  The first amended
complaint, which is the operative complaint, pleads the following
nine causes of action against the Defendant:

     (1) MAWPA violations: The Defendant violated its employees'
rights under MAWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., by: (i) providing
false and misleading information regarding terms and conditions of
employment; (ii) violating the terms of the Plaintiffs' working
arrangements; (iii) failing to pay wages when due; and (iv) failing
to provide accurate itemized written statements.

     (2) Minimum wages: The Defendant failed to pay minimum wages
to its employees in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1194,
1194.2, 1197, and California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Order Nos. 8, 13, 14, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, Sections 11080,
11130, 11140.

     (3) Overtime wages: The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
to its employees in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1194,
1194.2, and IWC Wage Orders Nos. 8, 13, 14.

     4) Meal periods: The Defendant failed to provide timely meal
periods to its employees or pay additional time to its employees in
lieu of providing meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Orders 8, 13, 14.

     (5) Rest periods: The Defendant failed to provide timely and
complete rest periods to its employees or pay additional wages to
its employees in lieu of providing rest periods in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Orders 8, 13, 14.

     6) Wages upon termination or resignation: The Defendant failed
to pay wages to its terminated or resigned employees in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, and 203.

     7) Itemized wage statements: The Defendant failed to issue
properly itemized wage statements to its employees in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226(B), 1174, 1175.

     (8) Unfair business competition: The Defendant engaged in
unfair business competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq. by engaging in the foregoing wage-and-hour
violations.

     (9) PAGA relief for California Labor Code violations: Due to
the Defendant's foregoing violations of the California Labor Code,
the employees are entitled to relief pursuant to California's
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

In November 2018, a paralegal working for the Defendant's counsel
visited the "PAGA search database" on the website of the State of
California Department of Industrial Relations.  The paralegal,
Patricia Morrison, searched for PAGA claims filed against the
Defendant, but Morrison saw no search results or records on the
website indicating that a PAGA claim had been filed against the
Defendant.  Similarly, Morrison searched for PAGA claims filed by
the Plaintiffs, but Morrison saw no search results or records on
the website indicating that a PAGA claim had been filed by the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs move for certification of one "overarching" class
and six subclasses, as follows:

     1. Overarching Class: All individuals who have been employed
or are currently employed, by Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor
Contractor Inc. as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural
laborer who worked at any time from Sept. 30, 2011 to the present.

     2. Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendant as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, who worked on a
piece rate basis at any time from March 17, 20113 up to the present
and were not separately compensated for rest periods during their
piece rate shifts.

     3. Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendant as a
non-exempt agricultural worker, any time from Sept. 30, 2011 to the
present, for whom a meal period was not recorded.

     4. Inaccurate/Incomplete Wage Statement Subclass: All
individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by
the Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker,
any time from Sept. 30, 2011 to the present, who received a wage
statement that: 1) did not have the address of the employer J.
Jacobo, 2) did not provide the full name and/or address of the
growers for which work was done, and/or 3) due to the violations
claimed herein, received an inaccurate itemized wage statement by
listing either: a) false gross and net wage earned amounts or 2)
failed to provide the amount of hours worked without compensation.

     5. AWPA Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or
are currently employed, by the Defendant as a non-exempt field
worker or agricultural worker, any time from Sept. 30, 2011 up to
the present, who, due to the violations claimed, were not paid
wages due or provided employment consistent with the terms of the
employee's working arrangements.

     6. Section 17200 Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendant as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from Sept.
30, 2011 up to the present, who, due to the violations claimed
herein, were employed under unlawful or unfair business acts or
practices.

     7. Final Paycheck Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendant as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from Sept.
30, 2011 up to the present, who were not paid all wages due when
they were laid off, discharged or quit each season as required by
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs propose that Osorio be appointed as the class
representative, and Stan Mallison, Hector Martinez, Mario Martinez,
and Edgar Aguilasocho be appointed as class counsel.

Judge Ishii granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
certification motion.  The Judge certified the Plaintiffs' wage
statement claim for class aggregation under Rule 23(b)(3).  The
class is defined as follows: All individuals who were employed as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from Sept. 30, 2012
to Nov. 5, 2019, by J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.  The
Plaintiffs' other claims are not certified for class aggregation
under Rule 23.

Judge Ishii appointed (i) Osorio as the class representative; and
(ii) Stan Mallison, Hector Martinez, Mario Martinez, and Edgar
Aguilasocho as class counsel.

The parties must promptly meet and clear about the submission of a
joint stipulated class notice and distribution plan.  The parties
must file either a stipulated class notice and distribution plan or
a notice that no stipulation can be agreed to.  If the parties
cannot agree to a class notice or distribution plan, then the
Plaintiffs must file a proposed class notice and distribution plan
within 35 days of the Order, and the Defendant will have 14 days
following the Plaintiffs' filing to file any objections, and the
Plaintiffs will have seven days following the Defendant's filing to
file a reply.

Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Clerk of Court will seal the following filings on the docket: Doc.
No. 109-1 and Doc. No. 109-2.

Within three days of the Order, the Defendant will refile the
documents previously filed as Doc. No. 109-1 and Doc. No. 109-2,
and the refiled documents must contain redactions that are
consistent with Rule 5.2.

Within three days of the Order, the parties must review the entire
docket, identify any additional filings that warrant sealing and
redaction pursuant to Rule 5.2, and jointly file either a list of
the additional filings that warrant sealing and redaction or a
declaration stating that no additional filings reveal sensitive
information within the scope of Rule 5.2.

Judge Ishii referred back the case to the assigned magistrate judge
for further scheduling and other proceedings consistent with his
Order.

A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's Nov. 5, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5vZvFE from Leagle.com.

Marisol Gomez is represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Esq.,
Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. -- hector@themmlawfirm.com --
Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. -- josephs@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A.
Palau, Esq. -- marcop@themmlawfirm.com -- and -- Stanley S.
Mallison, Esq. -- stanleym@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON & MARTINEZ,
Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ
AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC

J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. is represented by Gerardo
Hernandez, Jr., Esq. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- RAIMONDO &
ASSOCIATES

Bedrosian Farms LLC is represented by Kevin V. Koligian, Esq. --
kkoligian@littler.com -- Allison K. Pierce, Esq. --
apierce@littler.com -- and Andrew Hoon Woo, Esq. --
awoo@caed.uscourts.gov -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC


KALISPELL REGIONAL: Possible Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Bolton, writing for Montana Public Radio, reports that
Kalispell Regional Healthcare is facing a potential class action
lawsuit over a data breach of personal information impacting up to
130,000 people. The hospital announced the incident in October, two
months after it discovered the breach. The lawsuit filed late last
month argues victims are at increased risk of identity theft.

Billings-based law firm Heenan & Cook is representing William
Henderson, one of the roughly 130,000 KRH patients whose personal
information may have been exposed in the data breach.

The exposed data includes names, phone numbers and medical
information. Kalispell Regional Healthcare says 250 patients had
their social security numbers exposed, but all of the data could
have been accessed as early as May of this year. KRH says it didn't
discover the breach until August. It announced the incident in
October, saying that it took that time to clearly identify which
patients may have been affected.

The lawsuit filed in Cascade County District Court late last month
argues that delay put potential victims at increased risk of
identity theft and that the hospital could have let a majority of
its patients know sooner in order to allow them to put freezes on
their credit and monitor personal accounts closely. The complaint
also alleges that KRH didn't take proper precautionary measures to
prevent the breach in the first place.

KRH spokesperson Mellody Sharpton says the hospital has not been
served any court documents related to the case and declined to
comment on specific allegations.

"We are however disappointed about the lawsuit. We value our
relationship with our patients and take safeguarding their privacy
very seriously," she says.

The complaint is asking the court to certify the case as a class
action lawsuit and is seeking monetary compensation for those
affected by the breach. [GN]


KATE SPADE: Mendez Files ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Spade LLC. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kate Spade LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11757 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2019).

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

Kate Spade New York is an American luxury fashion design house
founded in January 1993 by Kate and Andy Spade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELLOGG CO: Court Denies Continuation of Mohamed Suit Briefing Sked
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TASNEEM L. MOHAMED, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge
M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Joint Motion to Continue Class
Certification Briefing Schedule.

The case is a putative consumer class action alleging false and
misleading food labeling.  The Plaintiff's initial motion to
certify a class action was denied without prejudice on March 23,
2019, based on Comcast Corp v. Behrend, and Vaquero v. Ashley
Furniture Indus., because the Plaintiff's proposed model of damages
did not meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).  She was granted leave to file another class
certification motion supported by adequate proof.  The Plaintiff
timely filed her renewed motion on May 22, 2019.

On June 4, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the
time for the opposition and reply briefs to conduct expert
discovery because the Plaintiff's damages expert had submitted a
new report, and both parties wanted to conduct additional expert
depositions.  The joint motion did not explain why the parties did
not complete the discovery in the preceding two and a half months.
Accordingly, their request was denied.  They resubmitted their
motion.  While they did not explain their lack of progress to date,
they explained the press of business that would prevent them from
completing the expert discovery in less than the requested five
weeks.  Before the Court ruled on that request, they filed another
motion, this time seeking an extension of time until Oct. 31, 2019,
on the alternative ground that they wanted to attend mediation.

Based on the stated intent to pursue mediation, the Court granted
the latter request.  On Sept. 23, 2019, the parties filed another
request for an extension of time because the defense counsel could
not attend mediation which had been set for Aug. 28, 2019, and the
new mediation date was Oct. 9, 2019.  They wanted an additional 45
days after mediation to prepare their opposition and reply briefs
if the case did not settle.  The Court granted the request,
extending the due date for the Defendant's opposition until Nov.
22, 2019, and the Plaintiff's reply until Jan. 3, 2020.

On Oct. 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report informing
the Court that the case did not settle in mediation, but they
continued their negotiations through the mediator.  On Nov. 6,
2019, they filed the pending joint motion for an extension of time
on the grounds that following the Oct. 9, 2019 mediation, the
parties attempted to schedule expert depositions, but could not
schedule the Plaintiff's expert's deposition until Dec. 2, 2019.
They request extending the briefing due dates by a month, with the
Defendant's opposition due Dec. 20, 2019, and the Plaintiff's reply
on Ja. 31, 2010.

Judge Lorenz holds that the parties have the burden of showing good
cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to warrant
the requested extension.  However, they have provided no reason why
they have not completed damages expert discovery during the last
six months.  Surely the expert opinions were relevant for
settlement negotiations and would be needed for class action
settlement approval, if the case had settled.  The parties have not
shown good cause for the requested extension.  Therefore, the Judge
denied the Joint Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing
Schedule.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/hxct4w from Leagle.com.

Tasneem L. Mohamed, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Lynn Campbell, Aegis
Law Firm, Samantha Alane Smith -- samanthas@haelaw.com --
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP & Scott B. Cooper, The Cooper Law Firm,
P.C..

Kellogg Company, Defendant, represented by Dean Nicholas Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, pro hac vice & Kenneth
Kiyul Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP.


