/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200102.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 2

                            Headlines

12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Class Action Status OK'd in Kyle Field Suit
3B INSPECTION: Tipton Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Inspectors
AC SQUARE: Cal. App. Partly Affirms Judgments in Sneddon Suit
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
AGRI STATS: Sued by Olean Wholesale for Fixing Prices of Turkey

ALL-GREEN INC: Reyes Seeks OT Wages for H-2B Program Laborers
ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Finish Carpenters
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Solis Says
AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y.

AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Breach of Contract Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
AMERICAN INCOME: Violates FLSA Minimum Wage Rule, Patterson Says
AMERICAN SALES: Ross Seeks Overtime Wages for Baggage Handlers
AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing

AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. HomeAdvisor Inc. Pending
ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Pill Suit Over Acquisition by CD&R
APPI MANAGEMENT: Guzman Seeks Overtime Pay for Painting Laborers

APPLE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Trim Claims
APPLE INC: Lerman et al. Seek to Certify Classes
AROTECH CORP: Riggle Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Greenbriar
AVLON INDUSTRIES: Townsend Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Accord in Securities Suit Awaits Final Approval

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Dismissal of Hand TCPA Lawsuit
BLUE APRON: Bailey Seeks to Certify 6 Classes in Unpaid Wages Suit
BYTEDANCE LTD: TikTok Faces Class Action Over Child Privacy
CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Dismissal of Lepkowski Suit

CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Sheriffs Fund Suit
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Morgan Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class
CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action

CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Still Ongoing
CHECKR INC: Montanez Sues Over Improper Reporting Convictions
CHESTNUT RUN: Fails to Timely Repay Security Deposits, Young Says
COLONIAL COMPLIANCE: Wells Seeks OT Wages for Marine Consultants
COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Contract Suit Removed to C.D. California

CONCENTRA INC: Court Refuses to Stay Pascal Suit Pending FCC Order
CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Kent Challenges Sale to CertainTeed Gypsum
CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wage and Hour Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
CREDIT CORP: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Illegal & Unsolicited Calls
CRETE CARRIER: Court Grants Prelim. OK on Settlement in Prieto Suit

CURO GROUP: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
DEALER FUNDING: Rivera-Santiago Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
DELTA AIR: Sued by Foshee for Selling Customers' Personal Info
DIXIE GROUP: Pays $1,528,000 in Garcia Class Action Settlement
DOLE FOOD: Bid to Vacate 2013 Dismissal Order in Chaverri Denied

DT CHICAGOLAND: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in California
E-TRADE SECURITIES: Rupnow Balks at Charging of Hidden Interests
EDWARD JONES: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
ELDORADO RESORTS: Continues to Defend Elberts Class Action

ELDORADO RESORTS: Faces 8 Caesars Merger-Related Class Suits
EXPRESS ENERGY: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
FABRICATION AND MAINTENANCE: Solenberg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
FRESH FARMS: Yarger Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages

GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Seeks OT Pay for Assistant Managers
GATE GOURMET: Stokes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
GODADDY INC: Settlement in Bennett Suit Awaits Court Approval
GOOGLE LLC: Lefkowitz ADA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
HEAVY MATERIALS: Fixes Price of Ready-Mix Concrete, St. Rose Says

HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
HERITAGE INC: Zarrabi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Stolen Tips
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Williams' Appeal From Struck Class Claims Nixed
INFINITE PRODUCT: Dasilva Sues Over Illegal Sale of CBD Products
J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class

JETRO HOLDINGS: West Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
JUUL LABS: Frederick County Sues Over Underage Nicotine Addiction
KINDER MORGAN: Oates Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Inspectors
KITCHEN UNITED: Wallace Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
LALAJA INC: Vazquez-Aguilar Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Price Fixing-Related Class Suit
LANNETT CO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 7
LANNETT CO: Suit Over Drug Pricing Methodologies Ongoing
LEGACY FIELD: Tipton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LINDT AND SPRUNGLI: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California

MATCH GROUP: Appeal in Kim Class Action Pending
MATCH GROUP: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel in Crutchfield Pending
MATCH GROUP: Bid to Stay Candelore Class Action Pending
MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bid in GM Ignition Switch Suit Nixed
MERCK & CO: Faces Luttrell Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax

MERIT MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cogley Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Breach
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Stay Class Certification
MOJITO CLUB: Valdes FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending

NCB MANAGEMENT: Collection Practices Violate FDCPA, Rowley Says
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
NOHO HEALTH: Fischler Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind
NVR, INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith Suit
NYC TAXI: Vicente Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL

OFFICE DEPOT: Andrews Privacy Invasion Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ON THE BARRELHEAD: Soldevilla Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ONTO INNOVATION: Class Suits Related to Rudolph Merger Dismissed
OUT-LOOK SAFETY: McMillian Seeks Unpaid Prevailing and OT Wages
P&S SELECT: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Chacon Suit

PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Suits over Chesapeake Lodging Merger Closed
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Newsome Sues Over Bias Against Nursing Officers
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Suits
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action

QUALCOMM INC: Makes Case for Trimming Size of Patent Fees Suit
QUORUM HEALTH: Accord in Della-Maggiora Suit Awaits Approval
QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
RAY STONE: Faces Otis Employees Suit in California Superior Court
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Swearingen Sues Over Sale of Defective Zantac

SAREN RESTAURANTS: Pelka Sues Over Unlawful Use Biometric Data
SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: SciPlay Faces Good Class Suit in Nevada
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: March 2020 Standing Trial in Anderson Suit

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker Suit Set for Feb. 18
SEIU LOCAL 1000: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hamidi Suit
SIRIUS XM: Nazario Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SMC CORP: Palomar Seeks to Recover Illegally Deducted Wages
SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gomez Suit over Roche Deal

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Joseph Sues Over Improper Debt Collection
STANDARD INDUSTRIES: Imburgia Sues Over False Master Elite Scheme
STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Conditional Certification Withdrawn
STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
TANDY LEATHER: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Class Action

TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Spinney Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Opioids
TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL: Withrow Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses
TRANS UNION: Tanaka Sues in Hawaii Alleging Violation of FCRA
U.S. SUGAR: Faces Class Suit Over Sugar Field Burns in Poor Towns

UNITED SERVICES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Ruby Alleges
UNITED STATES: Young Balks at Mich. Medicaid's Work Requirements
UNITI GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action
UNITI GROUP: Safadi Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
UNO RESTAURANT: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims

USA: Denial of Writ of Habeas Corpus in Aguilar ICE Suit Endorsed
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Tosses Motion for Class Certification
WHITE STONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
WILL COUNTY, IL: Walsh, et al. Seek to Certify Class
X FINANCIAL: Faces Ningappa Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop

ZARA USA: Fouts Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
ZERO OTTO: Hoxha Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
ZILLOW GROUP: Bid for Class Cert. in Consolidated Suit Pending

                            *********

12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Class Action Status OK'd in Kyle Field Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Barron, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that a state
district judge in Newton County has approved class action status
for a lawsuit filed by former Texas A&M students against the
fund-raising 12th Man Foundation, the latest development in a
long-running dispute over the university's seating policies at
remodeled, expanded Kyle Field.

The decision by State District Judge Delinda Gibbs Walker, in a
52-page opinion signed Tuesday, certified a class of several
hundred longtime A&M endowed donors to join as plaintiffs in a 2017
lawsuit filed by Nathan Hines of Newton, who says the foundation
deprived him and others of ticketing and parking rights promised
when they made endowment agreements with the 12th Man Foundation in
the 1980s and '90s.

At issue could be up to 400 or more endowment agreements that could
involve as many as a thousand seats at Kyle Field, which was
expanded to 102,733 seats as part of a $480 million project
completed in 2015.

Gibbs Walker, who presided over a Sept. 26 hearing on the request
for class action certification, said the A&M donors meet each of
the requirements set down by state law for class certification.

The class, the judge said, would include "all owners and
beneficiaries of a Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation
Permanently Endowed Scholarship Program Agreement who have not
settled and released their claim (against the foundation) for the
imposition of additional charges or fees for home and away football
game seating benefits and home football parking benefits, and/or
for the (diminishment) of those benefits."

Hines' lawsuit, initially filed in December 2017, alleges breach of
contract and other violations by the foundation and its directors.
The plaintiffs seek either to have what they believe are their
proper seat and parking locations at Kyle Field restored or, as an
alternative, damages, costs and fees in excess of a million
dollars.

Hines, a 1980 A&M graduate, is among several dozen donors who filed
lawsuits against the foundation since 2011 over seating and/or
parking issues as A&M has expanded Kyle Field and moved from the
Big 12 into the Southeastern Conference.

The endowments, attorneys claim, were critical factors for a
financially challenged A&M athletic department in the 1980s and
'90s. As the department's finances have improved, however, the 12th
Man Foundation has steadily moved to renege on its promises to
longtime donors, attorneys claim.

"Although 'an Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those
who do,' the foundation reneged on the promises made to endowment
owners," said a statement attributed to attorneys Bill Cobb of
Austin, Scott McQuarrie of Porter and Blair Bisbey of Newton.

"It did so by reselling their coveted parking locations and, later,
their 'lifetime seat locations' that foundation documents show they
had been promised, to the 'next generation' of big donors in order
to fund Kyle Field renovations."