LESLEY HELLER: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Lesley Heller Fine Arts LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lesley Heller Fine Arts LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11540 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

Lesley Heller Fine Arts LLC is an Art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MADISON COUNTY, AL: District Court Dismisses Korb Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHANDLER KORB, et al., Plaintiff, v. VICTOR
FLORES DE LEON, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02133-LCB
(N.D. Ala.), Judge Liles C. Burke of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, (i)
granted Defendant Madison County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO")'s motion
to dismiss; (ii) granted in part Defendants Blake Dorning' and
Madison County's motions to dismiss; (iii) granted Defendant De
Leon's motion for more definite statement.

The action is a case over a violation of civil rights (prospective
class action) filed on Jan. 2, 2019.  The Plaintiff's complaint
alleges that while incarcerated at the Madison County Detention
Center, she was assaulted and raped on Oct. 9, 2018 by Defendant De
Leon, a guard at the facility.  The assault occurred in the
infirmary of the facility, and the Plaintiff alleges that the
infirmary did not have adequate monitoring devices to protect her
from this assault.

The Plaintiff's individual and class assertions against the
remaining Defendants are that Sheriff Dorning, the MCSO, and
Madison County were all deliberately indifferent to her safety
during her incarceration.  More specifically, the infirmary is coed
and permits female inmates to be alone with male guards thereby
allowing sexually-predatory guards to rape and sexually assault
female inmates.

The Complaint alleges six counts: (1) Violation of the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution via 42
U.S.C. Section 1983; (2) Assault; (3) Invasion of Privacy; (4) Tort
of Outrage; (5) Negligence and Negligence Per Se; (6)
Recklessness/Wantonness; (7) No count seven is alleged; (8)
Violations of the Alabama Constitution, Article I, sections 1, 6,
13, 15, 16, 35 and the Equal Protection Provisions; and (9)
Injunction.

The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Johnson.
However, the parties failed to consent to dispositive jurisdiction
by the magistrate judge, and the case was then reassigned to the
Court on Jan. 28, 2019.

The cause is before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by MCSO,
Dorning, and Madison, and a motion for more definite statement
filed by Defendant De Leon pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), and 12(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff filed
responses to the Defendants' motions on March 22, 2019.  The
Defendants filed their replies on April 2, 2019.

Defendant MCSO in its motion to dismiss contends that it is not a
legal entity capable of being sued according to Rule 17(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In response, the Plaintiff
consents to dismissal of MCSO on the condition that it be entered
without prejudice.  However, the Plaintiff failed to address MCSO's
argument in its motion to dismiss and reply that it does not
constitute a legal entity capable of being sued.

Defendant Sheriff Dorning argues in his motion to dismiss that (1)
the complaint is a shotgun pleading; (2) he is absolutely immune
from claims for money damages under Section 1983, the Alabama
Constitution, and state law tort claims; (3) the Plaintiff failed
to state a claim against the Sherriff for "failure to protect"
under Section 1983; and (4) injunctive relief is not proper based
upon the claims presented.  In response,  the Plaintiff argues that
her pleading is not a shotgun pleading, but, in the alternative,
requests the right to replead.  Also, the Plaintiff concedes that
she seeks only injunctive relief from Sheriff Dorning in his
official capacity, contrary to the relief requested in her
complaint.

Madison County in its motion to dismiss contends that (1) the
complaint is a shotgun pleading; (2) it is not subject to money
damages under the Constitution of Alabama; (3) the Plaintiff failed
to state a claim against the County for "failure to protect" under
Section 1983; and (4) the Plaintiff does not have a viable claim
for injunctive relief.  Again, in response, the Plaintiff denies
the "shotgun" nature of the pleading, but in the alternative,
requests the right to amend the complaint.

De Leon, in his motion for more definite statement, presents a
similar argument.  He asserts that the complaint is a shotgun
pleading based upon the incorporation of factual allegations from
all 72 preceding paragraphs into each count of the complaint.  The
Plaintiff, in response, again counters that her complaint is not a
shotgun pleading, contending that it is not "incomprehensible" and
is clear as to the Defendants subject to and being sued under each
count.  The Judge disagrees.  For this reason, it is not necessary
to address the remaining arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), for the
result would be the same.

Judge Burke holds that the Complaint is a shotgun pleading for
numerous reasons.  First, each of the Plaintiff's counts
incorporates and "realleges" 72 factual and legal allegations.
Consistent therewith, allegations 7 thru 10 of the 72 allegations
identify all of the Defendants; therefore, each Defendant is
incorporated by reference into each cause of action.  Further, as
Judge Burke noted, the Plaintiff's right to claim punitive damages
is disputed; however, claims I and VIII clearly request punitive
damages from all defendants.  All the counts by incorporation
essentially assert the same facts without specifying which specific
facts relate to each particular defendant and cause of action.

Second, Count I alleges numerous causes of action collectively
against all defendants.  Likewise, Counts VII and XI allege
specific causes of actions collectively against all the Defendants.
The Plaintiff's Complaint simply fails to properly specify or
assert separate causes of actions for each Defendant's alleged
wrongful actions; the Defendant responsible for each cause of
action; and the proper damages asserted against each Defendant. For
these reasons, the complaint fails to provide defendants adequate
notice of the grounds for each claim for relief, Judge Burke
holds.

In sum, due to the shotgun nature of the complaint, the Plaintiff's
request to replead, and the fact that there have been no prior
amended complaints, Judge Burke finds that the proper remedy is to
allow the Plaintiff to replead if she wishes to proceed with this
case.

Accordingly, Judge Burke granted Defendant MCSO motion to dismiss.
Judge Burke granted in part Madison's and Dorning's motion to
dismiss due to the Shotgun nature of the Plaintiff's complaint.
The Judge granted De Leon's motion for more definite statement.

The Plaintiff will be required to replead the complaint in
conformity with the instructions and orders set forth in the
Memorandum Opinion.  In turn, the Defendants will have three days
from the date of the filing of the Plaintiff's amended complaint to
file their responsive pleadings.  Separate orders will be entered
simultaneously with the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 5, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/aO1A1C from Leagle.com.

Chandler Korb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric J. Artrip --
artrip@mastandoartrip.com -- MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC & Teresa Ryder
Mastando -- teri@mastandoartrip.com -- MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC.

Victor Flores De Leon, Jr., Defendant, represented by Grace Graham,
ELLIS HEAD OWENS & JUSTICE & J. Bentley Owens, III --
bowens@wefhlaw.com -- ELLIS HEAD OWENS & JUSTICE.

Sheriff Blake Dorning, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
Madison County, Alabama & Madison County, Alabama, Defendants,
represented by David J. Canupp -- DJC@LanierFord.com -- LANIER FORD
SHAVER & PAYNE PC & George W. Royer, Jr. -- GWR@LanierFord.com --
LANIER FORD SHAVER & PAYNE.


MCDANIEL TECHNICAL: Sandel Files Suit under FLSA in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDaniel Technical
Services, Inc. The case is styled as David Sandel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McDaniel
Technical Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00695-GKF-FHM
(N.D., Okla., Dec. 18, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MTSI is a pipeline inspection company with broad energy industry
knowledge that has benefited client projects and facilities across
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
   Andrew Dunlap
   11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com

      - and -

   Michael A Josephson, Esq.
   Josephson Dunlap
   11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


MEN'S WAREHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Men's Wearhouse,
Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Men's Wearhouse, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11765 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2019).

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

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. retails apparel. The Company provides
suits, sport coats, slacks, shirts, shoes, and accessories for
men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MENARD INC: Bid for Corrective Notice in Astarita Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS,
Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK
(W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri granted in part and denied in
part the Owens' Motion for Corrective Notice and Equitable
Tolling.

The Second Amended Complaint in the case alleges that Menard
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law by
failing to pay employees for participating in its in-home training
program.  Prior to June 2016, all of Menard's hourly non-management
employees signed employment agreements that contained arbitration
clauses with class and collective action waivers.  In June 2016,
Menard entered into a settlement with the National Labor Relations
Board ("NLRB") that required Menard to revise its employment
agreements so non-management employees could pursue class or
collective actions in court.  As a result, the employment
agreements of non-management employees hired between June 2016 and
May 2018 did not contain arbitration clauses with class or
collective action waivers—at least initially.

Plaintiff Astarita filed the action on Dec. 21, 2017.  On March 1,
2018, Menard sought to place him in a management position, to which
the NLRB carveout did not apply, and presented him with a new
employment agreement that contained an arbitration clause with a
class and collective action waiver.  Astarita refused to sign it,
and he was fired.  On March 6, 2018, Astarita moved for an
injunction seeking (among other things) reinstatement as an
employee and an order prohibiting Menard from imposing similar
arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers on
other putative class members.  The Court denied the injunction
following a hearing on April 6, 2018.

The next month, on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down Epic
Systems Corporation v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018).  In Epic
Systems, the Supreme Court abrogated the NLRB's view of the law and
held that the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") does not
prohibit employers from enforcing class and collective action
waivers.  In the wake of Epic Systems, while the instant case was
pending, Menard resumed its practice of inserting arbitration
clauses with class and collective action waivers in its employment
agreements for new non-management employees and current
non-management employees who were up for "merit reviews."

On Nov. 13, 2018, the Court compelled Plaintiff Astarita to
arbitration, leaving only Owens as the Named Plaintiff.  Then,
following a telephone conference on Nov. 27, 2018, the Court
certified the following collective to be given notice of the action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b): All present and former hourly
employees who worked or are working at Menard's retail home
improvement stores and/or distribution centers throughout the
United States at any time from Dec. 21, 2014 to the present, and
participated in the In-Home Training Program without compensation,
who worked 40 or more hours per workweek including any time spent
in in-home training, and whose employment agreement does not
contain a class or collective action waiver.

The Plaintiff now argues that a corrective notice should be issued
because she has discovered that Menard improperly contacted
putative class members while the case was pending and required them
to sign class and collective action waivers without giving them
proper notice of this lawsuit.  On July 25, 2019, the Court held a
discovery dispute telephone conference on this issue and requested
further briefing.

The Plaintiff then filed the present motion, which requests an
order (1) approving a corrective notice informing people who were
hired by Menard on an hourly basis between June 2016 and May 2018
whose original employment agreements did not contain class or
collective action waivers that they can still join the case even if
they signed waivers after the case was filed on Dec. 21, 2017; (2)
compelling Menard to produce contact information for these
individuals; and (3) equitably tolling the statute of limitations
as to these individuals.