While awaiting trial on the lawsuit, attorneys said, plaintiff
Hines "retains hope that the foundation will heed the Aggie Code of
Honor, acknowledge and correct its mistake and voluntarily do right
by the endowment owners."

Gibbs Walker ordered the foundation to provide to Hines' attorneys
the names and mailing information to potential class members,
including notifications in A&M former student publications of the
pending lawsuit.

No date has been set for a trial in the matter. A spokesman for the
12th Man Foundation did not immediately return a phone call seeking
comment on the ruling. Gibbs Walker, however, acknowledged in her
order the possibility of an appeal by the foundation.

Attorneys claimed in the original lawsuit that 12th Man Foundation
officials began in 2004 to downgrade parking rights granted to
longtime donors in favor of requirements that would bring money
from new donors. That effort culminated, they said, in the
reseating campaign associated with the stadium's expansion.

"The drive for money displaced honor," the lawsuit said. ". . . The
Foundation decided it was more profitable to break oral agreements
than it was to honor them." [GN]


3B INSPECTION: Tipton Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY TIPTON, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 3B INSPECTION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01003-P (N.D. Tex., Nov. 27, 2019), alleges that
the Defendant required Ms. Tipton and other inspectors to work more
than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers throughout the
United States as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The FLSA Class Members are all current and former inspectors, and
all employees in substantially similar positions, that worked at
any time during the three-year period before the filing of this
Complaint nationwide that were paid on a day rate. The New Mexico
Class Members all current and former inspectors, and all employees
in substantially similar positions, that worked at any time during
the three-year period before the filing of the Complaint in New
Mexico that were paid on a day rate.

3B Inspection provides inspection services to the oil and gas
industries. Specifically, Defendant provides inspection of full
pipeline systems, and related entities, including process plants,
pump and compressor stations, terminals, and tanks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


AC SQUARE: Cal. App. Partly Affirms Judgments in Sneddon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL SNEDDON et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. AC SQUARE, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. A153076 (Cal. App.), Judge James Richman of the Court of
Appeals of California for the First District, Division Two,
affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's judgments
in favor of Sneddon and Trejo but against only AC Square.

Respondent Ghaneh was the sole owner of Respondent AC Square, a
company that installed internet, telephone, and television services
for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC.  In June 2007, a
wage-and-hour class action was filed against AC Square, Ghaneh, and
Comcast on behalf of cable technicians employed by AC Square.

Sixty-four class members, including Appellants Sneddon and Trejo,
opted out of the class and in October 2010, filed a separate action
against AC Square, Ghaneh, and Comcast, asserting various causes of
action for unpaid wages, violations of the Labor Code and local
ordinances, and unfair business practices.  The Plaintiffs were
represented by Daniel Berko, who represents Sneddon and Trejo on
appeal.

In 2011 and 2012, numerous Plaintiffs settled their claims against
the Defendants, leaving by October 2013, only 40 Plaintiffs
remaining, including Sneddon and Trejo.  Sneddon and Trejo settled
their claims against the Respondents, but when AC Square failed to
pay them what they were owed under the settlement, they sought to
hold Ghaneh personally liable for the settlement amounts.

On Aug. 8, 2017, separate judgments were entered in favor of
Sneddon and Trejo.  The trial court found Ghaneh was not personally
liable under the terms of the settlement agreements.  Sneddon
provided that judgment be entered in his favor in the amount of
$10,000 plus $3,573.57 in interest; Trejo's, in the amount of
$22,712.00 plus $7,699.26 in interest.  Because the court had
previously ruled that judgment be entered against AC Square, but
not against Ghaneh, the judgments were entered "against AC Square,"
which had ceased doing business, with Sneddon and Trejo to taking
"nothing against Afshin Ghaneh."

The appeal followed.  Sneddon and Trejo appealed, arguing that
Ghaneh is in fact jointly liable under the terms of the settlement
agreements.

Judge Richman finds that trial court erred in finding Ghaneh is not
personally liable to Sneddon.  The genesis of the trial court's
error as to Sneddon was that it treated him differently than the 15
Plaintiffs when their settlement agreements were identical in terms
of their incorporation of the 998 offer, on which the trial court
relied to find Ghaneh personally liable to the 15 Plaintiffs.
While the court spent six paragraphs detailing how the 998 offer
created personal liability for Ghaneh as to the 15 Plaintiffs, it
spent one paragraph summarily finding that Ghaneh is not personally
liable to Sneddon and Trejo, disregarding as it did so that
Sneddon's settlement agreement also incorporated the 998 offer.
Because Sneddon's settlement agreement was identical to those of
the 15 Plaintiffs in all material regards, he should have met with
the same outcome as them, namely, a finding that Ghaneh is
personally liable to him under the settlement agreement.

However, Judge Richman finds that the trial court was correct in
finding Ghaneh is not personally liable to Trejo.  Paragraph 3 of
his settlement agreement is substantively the same as Sneddon's and
the 15 Plaintiffs', all providing that AC Square, on behalf of AC
Square and Ghaneh, will pay the total amount due.  This language
does not create liability for Ghaneh since it means that AC Square
will pay the settlement.  Unfortunately for Trejo, and as he
acknowledges, his settlement agreement does not incorporate the 998
offer -- which had long since expired when he settled his claim --
and thus lacks the language that is critical to Ghaneh's liability.
Accordingly, the trial court was correct in finding that AC Square
alone is liable for the settlement amount due Trejo, the Appeals
Court states.

Judge Richman reversed that the trial court's order that Ghaneh is
not personally liable to Sneddon for the amount due under the
settlement is reversed.  Sneddon's judgment will be modified to
reflect that judgment will be entered in his favor and against AC
Square and Afshin Ghaneh.  Judge Richman affirmed the judgment in
favor of Trejo.  Sneddon will recover his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/BRoz4A from Leagle.com.


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-07118 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), the Hon. Laura Taylor
Swain granted Plaintiffs Robert Fulcher and Linda Rosi's motions
for consolidation, Fulcher's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff, and the motion for approval of Pomerantz LLP as lead
counsel, and denies Rosi's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
and for approval of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel.
All future filings shall be made under Docket Number 19-CV-7118.

Aclaris Therapeutics 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 on July 30, 2019,
plaintiff Linda Rosi filed a putative class action complaint
captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its executive officers.  

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an alleged
likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising materials
related to ESKATA and find that the materials minimized the risks
or overstated the efficacy of the product.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20,
2019.

On September 9, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher,
filed a substantially identical putative class action complaint
captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., in the
same court against the same Defendants.

On September 30, 2019, Rosi and Fulcher each filed separate motions
to consolidate the cases and to be appointed "lead plaintiff" for
the putative class. On October 15, 2019, Rosi filed a "notice of
non-opposition" to Fulcher's motion to consolidate cases and to
serve as lead plaintiff.    

Defendants dispute plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously.

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company.
The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization
of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and
immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


AGRI STATS: Sued by Olean Wholesale for Fixing Prices of Turkey
---------------------------------------------------------------
OLEAN WHOLESALE GROCERY COOPERATIVE, INC. and JOHN GROSS AND
COMPANY, INC. v. AGRI STATS, INC., BUTTERBALL LLC, CARGILL, INC.,
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, COOPER FARMS, INC., FARBEST
FOODS, INC., FOSTER FARMS, LLC, FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, THE HILLSHIRE
BRANDS COMPANY, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS, LLC, HOUSE
OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, KRAFT FOODS
GROUP BRANDS LLC, PERDUE FARMS, INC., PERDUE FOODS LLC, TYSON
FOODS, INC., TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. AND TYSON PREPARED FOODS,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought
on behalf of those who purchased turkey directly from a defendant
or co-conspirator in the United States beginning at least as early
as January 1, 2010, through January 1, 2017, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.

The Turkey Integrator Defendants are the leading suppliers of
turkey in an industry with approximately $5 billion in annual
commerce. The turkey industry is highly concentrated, with a small
number of large producers in the United States controlling supply.
The Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively control
approximately 80 percent of the wholesale turkey market in the
United States.

According to the complaint, each one of the Defendants and
co-conspirators entered into an agreement to exchange information
through Agri Stats. Each Defendant's agreement to exchange
information regarding turkey production is shown in the 2010
excerpt from an Agri Stats presentation that lists the participants
in Agri Stats' turkey reports. The information exchange by the
Defendant Integrators through Agri Stats is exactly the type of
information exchange that the Supreme Court has recognized is
likely to have anticompetitive effects under a rule of reason
analysis.

The Plaintiffs contend that the data is current and forward
looking--which courts consistently hold has "the greatest potential
for generating anticompetitive effects." The information contained
in Agri Stats reports is specific to the turkey producers,
including information on profits, prices, costs and production
levels. The Plaintiffs add that none of the Agri Stats information
was publicly available.

Agri Stats is a subscription service, which required the Defendant
Integrators to pay hefty fees over the Class Period--far in excess
of any other pricing and production indices and to agree to
volunteer their own data.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
the Class paid artificially inflated prices for turkey during the
Class Period, says the complaint. Such prices exceeded the amount
they would have paid if the price for turkey had been determined by
a competitive market. Thus, the Plaintiffs and class members were
injured by the Defendants' agreement to exchange information
through Agri Stats regarding the turkey market.