Judge Ketchmark holds that Menard fails to engage with the
Plaintiff's argument that it improperly contacted putative
Plaintiffs.  Instead, it cites Epic Systems and a subsequent
administrative decision by the National Labor Relations Board, In
re Cordua Restaurants, Inc.  These decisions are irrelevant to the
issue before the Court.  They address whether the NLRA prohibits
employers from enforcing class and collective action waivers, not
whether and under what circumstances a corrective notice should be
issued when an employer obtains a waiver while an FLSA collective
action is already pending.  Menard does not contest that it imposed
waivers on putative Plaintiffs without giving them notice of the
case, information about the effect of the waiver, or an opportunity
to opt out of the waiver.  These were improper communications that
deprived putative plaintiffs of an opportunity to make an informed
choice about whether to join this lawsuit.  Accordingly, the Judge
will approve the proposed corrective notice attached to the
Plaintiff's reply brief.

Menard excluded from its initial class list that was produced in
discovery people who were required to sign revised employment
agreements containing waivers while the case was pending.  In order
for the Plaintiff's class administrator to give notice to these
people, it must have their contact information.  Accordingly, the
Judge will order Menard to produce a supplemental class list
containing the last known contact information of all putative class
members hired between June 2016 and May 2018, whose original
employment agreements did not contain a class or collective action
waiver, and who were not included on the first class list prepared
by Menard.

The Plaintiff requests an order equitably tolling the statute of
limitations for those who will be added to the supplemental class
list.  Regarding the fitness prong, the Judge cannot determine
whether any putative class members pursued their rights diligently
until they are before the Court.  Regarding the second ripeness
prong, there is not likely to be any hardship to the Plaintiff or
any potential opt-ins because they can seek equitable tolling after
the opt-in period has closed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ketchmark granted in part and denied
in part the Owens' Motion for Corrective Notice and Equitable
Tolling.  Menard is directed to provide without delay the Plaintiff
with the last known contact information of all putative class
members hired by Menard between June 2016 and May 2018, whose
original employment agreements did not contain a class or
collective action waiver, and who were not included on the first
class list prepared by Menard (Supplemental Class List).

Judge Ketchmark denied without prejudice as unripe the Plaintiff's
request for equitable tolling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HgCLLd from Leagle.com

Albert J. Astarita, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Rahmberg --mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com -- McClelland Law Firm,
P.C. & Ryan L. McClelland -- ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com --
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.

Diana M. Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan L. McClelland,
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.

Menard, Inc., doing business as Menards, Defendant, represented by
Brian E. Peterson -- bpeterson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP,
Francis X. Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane
LLP, James E. Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP, pro hac vice & Paul L. Bittner --
paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice.


MERIT MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMSI) between
February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Merit Medical
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Merit Medical class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1736.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights,
including their products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had
caused operational disruptions, reduced sales, and were months
behind schedule; (2) sales of acquired company products had slowed
substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular
for Vascular Insights products which, as late as July 2019, had
zero orders during fiscal 2019; (3) in light of the foregoing,
Merit Medical's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and
2020 was made without a reasonable basis; and (4) as a result,
Merit Medical's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1736.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


MERIT MEDICAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Merit
Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMSI) for violations of Secs. 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2019 and October 30, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''),
are encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Merit Medical's integration of Cianna and
Vascular Insights were months behind schedule, suffering from
operational disruptions and reduced sales. The acquired companies
had filled their pipeline before the merger to the extent that 2019
sales slowed substantially. The Company's financial guidance for
2019 and 2020 did not have a solid basis in fact due to these
problems. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Merit Medical, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         The Schall Law Firm
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Yosef Brown, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-07205 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Lucente Files Suit Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Lucente, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management Inc, Midland Funding LLC, and John Does 1 - 25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02915 (N.D., Ohio, Dec. 18, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
   23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Fax: (216) 514-4987
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Rader Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jo Ella Rader, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02528-JAM-DMC (E.D., Cal., Dec. 17, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group, APC
   6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
   Culver City, CA 90230
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com



MIDLAND CREDIT: Vasquez Files Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Genesis M. Vasquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10652 (C.D., Cal., Dec. 17, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group, APC
   6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
   Culver City, CA 90230
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com




MUNICIPAL WATER: App. Court Vacates Certification in Swope Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel., MUNICIPAL
WATER WORKS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DEREK C. SWOPE, sitting
by special assignment as Judge of the Circuit Court of Wyoming
County; SHERMAN TAYLOR, DAVID BAILEY, and JOANNA BAILEY,
Respondents, Case No. 19-0404 (W. Va.), Judge Tim Armstead of the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated the Circuit Court
of Wyoming County's order granting the Plaintiffs/Respondents'
motion for class certification.

Underlying Class Action

The underlying complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Sherman Taylor,
David Bailey, and Joanna Bailey, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, on June 19, 2018, in the
Circuit Court of Wyoming County against Municipal Water Works.  The
complaint alleged that each putative class member was a customer of
Municipal Water and as a result, was exposed to illness causing
pollutants in their water supply.  This exposure, according to the
complaint, put the class members at an increased risk of illnesses
including, but not limited to, kidney and liver disease, failure
and/or cancer.  Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the
polluted water led a certain subset of the class members to develop
and seek treatment for illnesses including kidney and liver
disease, failure, or cancer.

The Plaintiffs defined two sub-classes in their complaint: (1)
customers who suffered and were treated for adverse health effects,
and (2) customers who require medical monitoring for adverse health
effects.  The complaint provides that the class action seeks
damages, punitive damages, costs, establishment of a medical
monitoring fund, attorneys' fees, and other relief as a result of
Municipal Water's conduct described.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, asserting that the proposed class potentially
consists of thousands of who were exposed to carcinogenic water
provided by Defendant Municipal Water between 2016-2018, including
not only those who suffer from adverse health effects, but also
those who appear to be healthy but seek medical monitoring relief.
The counsel for the Plaintiffs have already been retained by 26 of
those affected who are seeking to file suit.  Municipal Water filed
a response to the motion, noting that limited discovery had
occurred, and asserting that only one Plaintiff, Sherman Taylor,
alleged an actual injury.

Based on this argument, Municipal Water urged the circuit court to
deny the motion for class certification because the Plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a) of
the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure -- numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.  After
holding a hearing, the circuit court entered an order granting
class certification on March 12, 2019.  

Motion to Prohibit

Following entry of the circuit court's order, Municipal Water Works
in April 2019 invoked the Appeals Court's original jurisdiction in
prohibition to challenge the March 12, 2019, order issued by the
circuit court's motion for class certification.  In its petition to
the Court, Municipal Water raises two main arguments: 1) the
circuit court judge, the Hon. Warren R. McGraw, should have
disqualified himself prior to granting the motion to certify the
class because he is a potential class member; and 2) the circuit
court's order did not contain a "thorough analysis" of the four
class certification prerequisites in Rule 23(a) of the West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 2, 2019, the circuit court judge advised the Appeals Court
that the counsel for Municipal Water filed a motion for his
disqualification.  Furthermore, the circuit court judge advised the
Appeals Court that he wishes to recuse himself voluntarily from
presiding over the matter.  By administrative order entered on May
16, 2019, the Appeals Court granted the motion for
disqualification.

Judge Armstead finds that the circuit court judge is a potential
class member and could be entitled to recover financially if the
class action is successful.  Judge Armstead finds that this
potential financial interest creates an appearance of impropriety.
Under the Court's well-established case law, a person cannot be a
judge in a cause wherein he is interested, whether he be a party to
the suit or not.  The circuit court judge appropriately requested
that he be recused from presiding over further action in the
matter.  The Judge granted his motion for disqualification.
However, because the circuit court judge granted the class
certification order prior to his disqualification, and because the
certification order is the central issue in the litigation, Judge
Armstead finds that Municipal Water's writ challenging the circuit
court's March 12, 2019, order certifying the class must be
granted.

Judge Armstead holds that it is clear that the circuit court's
order did not contain a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors
-- the order's brief, general analysis of the four factors falls
far short of the detailed and specific showing that is required.
Instead of clearly delineating the contours of the class along with
the issues, claims, and defenses to be given class treatment, the
circuit court's order provides only a general, non-specific review
of the Rule 23(a) requirements.  Because the circuit court failed
to conduct a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors, the order
granting class certification must be vacated.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Armstead finds that
Municipal Water is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prohibit
the enforcement of the circuit court's March 12, 2019, order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
circuit court's order is vacated and the case is remanded for
further proceedings, the Appeals Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 5, 2019 Corrected
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/6FsYfB from Leagle.com.

Duane J. Ruggier, II, Esq., Evan S. Olds, Esq. -- eolds@pffwv.com
-- Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

Adam D. Taylor, Esq. -- adamtaylorlaw@gmail.com -- Taylor & Hinkle,
Attorneys at Law, Inc., Stephen P. New, Esq., Amanda J. Taylor,
Esq., The Law Office of Stephen P. New, Beckley, West Virginia,
Counsel for Respondents.


MUSH FOODS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mush Foods Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mush Foods Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07134 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019).

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

MUSH Foods Inc. is the maker of MUSH, a refrigerated overnight
soaked oats ideal for breakfast, snacking and post workout.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-71717
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Wilen Questions Merger of Viacom and CBS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS M. WILEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARI E. REDSTONE, NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS,
INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH A.
MCHALE, RONALD NELSON, NICOLE SELIGMAN and ROBERT M. BAKISH,
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0948-JRS (Del. Ch., Nov. 25, 2019),
asserts claims against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary
duty in their capacity as directors, officers, and/or controlling
stockholders of Viacom, Incorporated.

The stockholder class action challenges the long-anticipated yet
much-maligned merger of two controlled companies--Viacom and CBS,
Inc.--at the behest of a controlling stockholder that has already
admitted in judicial pleadings that the merger triggers the entire
fairness standard of judicial review.

Shari Redstone vigorously fought for years to assume control of the
media empire her father Sumner Redstonebuilt so that she can
re-unify (and consolidate control over) the two Redstone "family"
businesses, Viacom and CBS, Inc.. With Ms. Redstone involved, the
Merger was going to happen regardless of whether a fair exchange
ratio would ever be set.

According to the complaint, the Director Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties by preferring Ms. Redstone's dream to
combine Viacom and CBS and governance demands over the rights of
nonaffiliated stockholders and subsequently approving an exchange
ratio that deprives Viacom stockholders of fair value. The Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by conducting an unfair
process, which resulted in an unfair price.

On August 13, 2019, after three years of on-again, off-again
negotiations, CBS and Viacom announced the pending recombination of
the two companies based on an exchange ratio of 0.59625 CBS shares
for each Viacom share regardless of class (implying only an $11.8
billion Viacom enterprise value). As CBS's legal counsel wrote
recently, the final 0.59625 exchange ratio is "objectively
favorable to CBS stockholders."

The Plaintiff contends that he and other aggrieved minority Viacom
investors have no opportunity to vote to protect their interests.
Ms. Redstone and NAI have chosen to accept the entire fairness
standard of judicial review rather than bear the risk of a majority
of the minority condition to the Merger. Reflecting its own
misplaced loyalties and lack of independence, the Viacom special
committee never even proposed any such condition, much less
insisted on it, the lawsuit says.