Plaintiff Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. is a retailers'
cooperative located in Olean, New York.

Agri Stats is a company that provides secretive information
exchange services to companies in a variety of agricultural
sectors, including pork, chicken, and turkey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                 riop@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
                 kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 680
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          Email: bshiftan@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                 bpouya@pswlaw.com
                 mpearson@pswlaw.com


ALL-GREEN INC: Reyes Seeks OT Wages for H-2B Program Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MANUEL GONZALEZ REYES, OMAR GALLEGOS VELASCO, ANDRES DE JESUS
LECHUGA CARRILLO, ERIC GALLEGOS VELASCO, ISRAEL DE JESUS LOPEZ
VELASCO, JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ MARTINEZ, REGINO REYES LOPEZ, and
GERARDO GONZALEZ ESPARZA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL-GREEN INC., and NOEL STATON,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01103-PRW (W.D. Okla., Nov. 26, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other persons
similarly situated routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, but were not paid overtime compensation for all of their
overtime hours by Defendants.

Under the H-2B Program, the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective were
permitted entry into the United States as Laborers to provide
general lawn care services, including lawn mowing and landscaping
and Christmas light installation services on behalf of the
Defendants for properties in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.

The Defendants paid them at an hourly rate in 2018 and then a "day
rate" in 2019, violating the FLSA and the terms of the H-2B
Temporary Non-Agricultural Worker Program between the Defendants
and the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the Plaintiffs contend.

All-Green, Inc. is a locally owned, full service landscape
management company serving northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan.
Mr. Stanton is an owner and officer of All-Green Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Taylor, Esq.
          THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
          5613 N. Classen Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286-1600
          Facsimile: (405) 842-6132


ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Finish Carpenters
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC. and GOTHAM DRYWALL
INC. and NIALL ROONEY and JOHN FITZPATRICK, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10998 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks
to remedy the Defendants' violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff also brings the action under the Wage Theft
Protection Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates.

The Plaintiff and the collective class worked as finish carpenters
at Allwood Construction Inc. and Gotham Drywall Inc., which are
construction companies owned, controlled and operated by Niall
Rooney and John Fitzpatrick, respectively.

Allwood Construction is a building contractor. The company offers
custom built homes and specialty commercial projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Solis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVA SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1–100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10181 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29,
2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide rest breaks
and meal periods, to provide adequate pay stubs, to reimburse for
uniform-maintenance expenses, to maintain proper records, and to
pay minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Airlines employed the Plaintiff as an Airport Agent at LAX
and at Ontario International Airport in the state of California.
The Plaintiff contends that she and the other Affected Employees
were not provided with all required wages under California law.

American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          John P. Dorigan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
          600 Canterbury Lane
          Sagamore Hills, OH 44067
          Telephone: (330) 748-4475
          Facsimile: (330) 748-4475
          E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com


AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 appeal
from a court order dismissing the second amended complaint in the
class action suit initiated by Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard remains
pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane. On February 23, 2018, the complaint
was amended to, among other things, assert some claims on the
plaintiff's own behalf and other claims on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated shareholders of the Company as a class.

On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and
abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR
Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which
became effective when the Merger became effective, and a
declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company’s
advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously.

On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on
August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018.


On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal from that order.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 consolidated class action lawsuit pending
before the the New York State Supreme Court.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the
Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information.


The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Pre-Listing DRIP, against the Company, AR
Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane,
Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R.
Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The
complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages. The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend
vigorously.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla,
and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR
Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. Due
to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway (the "Consolidated Cases"). The Court also
stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on the motions to
dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in
the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 24, 2019 plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in each of the Consolidated Cases seeking
substantially similar remedies from the same defendants.

The Company has not yet responded to the amended complaints.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied plaintiffs'
Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, in a Maryland class
action suit.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers
of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by RCA and the Director
Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR
Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by
the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in connection with the
negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on
what was at the time the proposed Merger and an amendment to RCA's
charter.

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on
February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with
unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and
costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and
advised by affiliates of the Advisor.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017.

The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as
defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick, all of whom
were independent directors of the Company at the time of the Merger
("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca, the Company's
chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and RCA's
advisor), added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the Registration
Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the
Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director
Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and
intend to vigorously defend the action.

On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order. On March
11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the
complaint.

On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9,
2019.

Due to the stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss
or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No
provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended
September 30, 2019 or 2018.

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Breach of Contract Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Patrick Rojas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Honda Motor Co. Inc., a California Corporation and Honda North
America, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21721, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on
Nov. 27, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-10136-CAS-FFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder.

The suit involves breach of contract issues.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American
subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in
1959.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON APC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Rachel L Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 South Gay Street Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com


AMERICAN INCOME: Violates FLSA Minimum Wage Rule, Patterson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audra Patterson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., and AARON BLAKE
RALSTON, Case No. 4:19-cv-00918-KGB (E.D. Ark., Dec. 19, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the minimum wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Upon hire, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and new hires to
attend training. The initial training was scheduled during the
first five days of Plaintiff's employment, for approximately five
or six hours per day. The Plaintiff was not paid for their time
spent in training, says the complaint.

The Defendants classified the Plaintiff and insurance sales workers
as independent contractors. Although the Plaintiff may have been
classified as exempt from the FLSA for purposes of their regular
sales duties, the Plaintiff was neither engaging in exempt duties
nor earning commissions during the week they spent in training,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an insurance sales worker in
January 2019.

American Income Life Insurance Co. is an insurance company
registered with the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, with its statutory home office in Indianapolis,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN SALES: Ross Seeks Overtime Wages for Baggage Handlers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph Ross, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Sales and Management Organization,
LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Defendant, Case No. 719967/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for
baggage handler under the New York Minimum Wage Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and a class of other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees, who worked for the
Defendant are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant
for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an
overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and
all such hours over 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff also claims that they entitled to recover unpaid
non-overtime/overtime wages, wage deductions, including accrued
paid time, as well as maximum penalties, and compensation for not
receiving notices and statements as required by NYLL.

Mr. Ross was employed by the Defendant from in July 2012 to October
30, 2019. He was employed as a baggage handler performing all
manual, physical and repetitive tasks within the capacity such as
loading and unloading baggage and packages, throughout his
workday.

The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing baggage
handling and wheelchair services to airlines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: 718 740-1000
          Facsimile: 718 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal 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
consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, is proceeding to
document discovery.

Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as
antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect
purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual
complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the
"opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of
generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and
metronidazole, including Impax.

The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters
Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade
Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City
of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here
Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare
Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug
Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK
Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.;
Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana
Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc.

On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil
actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the
generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017
for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2
complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also
is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL
court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of
glyburide-metformin and metronidazole.

Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On
October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants'
motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint.

On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer
protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of
indirect purchasers in the digoxin action.

The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor
plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect
reseller plaintiffs' complaint.

Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole
complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out
plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019.

On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a
stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
glyburide-metformin claims against Impax.

Document discovery otherwise is proceeding.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Amneal 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 itself against the claims in the Opana ER(R)
Antitrust Litigation.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions
on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known
as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf
of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed
against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and
Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order
of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin
Masons’ Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania
Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service &
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana;
Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The
Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s
LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS
Pharmacy, Inc.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class
actions transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions
subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by
the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with
the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has
consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct
purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.)

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing.

On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class
certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on
August 29, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal 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 Court
overseeing the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health &
Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al., has entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the
case as to the settling defendants (including the Company).

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.

The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On
September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant).

On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case
to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental,
non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled
in 2019.

The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as
well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26,
2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims.

On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June
2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to
Court approval.  

On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to
the settling defendants (including the Company).  

The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. HomeAdvisor Inc. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor,
Inc. Litigation, is pending.

The cases Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado and
consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.


This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges.


On September 25, 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to file a consolidated amended complaint. On
October 9, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
claims in the amended complaint.

On December 30, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Defendant Craftjack,
Inc.

On the same date, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motions to
Dismiss filed by Defendants C. David Venture Management, LLC and
Venture Street, LLC.

ANGI Homeservices said, "There have been no other material or
otherwise noteworthy developments in this case since the filing of
our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit
are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against
them."

ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Pill Suit Over Acquisition by CD&R
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Pill, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., SAMUEL ZELL, LORD JAMES
BLYTH, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA WALKER BYNOE, ROBERT J. ECK,
WILLIAM A. GALVIN, F. PHILIP HANDY, MELVYN N. KLEIN, JAMIE MOFFITT,
GEORGE MUNOZ, SCOTT R. PEPPET, VALARIE L. SHEPPARD, WILLIAM S.
SIMON, CHARLES M. SWOBODA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02301-UNA (D. Del.,
Dec. 19, 2019), is stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which CD&R Arrow Parent, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of funds sponsored by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC, will acquire
Anixter.

On October 30, 2019, Anixter's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Initial Agreement and Plan of Merger with
CD&R, a Delaware corporation, and CD&R Arrow Merger Sub, Inc., a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of CD&R. In accordance with the
Initial Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Proposed
Transaction, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Anixter,
leaving Anixter as the surviving company in the merger, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CD&R.