As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class will be harmed by failure
to receive fair consideration for their Viacom shares, the value of
their investment will be diminished, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff has continuously held shares in Viacom Class B common
stock from July 2015 to present. He has been a stockholder of
Viacom at all times relevant to the conduct giving rise to the
asserted claims.

Shari E. Redstone, the daughter of Sumner Redstone, is the
controlling stockholder of National Amusements Inc. Ms. Redstone is
a director of and owns approximately 20 percent of NAI through the
Shari E. Redstone Trust and has served as NAI's president since
2000.

National Amusements, Incorporated is a privately held Maryland
corporation headquartered in Norwood, Massachusetts. National
Amusements, a national movie theater operator, was founded by Ms.
Redstone's grandfather.

Non-party Viacom, Incorporated is a publicly-traded Delaware
corporation headquartered in New York, New York, concentrating on
entertainment-related services and products. Its business units
include Viacom Media Networks and Paramount Pictures; Viacom also
owns numerous cable channels, including MTV, BET, VH1, Nickelodeon,
and Comedy Central.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          David L. Wales, Esq.
          Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Anne B. Beste, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001


NATIONAL EXEMPLAR GALLERY: Mendez Files Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Exemplar Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The National Exemplar
Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11543 (S.D. N.Y., Dec.
17, 2019).

The National Exemplar Gallery Inc. is an Art gallery in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


NEW SOHO GALLERY: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
New Soho Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Soho Gallery, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11541 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

New Soho Gallery, Inc. is an artist-run gallery located in the
Tribeca neighborhood of New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com



NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit headed by the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi remains
pending.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.

Another lawsuit, which alleged similar facts but also named other
defendants, including former Chief Operating Officer Stephen
Hasker, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September
2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York in
December 2018.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

An amended complaint was filed on June 21, 2019, asserting
violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, based on allegedly false and materially
misleading statements relating to the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now
"Connect") segment, the Company's preparedness for changes in
global data privacy laws and Nielsen's reliance on third-party
data.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 6,
2019.

A second amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2019.

The Company anticipates filing a renewed motion to dismiss in the
coming months.

In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's
current and former officers and directors.

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the named officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Nielsen in connection
with factual assertions substantially similar to those in the
putative class action complaints. The derivative lawsuit further
alleges that certain officers and directors engaged in trading
Nielsen stock based on material, nonpublic information.

By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit has been
stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss the
aforementioned securities litigation. Nielsen intends to defend
these lawsuits vigorously.

Nielsen said, "Based on currently available information, Nielsen
believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on Nielsen's business, financial position, or results of
operations."

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


NISOURCE INC: Norman Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LASUNDRA NORMAN a/k/a Lasandra Norman,
Plaintiff, v. NIPSCO and AMERICAN WATER, Defendants, Cause No.
2:19-CV-365-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond
Division, (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, and (ii) denied without prejudice as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion for an Emergency Hearing.

Norman, a Plaintiff proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint
against Defendants NIPSCO and American Water.  She also filed a
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In her Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleges that she is bringing a class action.  She then
alleges that she is a forced stakeholder/customer in the utilities
NIPSCO and American Water because they bill her monthly and she has
been paying her bill on time for more than 10 years.  She alleges
that these bills cause stress.  The Plaintiff alleges that, if she
and others, mainly in Gary, Indiana, are unable to pay their
utility bills, the Defendants send threatening letters with
specific date and times on when they will violate my privacy rights
by turning my utilities off from the streets.  And, the Plaintiff
alleges that the utility bills can start to go up very fast.  She
further alleges that the Defendants have not fixed up
neighborhoods.  She states that she would prefer to pay the
government for her utilities.  She asks that all disconnections
scheduled for NIPSCO and American Water be suspended and that all
billing be suspended as well.  The Plaintiff further seeks, on
behalf of all residents, a "full refund" for all money paid on
NIPSCO and American Water accounts because the bills were for basic
essentials of life.  Finally, she alleges that American Water has
"illegally" turned down the water pressure in her house "because of
a $60 bill."

It appears that the Plaintiff is bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights.  In order to
state a claim under Section 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that
the defendants deprived her of a federal constitutional right; and
(2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.

The Defendants in the case, NIPSCO and American Water, are private
companies, and the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that these
private companies were acting under color of state law or in
concert with a state actor.  Nor are the Defendants state actors
merely because they are highly regulated by state law.  Because the
Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendants were acting under color
of state law, the Plaintiff cannot state a claim for a Section 1983
violation, and Judge Springmann dismisses the Plaintiff's Section
1983 claims.

Reading the pro se Complaint liberally, the Plaintiff may also be
bringing state law claims.  To the extent that she is challenging
the disconnection of her utility services, the procedure for a
public utility customer to resolve such a dispute with the public
utility is governed by Indiana regulations.  The procedure for
appealing the resolution of such a dispute with the utility is also
governed by Indiana regulations, which allow the customer to file
an informal complaint with consumer affairs, the consumer to
request a subsequent review by the director of consumer affairs,
and consumer affairs to refer a complaint to the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission ("IURC").  Review of IURC decisions is made
by appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

To the extent that the Plaintiff is contesting the rates charged by
the Defendants, utility rates are regulated by the IURC, and,
again, review of the IURC's orders takes place in the Indiana Court
of Appeals.

The Plaintiff may also be attempting to bring an Indiana common law
breach of contract claim or a statutory negligence per se claim for
a violation of Indiana law regarding the regulation of public
utilities.  The Court's original subject matter jurisdiction over
any state law claims must be premised on diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  Diversity jurisdiction exists when
the parties to an action on each side are citizens of different
states, with no defendant a citizen of the same state as any
plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Judge Springmann finds that it is not clear from the allegations of
the Complaint whether the Plaintiff and the Defendants are of
diverse citizenship.  Regardless, the amount in controversy
requirement of $75,000 is not met.  The Plaintiff alleges that
American Water turned down the water pressure in response to an
unpaid water bill in the amount of $60.  It also appears that her
combined utility bills for a 10-year period would not reach the
minimum amount in controversy.  Because the amount in controversy
is not met, the Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 over any state law claims against the
Defendants.

Nevertheless, Judge Springmann holds that the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367 based on the Court's original jurisdiction to hear the
federal constitutional claims.  However, because the Judge is
dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim, she
declines to exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment
of fees is denied, and the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).  The Judge grants the Plaintiff
until Dec. 8, 2019, to file an amended complaint.  Any amended
complaint must cure the deficiencies identified in the Opinion.
Along with an amended complaint, the Plaintiff must also file a new
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  If the Plaintiff does not
file an amended complaint by Dec. 8, 2019, the Court will direct
the Clerk of Court to close this case. If Plaintiff does not file
an amended complaint and the case is closed, the Plaintiff is
permitted to pursue her claims in state court because the Court has
declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims under
28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3).

Based on the foregoing, Judge Springmann denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and dismissed without
prejudice the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).  She denied without prejudice as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Hearing.  The Plaintiff is
granted up to and including Dec. 8, 2019, to file an amended
complaint as well as either a new Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis or the filing fee.  The Plaintiff is cautioned that if she
does not respond on time, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court
to close the case without further notice and the Court will
relinquish jurisdiction over any state law claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/kMtxHk from Leagle.com.

Lasundra Norman, also known as Lasandra Norman, Plaintiff, pro se.


NORTHSTAR ALARM: Bid to Decertify Class in Braver Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen P. Friot of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma denied Defendant Yodel Technologies LLC's
motion seeking decertification of the class in ROBERT BRAVER, for
himself and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
NORTHSTAR ALARM SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CIV-17-0383-F (W.D. Okla.).

Defendant Yodel moved for the Court to decertify the class in the
Braver complaint or reconsider summary judgment.  Plaintiff Braver
objected to the Motion, and Yodel filed a reply brief.

Many of Yodel's arguments are premised on Yodel's contention, made
throughout its moving papers, that the Court's orders effectively
hold that all calls using any soundboard technology are
categorically prohibited under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(B).
Based on that premise, Yodel argues that absent decertification or
reconsideration of the summary judgment order, the Court's orders
render Section 227(b)(1)(B) unconstitutional under the First
Amendment.

Judge Friot finds that Yodel's premise is demonstrably incorrect.
The court's orders do not hold, effectively or otherwise, that all
uses of soundboard technology are prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(B).  Its summary judgment order established the nature of
Yodel's soundboard technology as used by Yodel to deliver the calls
in question in the case.  For example, the order found that Yodel's
soundboard agents, located in a call center in India, followed a
script which instructed them to press buttons in a certain order,
thereby delivering prerecorded audio clips to the called party.
The order further found there was no dispute that calls were made
to residential phone lines, and that every initial call to class
members began with the soundboard agent playing a pre-recorded
message without the prior consent of the called parties.

Based on these and other findings, Judge Friot holds that it was
clear that all the class members received at least one soundboard
call that violated the prohibition set forth in 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(B).  Judge Friot determined there is no genuine issue
with respect to the fact that Yodel initiated telephone calls to
residential telephone lines using a prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without the prior express consent of the called party.  The
Court ruled in favor of Braver and the class, and against Yodel, on
count one.  Accordingly, Yodel's arguments at this stage -- which
contend that the court ruled too broadly and should have taken into
account what Yodel describes as the varying levels of "human-driven
interactivity" demonstrated in some of the calls -- are rejected.
Yodel's motion to decertify will be denied.

As for Yodel's alternative request that the court reconsider its
order on summary judgment, Judge Friot will make a minor amendment
to footnote 30, for the sake of accuracy.  In all other respects,
the Judge will deny Yodel's request for reconsideration.  The
Court's ruling in favor of Braver and the class at the summary
judgment stage is pinned to the undisputed facts of the case, and
there is nothing about that ruling which renders Section
227(b)(1)(B) unconstitutional under the First Amendment or the
rationale of Moser.  For the sake of accuracy, the Order amends one
sentence in footnote 30 of the summary judgment order.  Aside from
that, no reconsideration or modification of the summary judgment
order is necessary or appropriate.  Accordingly, with one minor
exception, Yodel's request for reconsideration of the court's
summary judgment order will be denied.

Upon consideration, Judge Friot denied Yodel's motion seeking
decertification of the class.  Yodel's alternative request for
reconsideration of the Court's order on summary judgment is granted
in part and denied in part, the Judge further orders.  Yodel's
motion to reconsider is granted to the limited extent that the
Court has substituted a corrected version of a sentence in footnote
30 of the Court's order on summary judgment.  The clerk is directed
to add the following statement to the docketed description of doc.
no. 139: "Footnote 30 has been amended as set out at p. 5 of doc.
no. 199."  In all other respects, Yodel's request for
reconsideration of the summary judgment order is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/URC1xY from Leagle.com.

Robert H Braver, for himself & Robert H Braver, and for all
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Humphreys -- david@hwh-law.com -- Humphreys Wallace Humphreys PC,
Keith J. Keogh -- keith@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law LTD, pro hac
vice, Luke J. Wallace -- luke@wh-law.com -- Humphreys Wallace
Humphreys PC, Paul M. Catalano -- paul@hwh-law.com -- Humphreys
Wallace Humphreys PC & Timothy J. Sostrin -- tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
-- Keogh Law LTD, pro hac vice.

Northstar Alarm Services LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Brian R. Matula, Gum Puckett & Mackechnie
LLP, Daniel S. Blynn -- dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth C. Rinehart -- lcrinehart@venable.com -- Venable
LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen R. Freeland -- srfreeland@Venable.com
-- Venable LLP, pro hac vice.

Yodel Technologies LLC, Defendant, represented by Anne E. Zachritz,
Resolution Legal Group & Eric S. Allen, Allen Mitchell & Allen
PLLC, pro hac vice.


O'REILLY AUTO: Failed to Provide Suitable Seats, Stefan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIQUE STEFAN, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v. O'REILLY
AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV42462 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019), alleges that the
Company failed to provide the Plaintiff and other seating aggrieved
employees with suitable seating pursuant to the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Defendant failed to provide her and others with suitable seats
for employees performing work as cashiers even though the nature of
work reasonably permitted the use of seats, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee in California.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC owns and operates retail auto parts
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          David Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, PC
          1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste 320
          Los Angeles, CA 90035-1154
          Telephone: (424) 288-4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532-4062
          E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com


ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rianhard Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Organovo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rianhard v.
Crouch., et al., Case No. 19-cv-1922 (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2019).

On October 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the
Company and its board of directors in connection with the annual
proxy statement filed by the Company on July 26, 2019. The case is
captioned Rianhard v. Crouch., et al., Case No. 19-cv-1922 (D. Del.
Oct. 10, 2019).

The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14A proxy statement
contained material misrepresentations in connection with the
reverse stock split proposal recommended therein and asserts claims
for violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims for
breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Organovo said, "The Company assesses contingencies to determine the
degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential
accrual in its financial statements."

Organovo Holdings, Inc. a biotechnology company that has been
focused on pioneering the development of bioprinted human tissues
that emulate human biology and disease. The company is based in San
Diego, California.


PIEROGI INC: Mendez Files Suit in New York under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Pierogi Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Himelda
Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pierogi Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11539 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

Pierogi Inc. is a Polish restaurant in Roselle Park, NJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com



PRADA USA CORP: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prada USA Corp. The
case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prada USA Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11720 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2019).

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

Prada USA Corp. sells upscale apparel, shoes, fragrances,
cosmetics, sunglasses, handbags, and accessories for men and
women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          Shalom Law, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


PRECISION SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Williams Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PRECISION SECURITY AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC.; CHROME HEARTS LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV42576 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019),
alleges that PSPS did not provide the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for work performed "off the clock."

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a security
guard, also alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate him
for all hours worked; failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay
overtime; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and
failed to pay wages owed every pay period under the California
Labor Code.

Precision Security and Protective Services is a full service
security company engaging in all facets of the security
environment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


PRIMAVERA GALLERY: Mendez Files Suit under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Primavera Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Primavera Gallery, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11538 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

Primavera is a fine arts and crafts gallery in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com



PRO CUSTOM: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART SMITH and BRENNAN LANDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC d/b/a
MOMENTUM SOLAR, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-20673 (D.N.J., NOV. 25, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by making
unsolicited autodialed and pre-recorded telephone calls to
consumers' cellular telephones without procuring prior express
written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Momentum Solar makes unsolicited telemarketing calls to solicit
consumers to purchase its solar energy products and services--all
in violation of the TCPA, the Plaintiffs assert. They add that the
Defendant caused them and the members of the Class actual harm and
cognizable legal injury, including aggravation, nuisance and
invasions of privacy.

Momentum Solar is a supplier of solar energy solutions
headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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 -

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


PROGENICS PHARMA: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal With Lantheus
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., KAREN JEAN
FERRANTE, BRADLEY L. CAMPBELL, LANTHEUS HOLDINGS, INC., and PLATO
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02194-UNA (D. Del.,
Nov 25, 2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Progenics will be acquired by Lantheus Holdings, Inc. and
Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

The complaint preliminarily and permanently seeks to enjoin the
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction;
and in the event the Defendants consummate the Proposed
Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

On October 1, 2019, Progenics' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Lantheus. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Progenics'
stockholders will receive 0.2502 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Progenics common stock they own.

On November 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement. The Registration Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff avers.

The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's and Lantheus' financial projections, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff adds that the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Jefferies LLC.

Because of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable
harm, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is an owner of Progenics common stock.

Progenics is an oncology company focused on the development and
commercialization of innovative targeted medicines and artificial
intelligence to find, fight, and follow cancer, including:
therapeutic agents designed to treat cancer (AZEDRA (TM) , 1095,
and PSMA TTC); prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted
imaging agents for prostate cancer (PyL TM and 1404); and imaging
analysis technology (aBSI and PSMA AI). Karen Jean Ferrante is
Chairman of the Board of the Company. Bradley L. Campbell is a
director of the Company.

The Company has commercial products AZEDRA, for the treatment of
patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic
pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma who require systemic anticancer
therapy, and oral and subcutaneous formulations of RELISTOR (TM)
(methylnaltrexone bromide) for the treatment of opioid-induced
constipation, which is partnered with Bausch Health Companies
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Faces Pieczonka Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Select
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Thomas J. Pieczonka,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02965 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 23, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats,
renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          DannLaw
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Phone: (216) 373-0539
          Fax: (216) 373-0536
          Email: mdann@dannlaw.com


PUBLIC REPUTATION: Trajano Files Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Public Reputation
Management Services, LLC. The case is styled as Paula Trajano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Public Reputation Management Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-63104-RKA (S.D., Fla., Dec. 17, 2019).

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

Reputation Management LLC is an online reputation management
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JibraelJarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
   110 SE 6th St.
   17th Floor
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 907-1136
   Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fenley Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court in the
case, Fenley v. Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Sotheby's
International Realty, Inc., Wish Properties, Inc. and DOES 1-100,
has denied the defendants' motions to compel arbitration.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 25, 2019
by plaintiff Elizabeth Fenley against Wish Properties, Inc, a
Sotheby's International Realty independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Wish Sotheby's International Realty.

The complaint also names Realogy Franchise Group LLC and Sotheby's
International Realty, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company, as alleged joint employers of the franchise's independent
sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially
include all agents in California affiliated with any Realogy
Franchise Group brand.

The plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly responsible
for misclassifying Wish SIR's agents as independent contractors and
failed to reimburse for business expenses, provide accurate wage
statements and pay wages timely, all in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based
on the violations previously described. The plaintiff seeks
reimbursement of allegedly necessary expenses, liquidated damages,
waiting time penalties, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment
interest, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On September 17, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' motions to
compel arbitration.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Whitlach v.
Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real
Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County).

This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M ("Century 21 M&M").

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate, as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's
independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could
potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century
21 in California.

The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its
independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals,
broker associates and other similar positions as independent
contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper
records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made
unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff
and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code.

The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based
on the alleged violations described above.

On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act.
The PAGA claims included in the amended complaint are substantively
similar to those asserted in the original complaint. Under
California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.

In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of the non- PAGA claims and to stay the PAGA claims pending
resolution of the arbitrable claims.

On June 5, 2019, the court dismissed the plaintiff's non-PAGA
claims without prejudice and withdrew the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration by stipulation of the parties. The plaintiff
continues to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of
purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA.

The plaintiff currently seeks, as the representative of all
purported aggrieved employees, all non-individualized relief
available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well
as attorneys' fees.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


RICHLINE GROUP: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richline Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richline Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11721 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2019).

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

Richline Group, Inc. offers gold jewelry, diamond and stone set,
necklaces, bracelets, earrings, rings, pendants, and pearl set.
Richline Group serves customers Worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          Shalom Law, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


RICK WESTER FINE: Mendez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Wester Fine Art, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rick Wester Fine Art, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11536 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17, 2019).

Rick Wester Fine Art, Inc. is a contemporary art & photography
gallery located in the heart of the Chelsea art district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Wertzberger Files Suit in New York under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman LLC.
The case is styled as Elias Wertzberger, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Rubin &
Rothman LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07227 (E.D., N.Y., Dec.
25, 2019).

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

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York and New Jersey creditor's rights
law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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






RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin and Rothman,
LLC. The case is styled as Yehuda Spira, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin and Rothman,
LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-11754 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 23, 2019).

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

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a creditor's rights firm.[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


SADIGH GALLERY: Mendez Files Suit in New York Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sadigh Gallery Ancient Art Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Himelda Mendez for herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sadigh Gallery Ancient Art
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11534 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 17,
2019).

Sadigh Gallery Ancient Art Inc. offers authentic ancient artifacts,
coins, collectibles, and antiquities at wholesale prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com




SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by Duane &
Virginia Lanier Trust remains pending.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants.

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawerence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.  

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge
is a nominal defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

As a result of the Court's order, the only claims remaining in the
litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SDR, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are
being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust,
but also by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust. On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of SDR.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations. On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.

Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Rosenauer Sues Over Zantac's Unsafe NDMA Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIM ROSENAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarlyy
situated, Plaintiff v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES
INC., and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-03406-MDH (W.D. Mo., Nov. 22, 2019),  alleges that
the Defendants failed to disclose material information that Zantac
exposed users to unsafe levels of the carcinogen
N-Nitrosodimethylamine, according to scientific evidence.

The Defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent concealment under
Missouri law, violates implied warranties, and runs afoul of
Missouri's consumer-protection laws, including the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Plaintiff alleges.

Zantac--the brand-name version of the generic drug ranitidine--is
used to treat gastrointestinal conditions, such as acid
indigestion, heartburn, sour stomach, and gastroesophageal reflux
disease. As recently as 2018, Zantac was widely used and remained
one of the most popular acid-reducers in the United States, with
sales of over $100 million annually.

According to the complaint, Zantac's prodigious sales were possible
only because of a deception perpetrated by the drug's manufacturers
on consumers, who have purchased Zantac since it hit the market in
1983. The producers of Zantac, including the Sanofi Defendants,
never disclosed to consumers that the drug has a critical defect:
when ingested, Zantac produces in the human body high quantities of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a potent carcinogen.

The Plaintiff previously purchased the over-the-counter version of
Zantac. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of those persons,
who purchased over-the-counter Zantac in the State of Missouri
during the applicable statute of limitations period, including
periods of tolling.

Had the Defendants disclosed that Zantac results in unsafe levels
of NDMA in the human body, the Plaintiff, like any other reasonable
person, would not have purchased and consumed Zantac, the lawsuit
says.

Sanofi is a French multinational pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Paris, France. Boehringer Ingelheim is one of the
world's 20 leading pharmaceutical companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 West Broadway, Suite 107
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: 573 875-1991
          Facsimile: 573-875-1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Compels Arbitration in Dowdy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephanie Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland issued an Opinion granting Motion to Compel
Non-Class Arbitration in the case captioned Aleia Dowdy, v.
Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Civil No. SAG-19-01386, (D. Md.).