Each share of Anixter common stock issued and outstanding
immediately prior to the effective time (other than those owned by
CD&R, Anixter, Merger Sub, and stockholders who are entitled to
demand and have properly demanded appraisal of such shares in
accordance with Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law) will be automatically converted into the right to receive
$81.00 in cash.

The Initial Merger Agreement was amended on November 21, 2019,
providing for the acquisition of the Company by CD&R at an
increased price of $82.50 per share in cash.

On December 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Proxy Statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy
Statement omits certain material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Proxy Statement omits material information from both
Centerview's and Wells Fargo Securities' Discounted Cash Flow
Analyses. The Proxy Statement also omits material information in
connection with Centerview's review of "publicly available Wall
Street research analyst reports" in order to ascertain stock price
targets for the Company's shares, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Anixter common stock. The Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate
the Proposed Transaction, unless the Proxy Statement is rectified;
or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from Defendants' wrongdoing.

The Defendants are a leading distributor of network and security
solutions, electrical solutions, and utility power solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com


APPI MANAGEMENT: Guzman Seeks Overtime Pay for Painting Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD GUZMAN and EDGAR BONILLA, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.P.P.I. MANAGEMENT
CORP., JOSEPH AUFIERO and THOMAS AUFIERO, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06751 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as painting
laborers. The Plaintiffs allege that they regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendants willfully
disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of
the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of
the hours worked by and wages paid to them.

The Defendants are engaged in the painting contracting industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


APPLE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Trim Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JERICHO TRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC.; and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01114556-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Nov.
26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide compliant
meal periods and rest periods, and failed to accurately itemize and
report wages, hours and pay rates, in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Apple, Inc. from 2013 to 2018. He
regularly worked shifts of 5-8 hours throughout the course of his
employment with Apple, Inc.

Apple classified the Plaintiff and Class Members as "non-exempt"
employees. The Plaintiff contends that Apple intentionally failed
to implement a system to track, maintain, and record missed meal
and/or rest breaks to pay meal and/or rest period premiums.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Hwy., Ste. 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


APPLE INC: Lerman et al. Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHAIM LERMAN, ROSLYN
WILLIAMS, and JAMES VORRASI, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-07381 (SJ) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an Order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      New York Class:

      "all individuals and entities in New York who currently own
      or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or
      iOS 8 to iOS 9";

      New Jersey Class:

      "all individuals and entities in New Jersey who currently
      own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7
      or iOS 8 to iOS 9";

   2. appointing Chaim Lerman and Roslyn Williams as Class
      Representatives of the New York Class and James Vorrasi as
      Class Representative of the New Jersey Class; and

   3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
      LLC as Class Counsel.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael Grunfeldof, Esq.
          Villi Shteyn, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com
                  vshteyn@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-8209
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
                  shimony@bgandg.com



AROTECH CORP: Riggle Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Greenbriar
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS RIGGLE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AROTECH CORPORATION, JON B. KUTLER, KENNETH
W. CAPPELL, LAWRENCE F. HAGENBUCH, and JAMES J. QUINN, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-13531-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 27, 2019), is
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Arotech arising out
of the Defendants' attempt to sell Arotech to Greenbriar Equity
Group, L.P. through Argonaut Intermediate, Inc. and Argonaut Merger
Sub, Inc.

On September 23, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by which the Company will be
acquired by Greenbriar in a deal valued at $80.8 million. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each Arotech stockholder will
receive $3.00 in cash for each share of Arotech common stock they
own.

On October 23, 2019, Arotech filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Plaintiff contends that the Proxy is materially deficient and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information regarding the Company insiders' potential conflicts of
interest; the Company's financial projections; and the valuation
analyses performed by the financial advisor of the Company, B.
Riley FBR, Inc.

Without the additional information the Proxy is materially
misleading in violation of federal securities laws, the Plaintiff
says. He adds that the Proxy is an essential link in accomplishing,
and receiving stockholder approval for, the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of
the Company common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous stockholder of Arotech.

Arotech Corporation is a defense and security company engaged in
two business areas: interactive simulation and mobile power
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 860-9158
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          E-mail: raymond@bespc.com


AVLON INDUSTRIES: Townsend Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE D. TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVLON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH13791 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks
injunctive and equitable relief, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses resulting from the
Defendant's violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when employees first begin their jobs
at Avlon, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its
biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. While
there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the
workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can bec hanged or replaced if stolen or
compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Avlon disregarded its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff worked for Avlon in Illinois through 2019. As an
employee, Avlon required the Plaintiff to scan the Plaintiff's
fingerprint so that it could use it as an authentication method to
track time. Avlon subsequently stored the Plaintiff's fingerprint
data in its databases.

Avian is a creator and supplier of professional hair care
maintenance and styling products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Accord in Securities Suit Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, 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
parties in a consolidated stockholder class action suit awaits the
court's final approval of settlement.

On March 3, 2017 and March 13, 2017, the Company and certain of its
former officers were named as defendants in two separate but
largely identical complaints alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The two complaints were brought on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock between July 1, 2015 and
February 28, 2017 and were filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

During the second quarter of 2017, the Stockholder Litigation was
consolidated into a single action and a lead plaintiff was selected
by the Court. Through subsequent amendments, the putative class
period was expanded to include investors who purchased shares
between June 17, 2015 and August 9, 2017.

The plaintiff in the Stockholder Litigation alleged fraud,
misrepresentation and a course of conduct relating to certain
projects undertaken by the Volund & Other Renewable segment, which,
according to the plaintiff, had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

The plaintiff further alleged that stockholders were harmed when
the Company later disclosed that it would incur losses on these
projects. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss ("MTD")
in the Stockholder Litigation, and on December 28, 2017, plaintiff
filed its opposition to the MTD. The federal trial court judge
denied the MTD on February 8, 2018, which allowed the case to
proceed.

After engaging in some discovery, the parties held a mediation on
December 14, 2018 to discuss possible settlement of the Stockholder
Litigation. The parties did not successfully resolve the
Stockholder Litigation at the December 14, 2018 mediation.

Following a period of additional discovery, the parties held a
second mediation on April 16, 2019. At the second mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Stockholder
Litigation.

The agreement require defendants to pay or cause to be paid $19.5
million into a settlement fund. The parties subsequently executed a
stipulation of settlement and plaintiff's counsel submitted it to
the Court for its preliminary approval. The Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement on August 12, 2019.
The $19.5 million payment was subsequently made by certain of our
insurance carriers.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2019.

Babcock & Wilcox said, "Within our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2019, the $19.5 million liability is
recorded in other accrued liabilities and the $19.5 million
insurance proceeds held in escrow are recorded in other current
assets."

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, 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
putative class action suit entitled, Kent v. Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc., et. al., No. 1:19-cv-01032-MN (D. Del.), has
been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 3, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, the Board and Mr. Young in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint is captioned Kent v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises,
Inc., et. al., No. 1:19-cv-01032-MN (D. Del.).

The complaint asserted, among other things, claims under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly disseminating a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement in connection
with the Equitization Transactions, which was filed with the SEC on
May 13, 2019.

The complaint sought an order rescinding the Equitization
Transactions or, in the alternative, awarding monetary damages as
well as other relief.

On September 19, 2019, the Kent action was voluntarily dismissed as
to the named plaintiff only.

On October 7, 2019, the parties to the Kent action executed a
definitive agreement pursuant to which the Company, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, agreed to pay Kent's counsel
attorneys' fees and costs of $0.1 million.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Dismissal of Hand TCPA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri denied dismissal of J.T. HAND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEACH
ENTERTAINMENT KC, LCC d/b/a SHARK BAR, THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC.,
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00668-NKL. (W.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff and
putative class members allegedly received text messages that they
had not consented to from the Defendants advertising Shark Bar's
products and services.

Defendants Beach Entertainment KC, LCC d/b/a Shark Bar,
Entertainment Consulting International, LLC, and the Cordish
Companies, Inc., asserted that Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and
(6), for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim.

Defendants Cordish and ECI moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint, arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them
as non-resident entities.

In response, Plaintiff assert that both ECI and Cordish have the
requisite minimum contacts with Missouri to make personal
jurisdiction proper, and that in the alternative, Shark Bar's
contacts with Missouri can be imputed to them through an alter-ego
or agency theory.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that
ECI's and Cordish's alleged conduct giving rise to Plaintiff's
cause of action falls within the Missouri long-arm statute, the
Court notes.  Plaintiff has alleged Defendants transact significant
amounts of business within the District and provided evidence that
ECI and Cordish maintain offices and officers or employees in
Kansas City, and that ECI is registered as a foreign limited
liability corporation with the state of Missouri and has executed
an operating agreement with Shark Bar to provide marketing
services.

Moreover, Plaintiff has also made a prima facie showing that ECI
has sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri, the Court finds.  As
to the nature, quality, and quantity of ECI's contacts with
Missouri, Plaintiff has demonstrated a number of contacts between
ECI and the state.