Aleia Dowdy filed the class action lawsuit against Defendant
Santander Consumer USA, Inc., for claims arising out of her
financing of a purchase of a motor vehicle.  Dowdy's Second Amended
Complaint contains a single count, alleging that Santander violated
Maryland's Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), by
charging and collecting convenience fees for payments she made by
telephone or internet.  She further alleges her claim on behalf of
a putative class of customers, defined as those who entered into a
credit contract governed by CLEC and were charged convenience fees
by Santander for making payments due under a Retail Installment
Sales Contract (RISC).

Santander moved to enforce an arbitration agreement in the Buyer's
Order that Dowdy signed.  Santander sought to compel non-class
arbitration, under the terms of the Arbitration Agreement in the
Buyer's Order.

Dowdy makes four arguments in opposition: (1) the RISC is a
stand-alone document, without an arbitration agreement; 2) the
Buyer's Order limits the application of its Arbitration Agreement
to its original signatories, Dowdy and Koons; (3) even if Santander
had a right to compel arbitration, the right was released upon the
execution of a settlement agreement between Dowdy and Santander's
assignee, NCB Management, Inc. ("NCB"); and 4) the RISC merged into
the Judgment entered by the District Court in the dispute between
NCB and Dowdy.

The Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement does not need to be
incorporated into the RISC by its language, because the RISC is
expressly within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement contained
in the Buyer's Order.

Moreover, as an assignee, Santander has every right Koons
previously enjoyed under the Buyer's Order, and thus it can enforce
the Arbitration Agreement, the Court cites.

Dowdy insists that Santander can no longer compel arbitration,
because Santander assigned the RISC to NCB. Dowdy's position is
unsupported by the plain language of the contract between Santander
and NCB, the Court finds. The Financial Asset Sale Agreement
expressly states that NCB is only purchasing Financial Assets as
such term is specifically defined in this Agreement and that
nothing about the transfer of data files should be construed to
evidence an intention to sell or acquire any such other assets,
collateral, claims or rights.

Dowdy's own allegation, in her Second Amended Complaint, supports
that plain language reading of the assignment, the Court continues.
The litigation between NCB and Dowdy to collect on the
receivable/debt, and any resolution of that dispute, has no impact
on Santander's ability to compel arbitration under the RISC and
Buyer's Order, which were not assigned, the Court says.

Santander's motion to compel arbitration will be granted, the Court
holds.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Opinion
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxhke4ka from Leagle.com

Aleia Dowdy, Plaintiff, represented by Cory L. Zajdel -
CLZ@ZLAWMARYLAND.COM - Z Law LLC, David Matthew Trojanowski -
DMT@ZLAWMARYLAND.COM - Z Law, LLC & Jeffrey Christopher Toppe -
JCT@ZLAWMARYLAND.COM - Z Law, LLC.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurie Goon
Furshman -
lgfurshman@duanemorris.com - Duane Morris LLP & Robert John Brener

- RLArchie@duanemorris.com -  Duane Morris LLP, pro hac vice.


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Pendergraft Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PENDERGRAFT, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf
of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00062776 (Cal. Super., Nov.
25, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff was denied the benefits and
protections of the Labor Code due to the Defendants'
institutionalized pay practices standard as to all of their
California-based, nonexempt, non-union employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were
and are denied full and accurate compensation, including overtime
compensation, and are denied meal and rest periods and meal and
rest period, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from September 14, 2017, through September 2019.

The approximately 1,000 aggrieved employees are comprised of all of
the Defendants' current and former California-based employees,
designated as "nonexempt" by the Defendants.

Siemens is a German multinational conglomerate company
headquartered in Munich and the largest industrial manufacturing
company in Europe with branch offices abroad.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrea J. Torres-Figueroa, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA S92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SOFTBANK GROUP: Faces Won Securities Suit in California Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Softbank Group
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as ANDREW WON, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND DERIVATIVELY ON
BEHALF OF THE WE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF v. DOES 1 TO 25; BRUCE
DUNLEVIE; RONALD FISHER; LEWIS FRANKFORT; STEVEN LANGMAN, ADAM
NEUMANN; MARK SCHWARTZ; SOFTBANK GROUP CORPORATION; MASAYOSHI SON;
and ZHAO, JOHN, DEFENDANTS, and THE WE COMPANY, NOMINAL DEFENDANT,
Case No. CGC19581021 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019).

The case alleges violation of securities related laws.

SoftBank Group Corp. is a Japanese multinational conglomerate
holding company headquartered in Tokyo.

We is an American commercial real estate company that provides
shared workspaces for technology startups and services for other
enterprises. Founded in 2010, We is headquartered in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          SF Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Rd No. 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com


SOLARA MEDICAL: Wardrop Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solara Medical
Supplies, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas Wardrop, indiviudally
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Solara
Medical Supplies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02423-AJB-AGS
(S.D., Cal., Dec. 18, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed as a Diversity Action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rachel L Jensen, Esq.
   Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP
   655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 231-1058
   Fax: (619) 231-7423
   Email: rjensen@rgrdlaw.com


STEELSERIES NORTH: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SteelSeries North
America Corporation. The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SteelSeries North America Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11723 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2019).

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

SteelSeries North American Corporation manufactures gaming
equipment. The Company offers products such as headsets, keyboards,
mice, mousepads, controllers, gaming surfaces, apparel, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          Shalom Law, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


STOCKBRIDGE ENG: Wilkerson Seeks OT Pay for Manufacturing Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WADE WILKERSON and CEDRIC BROWN, JR., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STOCKBRIDGE ENG.,
INC., Case No. 19-cv-1727 (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 25, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

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

Stockbridge is a brake manufacturing company headquartered in
Stockbridge, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telepone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Kassien Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America,
Inc. The case is captioned as JANELLE KASSIEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20689-JHR-KMW (D.N.J.,
Nov. 25, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez.

The suit involves motor vehicle product liability issues.

Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United
States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary
of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com


SUPERIOR STAFFING: Jones Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
TABARIS JONES and JEFFERY CHRISTIAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERIOR STAFFING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13607 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 25, 2019),
seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class members'
sensitive biometric data under the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated individuals are
Illinois citizens, who performed work for the Defendant in
Illinois, who had their biometric identifiers, including
fingerprints, improperly collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained or used by the Defendant.

Individuals, who perform work for Defendant in Illinois have been
required to place their finger on Defendant's biometric time
clocks. That is because the Defendant uses a biometric time
tracking system (their "Biometric Scanner System") that requires
workers and employees to use their fingerprint as a means of
authentication. Biometric identifiers specifically include retina
and iris scans, voiceprints, scans of hand and face geometry, and
fingerprints.

Superior is an Illinois job placement and staffing service,
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 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880


TARGET CORP: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Automated Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
HANS TIEFENTHALER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-12412 (D. Mass., Nov. 25, 2019), arises from a campaign by
Target to market its "Target Circle" program through the use of
automated text messages, in plain violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On November 16, 2019, Mr. Tiefenthaler received generic computer
generated text messages on his cellular telephone.

By using an automated telephone dialing system to send thousands of
automated telemarketing text messages without first obtaining the
prior express written consent of recipients, Target violated the
TCPA, the Plaintiff alleges. Moreover, Target sent messages to
cellular telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do
Not Call List, which is a separate and additional violation of the
TCPA. The recipients of Target's illegal text messages, which
include the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to
damages under the TCPA, according to the complaint.

As result of the Defendant's willful and/or knowing violations, the
Plaintiff seeks for himself and each Robotext Class member treble
damages statutory damages.

Target Corporation is the eighth-largest retailer in the United
States, and is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


TIGER EYE: Court Partly Grants Summ. Judgment Bid in Adkinson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONALD ADKINSON and KERRY WIMLEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TIGER EYE PIZZA, LLC and KEN SCHROEPFER, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-4007 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment on Consent to Join Collective Action Filed by
David Wright.

On Sept. 7, 2018, Wright filed a putative collective and class
action against the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA").  That
case was assigned civil case number 4:18-cv-4127-SOH.  Wright
alleged that he is employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid
pizza delivery driver in Texarkana, Arkansas and Texarkana, Texas,
and that Defendants failed to pay him, and others similarly
situated, proper minimum wage and overtime compensation.
Specifically, Wright alleged that the Defendants required him and
other pizza delivery drivers to incur various business-related
costs and expenses and failed to reimburse them for the same.  One
opt-in plaintiff joined the Wright case, and it was not certified
as a class or collective action.

The parties to the Wright case subsequently settled the claims
therein, as captured in a settlement agreement signed by the
plaintiffs on Jan. 15, 2019, and by the Defendants on Jan. 25,
2019.  The settlement agreement provided, in relevant part, that
Wright released the Defendants from all claims which presently
exist or may exist in the future arising out of or relating to the
assertions in the plaintiffs' complaint.  On March 15, 2019, the
Court dismissed the Wright case with prejudice, pursuant to the
terms of the settlement agreement.

On Jan. 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the action, seeking relief
pursuant to the FLSA and the AMWA.  They make the same allegations
that Wright did in his case: (1) that they were employed by the
Defendants as hourly paid delivery drivers at the Defendants' pizza
stores in Texarkana, Arkansas, and Texarkana, Texas; and (2) that
the Defendants failed to pay them, and others similarly situated,
proper minimum wage and overtime compensation by requiring them to
incur various business-related costs and expenses and failing to
reimburse them for the same.  On May 20, 2019, Wright opted into
the case by filing a consent to join collective action.

On July 25, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant motion for
summary judgment, contending that Wright's claims in this case are
foreclosed because the settlement agreement in the Wright case
released the Defendants from liability on any and all claims
relating to the assertions in that case.  The Defendants argue that
the factual allegations in the case are essentially identical to
those in the Wright case and, thus, Wright is seeking an improper
second recovery on claims from which he has released Defendants.
Accordingly, the Defendants contend that there are no genuine
issues of material fact on this issue and that the Court should
dismiss Wright's claims therein.  The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

The parties disagree whether Wright's release of all claims related
to his allegations in the Wright case is a valid waiver of
prospective FLSA claims in light of the fact that the Court did not
review the Wright settlement for fairness before dismissing the
case.  However, Judge Hickey need not address the issue because,
regardless, Wright's release of claims related only to the
assertions in the Wright plaintiffs' complaint.  The Wright parties
fully executed their release on Jan. 24, 2019, and the Court
dismissed that case on March 15, 2019.  Wright did not release the
Defendants from any claim that might ever accrue after the
conclusion of the Wright case.  Rather, he released them from all
claims related to the specific allegations and the specific time
period involved in that case.

In other words, Wright released them from all present and future
claims arising from the allegations involved in a three-year period
ending at the time of that case's dismissal.  The Plaintiffs'
allegations in the instant case, albeit nearly identical in nature
to those in Wright, concern FLSA violations that allegedly occurred
after the Wright case's conclusion.  Thus, the claims and time
period involved in the instant case constitute a separate cause of
action and separate time period from those in Wright.

Judge Hickey finds that Wright did not prospectively waive his
right to pursue future FLSA claims against the Defendants and,
thus, he is entitled to proceed in the instant case on FLSA claims
arising after March 15, 2019.  Courts faced with similar
circumstances have allowed employees who previously settled and
released FLSA claims against their employer to opt into subsequent
collective actions against that employer for later-accruing FLSA
claims.  The Defendants cite to no contrary authority, and the
Judge finds that holding as the Defendants ask would defeat the
FLSA's remedial nature and could result in hypothetical employers
quickly settling employees' FLSA claims against them, obtaining
general releases of all future claims, and continuing to commit
FLSA violations as to those employees with impunity.

In sum, the Judge finds that summary judgment should be granted to
the extent that Wright pursues claims against the Defendants that
accrued prior to March 15, 2019.  However, the Defendants have not
demonstrated that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and
that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Wright's
claims arising after March 15, 2019.  The instant motion will be
denied to the extent that the Defendants seek dismissal of Wright's
claims in their entirety.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hickey granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' summary judgment motion.  Opt-in Plaintiff
Wright's claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice
to the extent that they accrued prior to March 15, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/znJiCI from Leagle.com.

Donald Adkinson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly
Situated & Kerry Wimley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Merideth Queen
McEntire, Sanford Law Firm, PLLC.

Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC & Kenneth Schroepfer, Defendants, represented
by Raymond Douglas Rees, Cooper & Scully PC, pro hac vice, Benton
Williams, II -- Benton.Williams@bentonwilliamspllc.com -- Benton
Williams PLLC & Shabaz Aslam Nizami --
shabaz.nizami@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully P.C.


TIMBERLAND: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timberland LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Timberland LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11769 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2019).

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

Timberland LLC is an American manufacturer and retailer of outdoors
wear, with a focus on footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TURTLE BEACH: Agreement Reached in VTBH Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit related to the VTB Holdings, Inc. merger have
notified the District Court that they had reached a settlement that
would resolve the pending action if ultimately approved by the
Court.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into
the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company.

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger.

The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the
Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case
denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice,
and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action,
but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14,
2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted
defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial
court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon
which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company,
as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group,
LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's
Board of Directors.

All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January
2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018.

Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this
ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme
Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice. The
district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set
trial for November 2019.

On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of
shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014.

On October 11, 2019, the parties notified the District Court that
they had reached a settlement that would resolve the pending action
if ultimately approved by the Court.

All pending court dates and deadlines, including the trial date,
have been stayed while the parties proceed with the settlement
process.

Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


UNITED DEBT: $500K Deal in Blasi FCRA Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio gave final approval of the class settlement in the
case captioned Peter Blasi, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United Debt
Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-83 (S.D.
Ohio).

The case is a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case.  Plaintiffs
Peter Blasi, Jordan Brodsky and Michael Cassone are individual
consumers residing in Ohio.  They assert, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, that Defendants United Debt
Services ("UDS"), New Wave Lending Corp., Benjamin Rodriguez,
Equifax Information Services, Inc., Name Seeker, Inc., and AMG
Leadsource ("AMG") violated the FCRA by providing, accessing and
misusing consumer financial reports to market debt relief services
to Ohio residents.  They seek class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Equifax is a consumer
reporting agency that collects consumer credit data.  Such data
includes, but is not limited to, consumers' names, addresses, FICO
scores, debt loads, partial Social Security Numbers and credit
history. Based upon that information, Equifax sells "prescreened
lists" of names and addresses of individual consumers who meet
certain criteria specified by buyers.  Resellers access and
purchase those lists from consumer reporting agencies like Equifax
to sell to marketing and/or lead generating firms.  Name Seeker,
New Wave and AMG are or were resellers of such consumer credit
information.  Name Seeker is Equifax's agent for the relevant
transactions. New Wave is or was a mortgage broker that is or was
owned by Rodriguez.  Rodriguez is or was New Wave's Owner.  AMG is
another marketing and lead generating company that purchases
prescreened lists.

The Plaintiffs assert that Equifax sold prescreened lists of
166,000 Ohio residents in financial distress to New Wave.  They
assert New Wave sold the lists to Name Seeker, who, in turn, sold
the information to AMG.  They allege AMG sold the data to UDS, the
"end-user" of the consumer data.  DS markets and solicits
debt-relief services.  The Named Plaintiffs claim UDS unlawfully
used that data to market debt relief services, not to make a firm
offer of credit.

UDS, Name Seeker and Equifax each lodged general denials.  New Wave
and Rodriguez failed to appear, and a default entry was lodged
against each.  The Plaintiffs then moved for default as to those
two Defendants, but Rodriguez's and New Wave's subsequent Motion to
Vacate the Default Entries was granted.  AMG moved for dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court
denied the motion without prejudice to allow for appropriate
discovery to occur on the topic.  AMG did not re-file its motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiffs ultimately dismissed their claims against New Wave
and Rodriguez but pursued class certification against UDS.  Within
their motion to certify, the Plaintiffs argued that Equifax sold
the prescreened lists to Name Seeker, who sold the lists to AMG,
who then sold the lists to UDS.  They then settled and dismissed
their claims against Equifax and Name Seeker.  They also dismissed
their counts against AMG.

The Plaintiffs and UDS reached a settlement in October 2017.  The
Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in April 2019.  That motion indicated the
Plaintiffs had settled their claims with UDS for $500,000, from
which $150,000 for attorney's fees, $22,496.69 for costs and $9,000
for incentive payments would be deducted.  Costs for class notice
and administration would also be drawn from the $500,000 figure.
The Settlement Class Members would receive a pro rata share of the
net settlement amount.  

The Plaintiffs sought certification of nearly 167,000 Ohio citizens
whose consumer reports were used and/or obtained by UDS via
prescreen marketing lists providing by AMG Lead Source from June 1,
2011 through June 30, 2014.  They indicated certification was
sought for settlement purposes only.  They provided a proposed
postcard notice and claim form to be mailed to the potential class
members and to be posted on a website.  The Plaintiffs also
submitted a proposed schedule to complete the Settlement.

Judge Smith granted the motion.  His May 2019 Order conditionally
certified the Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; authorized
the distribution of the notice; labeled Named Plaintiffs Blasi,
Brodsky and Cassone as the Class Representatives; and named
attorneys Mark Lewis, Elizabeth Mote, Jeremiah Heck and Brian
Garvine as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.  Judge Smith
additionally set forth the process for objections; scheduled a
hearing for final certification on Aug. 28, 2019; and stayed the
case pending final resolution of the settlement proceedings.

The Plaintiffs' resultant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Class
Representatives' Incentive indicated that JND Class Action
Administration ("JND"), the claims administrator, mailed 166,597
notices to the class and had 10,377 notices returned as
undeliverable. Of those, JND re-mailed 2,306 to updated addresses.
In addition, the website hosted 3,606 users who registered 10,170
page views.  As of Aug. 14, 2019, JND had received 11,178 claim
forms that remained under review.  Not one objection was lodged,
and no one sought exclusion.

The Court conducted a fairness hearing as to the Motion for Final
Approval on Aug. 28, 2019.  Because the class administration
process was not complete at that time, the Court's Aug. 30, 2019
Order required.  The Class Counsel to file a notice with the Court
on Oct. 28, 2019 detailing the final number of class members who
filed a claim form, the final number of class members who opted out
and the final pro rata share of the settlement amount each class
member will receive.  That same order noted that the Court would
hold ruling on the Motion for Approval in abeyance pending receipt
of the directed filing.

The Plaintiffs' Status Report on Class Action Administration was
filed on Nov. 1, 2019.  That report details the July 29, 2019
Objection deadline and the Oct. 15, 2019 Opt-out deadline both
passed without responses.  JND states that 16,104 claim forms were
received with 15,698 of those being eligible for payment.  This
totaled a 9.7% claims rate.  The final pro rata share for each
approved Class Member should be $12.42.  The Court now turns to an
examination of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval with the
benefit of having conducted the Aug. 23, 2019 hearing and reviewed
the Nov. 1, 2019 update.

Judge Morrison granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Expenses,
and Class Representatives' Incentive.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c), Judge Morrison certified the Settlement
Class, consisting of all Ohio citizens whose consumer reports were
used and/or obtained by UDS via prescreened marketing lists
provided to UDS by AMG Lead Source from June 1, 2011 through June
30, 2014.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Peter Blasi, Jr.,
Jordan Brodsky, and Michael J. Cassone are appointed as Class
Representatives.  The named Class Counsel are:

  Mark D. Lewis
  Elizabeth Mote
  Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., LPA
  445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
  Columbus, OH 43235

  Jeremiah E. Heck
  Katherine Wolfe
  Luftman, Heck & Associates
  580 East Rich Street
  Columbus, OH 43215

  Brian M. Garvine
  Law Office of Brian M. Garvine, LLC
  5 East Long Street, Suite 1100
  Columbus, OH 43215

  Robert J. Wagoner
  Robert J. Wagoner, Co., L.L.C.
  445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
  Columbus, OH 43235

Pursuant to the Settlement, UDS has agreed to pay the Settlement
Amount of $500,000 into an account maintained by the Settlement
Administrator.  Amounts awarded to the Class Counsel will be
exclusively paid from the Settlement Amount.  Amounts awarded to
the Class Representatives will be exclusively paid from the
Settlement Amount.  The Notice and Administrative Expenses will be
exclusively paid from the Settlement Amount.  Members of the
Settlement Class who have timely submitted valid Claim Forms will
receive a pro-rata share of the Settlement Amount after the Class
Counsel's fees and costs, the Class Representatives' award, and the
Notice and Administrative Expenses are deducted from the Settlement
Amount.  In addition to payments of the Settlement Amount, UDS has
also agreed that it has taken steps to ensure compliance with the
FCRA going forward with its target marketing practices.

The Judge granted final approval of the Settlement and finds that
the Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class.  She ordered the Parties to the
Agreement to perform their obligations thereunder.

The Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against UDS with
prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided in the
Final Order and in the Agreement).

The Judge approved (i) payment of attorneys' fees to the Class
Counsel in the amount of $150,000; (ii) the incentive fee payment
of $3,000 for each of the Class Representatives, Peter Blasi, Jr.,
Jordan Brodsky, and Michael J. Cass.  These amounts will be paid
from the Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Amended
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/mkg7lI from Leagle.com.

Peter Blasi, Jordan Brodsky & Michael J. Cassone, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark D. Lewis -- MLewis@kitricklaw.com -- Kitrick,
Lewis & Harris Co LPA, Brian M. Garvine --  brian@garvinelaw.com --
Law Office of Brian Garvine LLC, Elizabeth Alice Mote --
liz@klhlaw.com -- Kitrick, Lewis & Harris, Co., L.P.A., Jeremiah E.
Heck -- jheck@lawLH.com -- Luftman & Heck and Associates, Katherine
L. Wolfe, Luftman Heck & Associates, LLP & Robert J. Wagoner --
bob@wagonerlawoffice.com -- Robert J. Wagoner Co., L.L.C.