At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff has satisfied the
minimal burden of making a prima facie showing that personal
jurisdiction exists as to ECI. Thus, ECI's motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is denied, the Court rules.

As to Cordish, Plaintiff argues personal jurisdiction over Cordish
is proper, because not only did they participate in the oversight,
development, and use of the ATDS as well as creation of the data
collection policy used to promote Missouri venues to Missouri
customers, but Cordish also has a physical presence in the state
through its executives, office, and ownership interests located
here. At this stage, the Court must take Plaintiff's allegations as
true to the extent they are uncontroverted by Defendants'
affidavits. At this stage, the Court is required to resolve these
factual conflicts in Plaintiff's favor.
Cordish's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is
denied, the Court rules.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

Defendants assert that Plaintiff's second amended Complaint should
be dismissed, because it is premised on an unconstitutional
statutory framework. Specifically, Defendants contend that the
government-debt exception, the government-speaker exception, and
the non-profit exception each violate the First Amendment Free
Speech Clause and Equal Protection. Defendants also contend the
TCPA's definition of the term ATDS is unconstitutionally vague in
violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Finally,
Defendants assert that the unconstitutional provisions are not
severable from the TCPA, and therefore the entire statute should be
struck down.

First Amendment

The First Amendment prevents Congress from enacting laws abridging
the freedom of speech. It is well established that content-based
laws those that target speech based on its communicative content
are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the
government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve
compelling state interests under strict scrutiny.  

ATDS Government-Debt Exemption

In relevant part, the TCPA as modified by Congress' 2015 amendment
provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to make a call
using an ATDS to any telephone number assigned to a paging service,
cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or
other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the
called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made
solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United
States.  

Defendants argue that on their face, the ATDS restrictions
discriminate based on a call's content, i.e., a caller may use an
ATDS to collect a government debt, but not, for example, to inform
someone about a beneficial service or communicate with a customer.
Defendants contend that these content-based restrictions are
subject to strict scrutiny, that they fail strict scrutiny, and
that they are not severable from the remainder of the statute.

As a preliminary matter, the Government argues this court should
consider severance prior to reaching the constitutionality of the
government-debt exception to avoid unnecessary constitutional
adjudication. They assert that the Court should first make a
severability determination, and if the challenged provision is
severable and severance would provide no relief, the Court may
decline to determine the constitutionality of the government-debt
exception.
Therefore, the Court will first address the constitutionality of
the government-debt exemption and then turn to severability.

Whether the government-debt exception is content-based

The Court agrees. On its face, the government-debt exception
clearly applies only where the call was made solely to collect a
debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The only way to
determine whether a call falls within this exemption is to examine
whether the subject of the call was to collect a government debt.

It is true that calls made pursuant to the government-debt
exception may relate to the relationship between the federal
government and a debtor. However, on its face, the statute does not
limit the exemption on that basis. The provision explicitly limits
its applicability to when the content of the call is for the
purpose of collecting a government debt.

Therefore, the government-debt exception is content-based and is
subject to strict scrutiny.

Whether the government-debt exception survives strict scrutiny

The government-debt exception makes no attempt to accommodate
privacy concerns, and the Government advances no justification for
why calls pertaining to a debt owed to the government are any less
of a nuisance or privacy invasion. It is precisely this
underinclusivity that Defendants argue belies the Government's
asserted interest. Therefore, even assuming residential privacy is
a compelling interest, the government-debt exception does not
further that interest.  

The government-debt exception is also not narrowly tailored to
achieve its interest in privacy. A statute is narrowly tailored if
it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the evil
it seeks to remedy. The Government first focuses its argument on
the ATDS restriction as a whole, asserting the autodialer
restriction's prohibition on unwanted robocalls is narrowly
tailored because it restricts a limited method of communication the
use of certain technologies in placing calls and only without the
consent of the called party, making it closely drawn to the
unwanted intrusions it aims to prevent. However, this analysis does
not incorporate the government-debt exception at issue here.  

The Government next asserts that the government-debt exception is
limited by the fact that such calls would only be made to those who
owe a debt to the federal government. However, the terms of the
government-debt exemption are not so limited. The exemption states
that the ATDS restriction does not apply to calls made solely to
collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.
Therefore, the government-debt exception fails strict scrutiny, and
the Court must now determine whether it is severable from the
TCPA.

Whether the government-debt exception is severable from the TCPA

Defendants are correct that, as with all statutory amendments,
Congress likely intended the ATDS restrictions to work in tandem
with the exemptions. However, Congressional intent that a statute's
provisions function in harmony with subsequent amendments does not
compel the conclusion that Congress intended those subsequent
amendments to be unable to be severed. Given the general
presumption in favor of severability, the apparent Congressional
intent that the unconstitutional provision be severed, and the
TCPA's demonstrated ability to be fully operative without the
severed provision, the Court finds the government-debt exception is
severable. Other courts have found the same.  

Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the
government-debt exception is unconstitutional and unseverable is
denied.

ATDS Government-Speaker Exemption

Having severed the government-debt exception, the Court considers
Defendants' remaining arguments with respect to the ATDS
restrictions. Defendants contend that the fact that the statute
does not include government entities within the definition of
person and the FCC's subsequent ruling that government agents
communicating authorized' messages are also exempt indicates a
content-based preference for government messages, regardless of the
speaker's identity and independently triggers strict scrutiny.

The TCPA provision prohibiting the use of ATDS applies to any
person within the United States, or any person outside the United
States if the recipient is within the United States. The TCPA
itself does not define person, but the Communications Act of 1932,
which the TCPA amended, provides that the term person includes an
individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust or
corporation.

First, the ATDS restriction and its alleged government-speaker
exemption can be justified without reference to the content of the
speech. Congress has chosen to regulate the telemarketing practices
that the record reflected were the most intrusive due to their
unexpected and frequent nature. The record does not indicate calls
from government sources were necessarily among the nuisance calls
that consumers were concerned about.

Moreover, the Government offers a broader justification as to why
the government would be exempt. First, that the TCPA's definition
does not explicitly include the federal government is not a
speaker-preference but rather a reflection of its inherent
sovereign immunity.  

Further, the Government argues that the Government is permitted to
subject its own speech to differing requirements and it has never
been thought to raise First Amendment concerns. The Free Speech
Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does
not regulate government speech. A government entity has the right
to speak for itself. It is entitled to say what it wishes, and to
select the views it wants to express. The Government has justified
the alleged exemption without reference to the content of the
speech.

Second, the Eighth Circuit has concluded residential privacy is a
substantial governmental interest and the history of the TCPA
indicates its goal in enacting the restrictions was to regulate
intrusive, nuisance calls to consumers' homes from telemarketers.
By targeting such telephone solicitations, Congress has narrowly
tailored the restriction to this privacy interest.  
Therefore, even assuming ATDS restrictions do not apply to
government entities, it is a valid time, place, and manner
restriction on speech. Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground
is denied.

Equal Protection

Defendants also claim the TCPA violates the Equal Protection
Clause, arguing Plaintiff cannot show the differential treatment of
different types of speech survives equal protection scrutiny,
because the Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes
affecting First Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their
legitimate objective and for the same reasons stated above, the
restrictions are not narrowly tailored to their intended interest.
Because Defendants do not advance any new arguments with respect to
the alleged equal protection violation and the Court has fully
addressed their First Amendment claims above, it need not decide
the issue. It is generally unnecessary to analyze laws which burden
the exercise of First Amendment rights by a class of persons under
the equal protection guarantee, because the substantive guarantees
of the Amendment serve as the strongest protection against the
limitation of these rights.  

Therefore, the Court does not decide the Equal Protection
question.

Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

Lastly, Defendants assert that the TCPA ATDS provisions are
unconstitutionally vague because the ATDS definition fails to give
a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice of what
constitutes an ATDS.

The ATDS definition is not unconstitutionally vague. The statute
uses common words that give a person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to know the types of dialing systems the
TCPA prohibits. When deciding whether a statute is
unconstitutionally vague, common sense must not be and should not
be suspended. A caller of ordinary intelligence is on notice that
if they use a system that is storing or producing numbers using a
random or sequential number generator, and then dialing those
numbers, they may come within the scope of the statute's
prohibition. That Congress may, without difficulty, have chosen
clearer and more precise language equally capable of achieving the
end which it sought does not mean that the statute which it in fact
drafted is unconstitutionally vague.

Defendants' motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds is denied.

The motion to dismiss by Defendants is DENIED.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx99r73u from Leagle.com

J. T. Hand, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Schuyler R. Ufkes -
sufkes@edelson.com - pro hac vice, William Charles Kenney , Bill
Kenney Law Firm, LLC, 1101 Walnut Street, Suite 102, Kansas City,
MO, 64106, Benjamin H. Richman -brichman@edelson.com - Edelson, pro
hac vice, Brandt Silver-Korn - bsilverkorn@edelson.com - Edelson,
pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp - erapp@edelson.com - Edelson PC,
pro hac vice, Michael Ovca -movca@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac
vice & Sydney Janzen - sjanzen@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac
vice.

Beach Entertainment KC, LLC, doing business as Shark Bar,
Defendant, represented by David I. Zalman –
dzalman@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice,
Glenn T. Graham – ggraham@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti  -
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac
vice, W. James Foland – jfoland@fwpclaw.com - Foland Wickens
Roper Hofer & Crawford, Whitney M. Smith – wsmith@kelleydrye.com
- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice & Jacqueline M. Sexton
-jsexton@fwpclaw.com - Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford.

The Cordish Companies, Inc. & Entertainment Consulting
International, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jacqueline M. Sexton
, Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford & W. James Foland , Foland
Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford.

IT Nachos, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Patrick W. Skilliter
- pskilliter@mslawgroup.com - Mac Murray & Shuster LLP, pro hac
vice & Nathan R. Taylor , Taylor, Stafford, Clithero, & Harris,
LLP, Ridgeview Business Center, 3315 East Ridgeview Street, Suite
1000, Springfield, MO 65804

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Abbuhl
, United States Department of Justice.


BLUE APRON: Bailey Seeks to Certify 6 Classes in Unpaid Wages Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRANCE BAILEY, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, vs. BLUE APRON, LLC; BLUE APRON,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07000-VC
(N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 5, 2018), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on April 9, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      Pre-Shift Unpaid Wages Class:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      an time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues
      an order certifying the class who worked at least one
      shift during that time period";

      Meal Period Unpaid Wages Class:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues
      an order certifying the class who worked at least one shift
      in which a meal period was taken during that time period";

      Meal Period Class:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues
      an order certifying the class who worked at least one
      shift of over five hours";

      Rest Period Class:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues
      an order certifying the class who worked at least one
      shift over three and a half hours during that time
      period";

      Wage Statement Subclass:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      any time from October 5, 2017 to the date the Court issues
      an order certifying the class who received at least one
      wage statement during that time period".

      Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its
      Richmond, California facility as production associates at
      any time from October 5, 2016 to the date the Court issues
      and order certifying the class who terminated their
      employment or had their employment terminated within this
      period";

   2. appointing himself as Class Representative;

   3. appointing his counsel, David Mara, and Jill Vecchi of Mara
      Law Firm, PC as Class Counsel; and

   4. approving notice to the class.

Blue Apron Inc. is an American ingredient-and-recipe meal kit
service. It exclusively operates in the United States. The weekly
boxes contain ingredients and also include suggested recipes that
must be cooked by hand by the customer using the pre-ordered
ingredients.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@maralawfirm.com

BYTEDANCE LTD: TikTok Faces Class Action Over Child Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Eggertsen, writing for Billboard, reports that with its legal
woes continuing to mount, TikTok is in trouble once again over
alleged child-privacy violations.

Less than a year after the video-sharing app Musical.ly -- which
was subsumed into TikTok in August 2018 -- reached a $5.7 million
settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over alleged
violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a new
class-action lawsuit filed against the company suggests that
settlement didn't go far enough.

"Defendants have not made whole the millions of consumers harmed by
their unlawful conduct," the complaint reads. "Accordingly,
Plaintiffs bring this class action for relief."  

Filed on Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court in Illinois by plaintiffs
T.K. (through her mother Sherri Leshore) and A.S. (through her
mother Laura Lopez), the new complaint alleges that the Musical.ly
app "surreptitiously tracked, collected, and disclosed" the
personal information of minor children without their parents' or
guardians' consent, selling their data to third-party advertisers
while also opening them up to attacks by child sexual predators.
The plaintiffs -- who estimate the size of the class affected by
Musical.ly's alleged actions at six million U.S. users -- are
asking for actual, statutory and punitive damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Musical.ly (which was
purchased by TikTok's parent company ByteDance for $1 billion in
December 2017) failed to put appropriate safeguards in place to
protect users under age 13, including failure to obtain parental
consent before sharing minor children's personal information and
making that information publicly available by default to other
users on the app. They further allege that between December 2015
and October 2016, the app collected geolocation data, thereby
enabling users to identify the location of other users, including
children.

"Because the App had virtually all privacy features disabled by
default, there were serious ramifications, including reports of
adults trying to contact minor children via the App," the complaint
reads.

Defendants named in the suit include ByteDance Technology,
Musical.ly Inc., Musical.ly The Cayman Islands Corporation and
TikTok Inc. A representative for TikTok did not respond to
Billboard's request for comment by press time.

The complaint notes that while defendants began advising parents to
monitor their children's use of the app in October 2016, this
guidance was "limited" and "mere 'window dressing.'" It further
alleges the company knew all along that young children were using
the app, noting that a total of 46 of Musical.ly's most popular
users were under the age 13 as of February 2017. Moreover, they
accuse the company of actually encouraging young children to sign
up by, among other things, creating song folders labeled "Disney"
and "school," leveraging entertainers popular with preteens and
teens to promote the app and offering tools that made it easy for
children to create and upload videos. (Under terms of the FTC
settlement, TikTok was forced to remove all videos by users under
the age of 13.)

"For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants had actual knowledge
they were collecting personally identifiable information and/or
viewing data from children," the complaint continues. "The youth of
the user base is easily apparent in perusing users' profile
pictures and in reviewing users' profiles, many of which explicitly
noted the child's age, birthdate, or school."

The complaint includes a total of five counts, including violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act; Intrusion Upon Seclusion;
violation of the California Constitutional Right to Privacy;
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

The suit only adds to the current legal and regulatory headaches
for TikTok, which is already under investigation by the U.K.
Commissioner's Office over its use of children's data. In October,
the National Music Publishers Assocation called on Congress to
investigate the app over potential copyright theft, while last
month reports indicated the company had become the subject of a
national security review in the U.S. over concerns of censorship
and counterintelligence by the Chinese government, where its parent
company ByteDance is based. [GN]


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Dismissal of Lepkowski Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Defendants' bid for
dismissal of RACHEL LEPKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS,
LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04598-YGR. (N.D. Cal.) --
in light of the filing of plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3u55ack from Leagle.com

Rachel Lepkowski, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Neal J. Deckant -
ndeckant@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher -
ltfisher@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Scott Bursor -
scott@bursor.com -Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

CamelBak Products, LLC & CamelBak International, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Todd Owen Maiden - tmaiden@reedsmith.com  - Reed
Smith LLP.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Sheriffs Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, 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 Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund.

In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common shares between
March 2015 and May 2018.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the
Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the
Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and
equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions.

Cardinal said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
them. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it is not possible
to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss or range of
loss in this matter."

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

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Morgan Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Theodore Morgan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and Blitt and Gaines,
P.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07865 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29,
2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency located in
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

               - and -

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Hoh
entered an order:

   1. approving and certifying this class for purposes of
      Settlement:

      "all non-exempt employees of Centerplate who worked for
      Centerplate in the State of California at any time from May
      24, 2013, to March 31, 26 2019, excluding those individuals
      who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the
      Action";

   2. finding that:

      -- opt outs for these Class Members are valid: Raymond
         Chestnut, Kirsten Clauveh, Jose Alfredo Vera, Daniel
         Schwartz, Sandra Barrera, and Carol Perrigo.'

      -- these Class Members did not intend to opt out of
         the Settlement: Susanna Wong, Anderson Penn,
         Christopher Moore, Hnin Lwin, David Bonilla, and
         Ming Run Xie.

   3. appointing Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan as
      representatives for the Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Setareh Law Group LLP as Class Counsel;

   5. directing Defendant to pay Class Members a gross settlement
      amount of $5,450,000 pursuant to the procedure described in
      the Settlement Agreement. Defendant shall have no further
      liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorney's fees, or

      for any other charge, expense, or liability, except as
      provided in the Settlement Agreement;

   6. approving $3,889,077.31 as reasonable recovery to the
      class:

      The figure was determined by subtracting Class Counsel Fees
      of $1,362,500; Class Counsel Costs of $25,922.69; Service
      Awards of 24 $10,000 for Named Plaintiffs Ronald Martinez
      and Monique Raquedan; PAGA penalties of 25 $112,500; and
      Administration Costs of $50,000 from the Maximum Settlement
      Amount of 26 $5,450,000. The Settlement Administrator
      estimated that there are "9,951 Class Members who will be
      paid their portion of the Net Settlement Fund."

      The Settlement Agreement did not require a claim form and
      did not provide for a reversion. Class Counsel's claimed
      lodestar is $685,008. However, the Court notes that Class
      Counsel's claimed lodestar includes unreasonable charges.;

   7. allowing legal research costs of $199.12, and disallowing an

      additional $1,263.38 in requested costs because Class
      Counsel did not provide adequate documentation of those
      costs.

   8. disallowing charges of $129.59 (dated December 14, 2018) and

      $62.00 (dated January 12, 2018) for “Thomas A. Segal”
      because there are no invoices or supporting documentation
      for these charges and Class Counsel's description of "Thomas

      A Segal" does not explain how these charges are related to
      this case.

   9. disallowing a charge of $803.79 for "Proper SF Hotel San
      Francisco" on November 13, 2018, because Class Counsel did
      not explain this charge in the Supplemental Setareh
      Declaration in the section regarding hotel charges, and
      because Class Counsel did not submit any invoices or
      supporting documentation for this charge.