United Debt Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley L.
Oliker, Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Zackary Lane Stillings, One
Columbus, Beth-Ann E. Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice & Lawren A. Zann --
lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice.  

AMG Lead Source, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Melber,
Personius Melber LLP, pro hac vice.

Name Seeker, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Richik Sarkar,
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Aaron Paul Heeringa, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Eric Gottlieb, Manatt, Phelps
& Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.

AMG Lead Source, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian M. Melber,
Personius Melber LLP, pro hac vice.

Name Seeker, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Richik
Sarkar, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Aaron Paul Heeringa, Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, LLP & Richard Eric Gottlieb, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Harrison Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Regents of the
University of California. The case is captioned as Donovan
Harrison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Does 1-100 and The Regents of the University of
California, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00269829-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Nov 25, 2019).

The suit alleges employment related issues.

The Regents of the University of California is the governing board
of the University of California. The board has 26 voting members.
The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy,
with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Ave., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 323 302-9675
          Facsimile: 323 549 0101


USA PROFESSIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Diaz FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted conditional certification of the case
captioned LEDIS DIAZ, v. USA PROFESSIONAL LABOR, LLC, SECTION: D
(4), Civil Action No. 18-6580-WBV-KWR (E.D. La.).

The case is a case for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Diaz, filed the action, on his
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, against his
former employer, USA Labor, for its failure to pay appropriate
overtime wages under the FLSA.  The Plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by USA Labor as a general laborer from approximately 2013
through January 2018, and that during that time he was not paid
overtime wages despite regularly working more than 55 hours a week.
He alleges that at least since July 9, 2015, USA Labor classified
and paid all of its general laborers in the same manner.  He
further alleges that there was a common pay practice or policy
concerning a class of individuals who performed the same essential
job functions and duties as general laborers.

On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, asking
the Court for an Order: (1) conditionally certifying the case as a
collective action; (2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice
and Consent Form pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b) in both English
and Spanish; (3) requiring USA Labor to produce to the Plaintiff's
counsel a computer-readable data file containing all the putative
collective class members' names, last-known addresses, e-mail
addresses, telephone numbers and dates of employment within 14 days
of the date of the Order; (4) authorizing the use of text message
to provide notice to the putative collective class members in both
English and Spanish; and (5) authorizing a 90-day time period for
the putative collective class members to opt-in to the lawsuit.  As
of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff's Motion is unopposed.

The Plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration, in which he asserts
that he never received 1.5 times his normal rate for working over
40 hours in a week.  He further asserts that he worked more than 40
hours each week for USA Labor while working as a general laborer
from approximately 2013 through February 2018.  He also avers that
he has spoken with other general laborers who worked for USA Labor,
who claim that they also have not been paid overtime for working
over 40 hours a week.  The Plaintiff names four such individuals:
Noe Zuniga, Santos Salinas, Edwin Duarte and Roger Duarte.

Considering the lenient standard that district courts apply at the
notice stage of the proceedings, Judge Vitter finds that the
general laborers of USA Labor who have been denied earned overtime
pay from July 9, 2015 through the present date are similarly
situated because together they are the victims of an alleged single
policy of USA Labor to decline to pay its general laborers earned
overtime pay.  The case does not appear to arise from circumstances
purely personal to Plaintiff Diaz.  Instead, it appears that the
alleged policy of USA Labor would affect all of the general
laborers working for USA Labor during the relevant period.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that the class should be conditionally
certified, and the potential class members should be given notice
and an opportunity to opt-in to the collective action.

The Plaintiff has submitted a proposed "Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit" and a proposed "Consent to Join Wage Claim Against USA
Professional Labor, LLC."  The Judge has reviewed these documents
and both appear to be appropriate.  These documents are, therefore,
approved.  She also approves of the Plaintiff's request to send
these documents in both English and Spanish.

The Plaintiff also seeks an Order from the Court requiring USA
Labor to provide the names, last-known addresses, e-mail addresses,
telephone numbers and dates of employment of the putative
collective class members in "a computer-readable data file" within
14 days of the date of the Order.  The Judge approves of the
Plaintiff's counsel contacting potential class members
electronically by electronic mail and by telephone, including by
text message.  She also authorizes the use of text messages in both
English and Spanish.

While Plaintiff requested that the information be provided within
14 days of the date of the Order, the Judge finds that additional
time may be needed to collect and produce this information.  Thus,
USA Labor will provide the information that the Plaintiff's counsel
seeks within 30 days of the date of the Order, which will enable
the counsel for the class to send the Notice and Consent forms to
the potential class members.

The Plaintiff requests a 90-day time period after distribution of
the proposed Notice and Consent forms for the interested putative
collective class members to return their signed Consent forms for
filing with the Court.  The Defendant has not opposed this time
period.  Other sections of the Court have found a 90-day opt-in
period appropriate in cases that do not present unusually large or
complex proposed classes.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Vitter granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification as a Collective
Action and Notice to Potential Class Members as modified.

A collective action pursuant to the FLSA is conditionally certified
to include the following persons: All individuals who worked for
USA Professional Labor, LLC, as a general laborer at anytime since
July 9, 2015 and were not paid overtime.

Without delay, USA Professional Labor, LLC is directed to provide
to the Plaintiff's counsel the names, last-known addresses, email
addresses and telephone numbers of all putative collective action
members in the form of a computer-readable data file.

The Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and the Consent to Join
Wage Claim Against USA Professional Labor, LLC are approved and,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), will be sent to putative
collective action members in accordance and consistent with the
Order, the Court rules.

The putative collective action members are granted a period of 90
days from the date that the Notice and Consent forms are mailed,
emailed or texted to execute the Consent form and return it to the
Plaintiff's counsel, thereby signifying their decision to opt-in to
the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/pZDIo7 from Leagle.com.

Ledis Diaz, On Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile
-- GBR@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Gloria T. Lastra --
glastra@rgonzalezlawfirm.com -- Braden Gonzalez & Associates,
Preston Lee Hayes, Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Ryan Paul Monsour -- RPM@CHEHARDY.COM --
Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC
& Zachary Rhys Smith -- ZRS@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman,
Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC.

USA Professional Labor, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kyle S.
Sclafani -- kyle@kylesclafanilaw.com -- Law Office of Kyle S.
Sclafani & Khalid Iqbal, Law Office of Khalid Iqbal, LLC.


USI SOLUTIONS: Motion to Certify Class in "Santos" Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Glennpaul Santos, the
Plaintiff, vs. USI Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04618 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall
entered an order striking the motion to certify class for failure
to comply with the Court's local rules.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 10,
2019, on the same day that Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed
a Motion to Certify Class. However, the Plaintiff never noticed up
the Motion on the Court's calendar for a date certain.

Local Rule 5.3 requires that "every motion or objection shall be
accompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and time
on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objection is to be
presented".

The date of presentment shall be not more than 14 days following
the date on which the motion or objection is delivered to the court
It is well past the permitted 14 days and Plaintiff has yet to
notice up the Motion to Certify Class. Therefore, the Court strikes
the Motion for failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules.[CC]

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Gordon
v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July
2019.

The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder,
asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November
4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R),
HETLIOZ(R) and the Company's interactions with the FDA regarding
tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Vanda said, "The Company does not anticipate that this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject
to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and
the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to
coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient."

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

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Matthews Files Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Scott Mathews for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verizon Communications Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-21442 (D. N.J., Dec. 17, 2019).

Verizon Communications Inc. is an American multinational
telecommunications conglomerate and a corporate component of the
Dow Jones Industrial Average. The company is based at 1095 Avenue
of the Americas in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, but is
incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Richard Han Kim, Esq.
   The Kim Law Firm, LLC.
   1500 Market Street
   Centre Square West Tower
   Suite W-3110
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (855) 996-6342
   Email: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com


VF OUTDOOR: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VF Outdoor, LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VF Outdoor, LLC d/b/a The North
Face, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11768 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2019).

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

VF Corporation is an American worldwide apparel and footwear
company founded in 1899 and headquartered in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gjonbalaj Files Product Liability Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sokol Gjonbalaj,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. a New Jersey
corporation, Volkswagen AG a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-07165-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen
cars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Simmons Hanly Conroy
          12 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Phone: (212) 784-6422
          Fax: (212) 213-5949
          Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Makeen ADA Suit Transferred to Ga. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Akeem Makeen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated [pro se e-filer], effectively,
Plaintiff v. The Waterford on Piedmont Apartments, Defendant, was
transferred from the District of Colorado with the assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-03277 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) on December 17, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-05640-AT.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Americans with
Disabilities - Other.

The Waterford on Piedmont features luxury apartments in
Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




WELLS FARGO: Show Cause Order for Expert Issued in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has ordered parties in IN RE WELLS FARGO &
CO. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-05541-JST,
(N.D. Cal.), to show cause why an expert witness should not be
appointed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to provide an
opinion regarding the market rate for contract attorney services,
and specifically to answer the following question: When law firms
utilize contract attorneys to assist in complex litigation on
behalf of clients who pay those firms' fees on a current basis,
i.e., not on contingency: (1) do those firms commonly charge a
premium or multiplier in addition to the contract attorneys' fees
when billing those fees to the client; and (2) if so, what is the
percentage premium or multiplier, if any, most commonly charged by
those firms?

Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of a
derivative action settlement and for attorney's fees and expenses.

The Court notes that it cannot determine what value to place on the
services of contract attorneys for purposes of calculating the
lodestar unless the Court determines what the market rate for those
services is.  To obtain some answers, the Court believes that
appointment of a court expert is required.   

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2pt8z2y from Leagle.com

Victoria Shaev, derivatively on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company,
Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold - manifold@whafh.com
- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Brittany Nicole
DeJong - dejong@whafh.com - Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP & Rachele Renee Rickert – rickert@whafh.com - Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Robert Elson, IRA, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth
Plutzik - aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com - Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniella Quitt - DQUITT@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Stuart Strimling -
mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com - Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Robert I. Harwood - RHARWOOD@GLANCYLAW.COM
-GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP & Samuel K. Rosen  - srosen@hfesq.com
- Harwood Feffer LLP.

Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, Derivatively on
Behalf of Wells Fargo & Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Richard Martin Heimann  - rheimann@lchb.com Katherine - Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel P. Chiplock -
dchiplock@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro
hac vice, Katherine Collinge Lubin  - klubin@lchb.com - Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kelly M. Dermody , Leiff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3339, Lester Rene Hooker -
lhooker@saxenawhite.com - Saxena White P.A., Michael J. Miarmi -
rheimann@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael K. Sheen - msheen@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand - ndiamand@lchb.com -
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Sean Adam
Petterson , Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery
Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, pro hac vice &
Steven Eliott Fineman , Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339



                            *********

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 ***