  10. disallowing $803.79 charge for "Proper SF Hotel San
      Francisco";

  11. disallowing charge of $268.00 for "Barkley Court
      Reporters";

  12. awarding Class Counsel Setareh Law Group LLP a total of
      $1,362,500 in attorney's fees and $25,922.69 in costs and
      expenses; and

  13. awarding Class Representative Incentive Awards of $5,000 to
      each of Plaintiffs Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan.[CC]

CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 has
agreed to settle the consolidated suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink
Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, for payments of $15.5
million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for
administrative costs.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize.

Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in
part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal
proceedings have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize.

A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been
filed in other federal and state courts, as well.

The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.

Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims.

A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been
filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed.

Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed
in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for
the Parish of Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed
in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been
brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

CenturyLink said, "Subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class
actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members
and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. We have accrued
for those amounts."

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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, Houser et al. v.
CenturyLink, et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the transaction.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose material information of several
kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss
rates, and customer account issues, among other items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab 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 company
continues to defend Crago Order Routing Litigation.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co). The lawsuit names CS&Co
and the company (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an agreement
under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July
13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best
execution.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
are vigorously contesting the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial
services to individual investors, independent investment managers,
retirement plans, and institutions. The Company provides its
clients with securities brokerage, banking, and related financial
services through offices in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
United Kingdom. The company is based in San Francisco, California.



CHECKR INC: Montanez Sues Over Improper Reporting Convictions
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MONTANEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CHECKR, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-07776 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
26, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by reporting records of convictions even after such
convictions have been overturned and the persons, who are the
subjects of the reports have been declared innocent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff served 22 years in prison
for a murder that he did not commit, before his conviction was
overturned on appeal and he was formally granted a certificate of
innocence by the Cook County, Illinois criminal courts.

When the Plaintiff applied to be an Uber driver in September 2018,
nearly two years after he was formally declared to be innocent,
Checkr, Inc. sold a background report about him which inaccurately
reported that he had plead guilty to murder and that the
disposition of the case was a conviction, according to the
complaint.

Over 2,500 individuals nationwide have been formally exonerated of
criminal convictions since 1989. Like him, many of these
individuals continue to be haunted by their wrongful convictions as
they move on with their lives and seek employment, because the
Defendant continues to improperly report records of convictions on
background reports for employment purposes, despite the fact that
publicly available court records clearly demonstrate their
innocence, Mr. Montanez asserts.

Mr. Montanez argues that Checkr's practices cause substantial harm
to consumers, who have been legally exonerated by prejudicing their
employers and prospective employers with misleading and adverse
criminal record information. As a result of Checkr's conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered damages, including loss of employment
opportunity, damage to reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, and
other emotional and mental distress.

Checkr is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts
business in the State of California and which has a principal place
of business in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erika A. Heath, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH & PETERS, LLP
          369 Pine Street, Suite 410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          E-mail: erika@duckworthpeters.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Ave., Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: 404.205.5029
          Facsimile: 866.800.1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


CHESTNUT RUN: Fails to Timely Repay Security Deposits, Young Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUIA YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHESTNUT RUN VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. N19C-11-266 MMJ (Del. Super., Nov. 27, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant willfully, unconscionably and unilaterally attempted to
deny the Plaintiff and other Delaware renters with their legal
rights pursuant to the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code by, among
other things, not timely refunding security deposits.

The Defendant has also breached the Deceptive Trade Practices
Statute by committing a breach of contract against the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically does not
refund security deposits or provide damage letters to tenants
within the prescribed time and does not maintain the tenant
security deposit funds in a correct account as specified per
Delaware Statute.

On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a Lease Agreement
with the Defendant. On March 31, 2019, the Lease Agreement was
terminated and possession of the unit was returned to the
Defendant. On April 18, 2019, the Plaintiff e-mailed the Defendant
to inquire about the return of the security deposit but received no
immediate response.

The Defendant did not refund Plaintiff's security deposit or
provide a list of damages within 20 days per the Delaware Landlord
Tenant Code, according to the complaint. The Defendant did not
deposit or maintain the security deposit provided by the Plaintiff
into an account as specified in the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code.

The Defendant's misrepresentation concerning their exclusion of the
Delaware Landlord Tenant Code due to their headquarters being
located in Pennsylvania was false and misleading, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff was significantly harmed by Defendant's conduct. The
Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been substantially
harmed by this Defendant's failure to abide by Delaware law.
Defendant has deprived the tenants of their right to be protected
by the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code.

The Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated are Delaware
persons, who were tenants of Defendant and who had their security
deposits not placed in a Delaware Bank and or upon expiration of
their tenancies did not have the security deposit refunded or have
a damages letter provided within the 20 day statutory framework as
afforded by 25 Del. C. section 5514.

The Defendant is the owner of the Property located at 9 Mary Ella
Drive, Apt. B, Wilmington, Delaware (the Property).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Matlusky, Esq.
          THE MATLUSKY FIRM, LLC
          1423 North Harrison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Telephone: (302) 658-4474
          Facsimile: (302) 658-5130


COLONIAL COMPLIANCE: Wells Seeks OT Wages for Marine Consultants
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAIN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia
corporation, Defendant, Case 3:19-cv-07810 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 27,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
owed by the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and California law.

According to the complaint, Colonial improperly classified Wells
and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors and
paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation.

Mr. Wells worked for Colonial as a Marine Surveyor/Marine
Consultant. He and the other workers like him regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in single workweek,
the lawsuit asserts.

Colonial Compliance specializes in maritime International and U.S.
regulatory requirements as well as technical and operational.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: 713 999 5228
          Facsimile: 713 999 1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Contract Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as James Jilek, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Compass
Group USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV38382, was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on Nov. 27, 2019.

The suit arises from contract related issues.

Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption. The company offers catering, dining, and support
services for foodservice events. Compass Group USA serves hotels,
restaurants, education, and industrial sectors.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant Compass Group USA is represented by:

           Kathryn G Hummel, Esq.
           K AND L GATES LLP
           10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 8th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90067
           Telephone: (310) 552-5000
           Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
           E-mail: kate.hummel@klgates.com


CONCENTRA INC: Court Refuses to Stay Pascal Suit Pending FCC Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California refused to stay the case
captioned LAWRENCE PASCAL, Plaintiff, v. CONCENTRA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, (N.D. Cal.) pending FCC
guidance.

Plaintiff Lawrence Pascal commenced the class action against
Defendant Concentra, Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), asserting that Concentra has violated the TCPA by
sending text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) without the consent of recipients.

Presently before the District Court is Concentra's Motion to Stay
Pending FCC Guidance, in which Concentra asks the Court to stay the
case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine or its inherent
authority because the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") may
issue an order soon addressing what constitutes an ATDS under the
TCPA.

The TCPA makes it unlawful to call a cellular telephone number
using an ATDS without the prior consent of the recipient. The
statute defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity to
store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator and (B) to dial such numbers. It also
vests the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the
authority to implement the restrictions of the TCPA.  Exercising
that authority, the FCC has issued a series of orders that address
what constitutes an ATDS, including most recently, an order issued
in 2015 (2015 Order).  

The District Court, like the court in zor v. Abacus Data Sys.,
Inc., No. 19-CV-01057-HSG, 2019 WL 3555110, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
5, 2019), declines "to hold that the state of the law is so unclear
that this case must await FCC guidance when the Ninth Circuit has
repeatedly found otherwise."  The primary jurisdiction doctrine
does not justify a stay in the Pascal case, the District Court
opines.

Moreover, to determine whether a court should exercise its
discretion to enter a stay under its inherent authority, the court
considers the following three competing interests: (1) the possible
damage which may result from the granting of a stay (2) the
hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to
go forward and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms
of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions
of law which could be expected to result from a stay.

The factors set forth above do not support a stay, Judge Spero
finds. With respect to the first factor, there is a fair likelihood
that Plaintiffs will be damaged because of the length of the stay,
which is indeterminate.  

First, Concentra's argument as to the possibility that a future FCC
order will be dispositive of Plaintiff's claim is not supported by
any specific explanation of how the possible changes in the
definition of an ATDS will be relevant to this case, the District
Court holds.

Second, the Supreme Court has made clear that only in rare
circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand
aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will
define the rights of both. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Therefore, the
District Court concludes that Concentra has not met its burden as
to this factor.

Finally, the District Court rejects Concentra's assertion that a
stay will advance the orderly course of justice and be in the
interest of judicial economy because the case might if the Court
and the parties wait long enough go away when the FCC issues a new
definition of ATDS. Far from advancing the orderly course of
justice, a stay in this case would amount to ignoring binding Ninth
Circuit authority on a mere possibility that the law may at some
point change to Concentra's benefit.  Consequently, entering a stay
under the circumstances here would undermine the orderly course of
justice.

Accordingly, the District Court denied Concentra's Motion to Stay
Pending FCC Guidance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6edmoqc  from Leagle.com

Lawrence Pascal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Louis Javitch , Javitch
Law Office, 480 S Ellsworth Ave., San Mateo, CA 94401

Concentra, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Esteban Morales Fabila , Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo
PC, 11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 400 Reston, Va 20190


CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Kent Challenges Sale to CertainTeed Gypsum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONTINENTAL BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., EDWARD BOSOWSKI,
JAMES BACHMANN, MICHAEL KEOUGH, MICHAEL O. MOORE, IRA S.
STRASSBERG, JACK SWEENY, and CHANTAL VEEVAETE, Case No.
1:19-cv-02303-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Continental will be acquired by
CertainTeed Gypsum and Ceilings USA, Inc. and Cupertino Merger Sub,
Inc.

On November 12, 2019, Continental Building Products' Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Parent, Merger Sub, and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Continental Building
Products' stockholders will receive $37.00 in cash for each share
of Continental Building Products common stock they own.

On December 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, says the complaint. The Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections. The
Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to
calculate (a) Adjusted EBITDA and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and
(ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy
Statement also omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Continental Building Products common
stock and needs proper information regarding the Proposed
Transaction.

Continental Building Products is a leading North American
manufacturer of gypsum wallboard and complementary finishing
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wage and Hour Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornwell Quality Tools Company removed the case captioned as RANDY
SALINAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. RIC1905144 (Filed Oct. 10, 2019), from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Nov. 27, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02275 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to reimburse expenses, making unlawful
deductions from wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements,
failing to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, and
failing to pay wages.

Cornwell Quality Tools, a privately held company, manufactures
tools for the automotive and aviation industries. The company is
based in Wadsworth, Ohio.[BN]

Defendant Cornwell is represented by:

          Jared L. Bryan, Esq.
          Allyson S. Ascher, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 885-1360
          Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
          E-mail: jared.bryan@jacksonlewis.com
                  allyson.ascher@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: adam.siegel@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Gippin, Esq.
          RODERICK LINTON BELFANCE, LLP
          50 S. Main Street, 10th Floor
          Akron, OH 44308-1828
          Telephone: (330) 315-3400
          Facsimile: (330) 434-9220
          E-mail: rgippin@rlbllp.com


CREDIT CORP: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Illegal & Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sloatman, IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10739 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff challenges that Defendants' practice of recording
calls to consumers without having first notifying the consumers or
obtaining their consent to have the call recorded, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Company used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its daily call to the Plaintiff seeking to collect the debt
allegedly owed by someone other than the Plaintiff. The calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes, says the
complaint.

On several occasions, the Plaintiff answered the Defendant's
telephone call and informed an agent for the Defendant that: 1) the
person who allegedly owed the debt in question cannot be reached on
Plaintiff's telephone; 2) that the Defendant has an incorrect
telephone number; and 3) that the Defendant must cease placing such
calls to the Plaintiff. Despite receiving this information on
numerous occasions, the Defendant continued to place frequent calls
to him, says the Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRETE CARRIER: Court Grants Prelim. OK on Settlement in Prieto Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YANELLE PRIETO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRETE CARRIER
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60903-BLOOM/Valle (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and classes of similarly
situated persons, and Defendant Crete have agreed to settle the
Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an
executed Settlement Agreement.  The Parties reached the Settlement
through arm's-length negotiations with the help of experienced
mediator, David H. Lichter. Under the Settlement, subject to the
terms and conditions therein and subject to Court approval, the
Plaintiff and the proposed Settlement Class will fully, finally,
and forever resolve, discharge, and release their claims.

The Settlement has been filed with the Court, and the Plaintiff and
the Class Counsel have filed the instant Motion.  Upon considering
the Motion, the Settlement and all related exhibits, the record in
these proceedings, the representations and recommendations of
counsel, and the requirements of law, Judge Bloom preliminarily
approved the Settlement, together with all related exhibits, as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Judge Bloom therefore provisionally certified the following
Settlement Class: all individuals residing in the United States (i)
who were sent a text message, (ii) on his or her cellular
telephone, (iii) using the Twilio/Portal platform, (iv) by or on
behalf of Crete Carrier Corp. (Crete), (v) after he or she
requested that Crete stop transmitting text messages, and (vi) that
were sent in the four years prior to the date of the Agreement.

Judge Bloom appointed (i) Plaintiff Yanelle Prieto as Class
Representative; and (ii) Scott A. Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A.,
and Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis and Gentile, P.A., as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class.

The Judge approved the form and content of the Class notices.  Epiq
Systems, Inc., will serve as the Administrator.  The Administrator
will implement the Class Notice program, as set forth in the
Settlement, using the Class notices approved by the Preliminary
Approval Order.  The Administrator will administer Mail Notice as
set forth in the Settlement.

The Administrator will establish a Settlement Website as a means
for the Settlement Class members to obtain notice of, and
information about, the Settlement.  The Settlement Website will be
established as soon as practicable following Preliminary Approval,
but no later than before commencement of the Class Notice program.
The Settlement Website will include an online portal to file Claim
Forms, hyperlinks to the Settlement, the Long-Form Notice, the
Preliminary Approval Order, and other such documents as Class
Counsel and counsel for Defendant agree to include.  These
documents will remain on the Settlement Website until at least 60
days following the Claim Deadline.  The Administrator is directed
to perform all substantive responsibilities with respect to
effectuating the Class Notice program, as set forth in the
Settlement.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Feb. 7,
2020, at 9:00 a.m.  The Opt-Out Deadline is 30 days before the
Final Approval Hearing.

The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement, Fee Application, and request for
a Service Award for Plaintiff, no later than Dec. 23, 2019, which
is 45 days before the Final Approval Hearing.  They will file their
responses to timely filed objections to the Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement, the Fee Application, and/or the request
for a Service Award for the Plaintiff no later than Jan. 23, 2020,
which is 15 days before the Final Approval Hearing.

All proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of the
Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the
Settlement.

Based on the foregoing, the Court sets the following schedule for
the Final Approval Hearing and the actions which must take place
before and after it:

     a. Deadline for Completion of Mailed Notice - Jan. 7, 2020
        (60 days after Preliminary Program Approval)

     b. Deadline for filing papers in support of Final Approval
        Hearing - Dec. 23, 2019 (45 days prior to the Final
        Approval of the Settlement and Class)

     c. Deadline for opting-out of Settlement and submission of
        objections - Jan. 8, 2020 (30 days prior to the Final
        Approval Hearing)

     d. Responses to Objections - Jan. 23, 2020 (15 days prior
        to the Final Approval Hearing)

     d. The Final Approval Hearing - Feb. 7, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
        (Approximately 90 days after Preliminary Approval)

     e. The last day that Settlement Class members may submit
        a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator - Feb. 22,
        2020 (15 days after the Final Approval Hearing)

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

Yanelle Prieto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett O. Berg --
gberg@shamisgentile.com -- Shamis, Gentile, P.A., Jordan David
Utanski -- utanski@edelsberglaw.com -- Scott Adam Edelsberg --
scott@edelsberglaw.com -- Edelsberg Law PA & Andrew John Shamis .

Crete Carrier Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eve Alexis Cann -- ecann@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker
Donelson & Nathan C. Chase, Jr. -- nchase@robinsonbradshaw.com --
Robinson Bradshaw, pro hac vice.


CURO GROUP: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that CURO Group
Holdings, Corp. (NYSE: CURO) may face damages caused by a pending
securities lawsuit. CURO is a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers.

Shareholder Class Action Alleging CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO)
Made Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to
Dismiss

Investors filed a class action complaint against CURO for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
class action complaint, between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018,
CURO consistently touted the ongoing success of transitioning its
Canadian inventory products from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End Loans
and reaffirmed its 2018 full-year financial guidance. Despite these
positive assurances of the transition, on October 24, 2018, CURO
shocked investors with disappointing results for the Company's
third quarter, including Canadian revenue that had decreased by
$4.4 million, provision for losses that had increased by $8.7
million, and an adjusted EBITDA that decreased by $15.36 million.
As a result, CURO revised its 2018 full-year guidance to include
adjusted net income in the range of $88 to $91 million compared to
the previous range of $110-$116 million and an adjusted EBITDA in
the range of $215 million to $218 million compared to its previous
range of $245 to $255 million. On this news, CURO's stock price
plummeted $7.69, or almost 34%, to close at $15.18 per share. On
December 3, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum
denied CURO's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, paving the way
for litigation to proceed.

CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO) Shareholders Have Legal Options

Contact us to learn more:
Leo Kandinov
(800) 350-6003
lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested.

         CONTACT:
         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsllp.com
         E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
[GN]


DEALER FUNDING: Rivera-Santiago Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH RIVERA-SANTIAGO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. DEALER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 181202695,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on Nov. 27, 2019.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-05651-PBT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker.

The suit involves personal property issues.

Dealer Funding, a sub-prime auto finance company, provides
secondary credit for dealerships in Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
South Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hyun Yoon, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 252-9537
          Facsimile: (215) 867-6070
          E-mail: Eric.Yoon@hklaw.com


DELTA AIR: Sued by Foshee for Selling Customers' Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Foshee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00612-MW-CAS
(N.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks damages for breach of contract
arising from the Defendant's illegal sale of its customers'
personal information.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks restitution for unjust
enrichment, remedies for bailment, as well as all remedies
available under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, including declaratory and injunctive relief, actual damages in
the amount of Delta's illegal profits from the sale of personal
information, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuit is a putative class action challenging the Defendant's
breach of one of the fundamental promises it makes to its
customers: "We do not sell your name or other personal information
to third parties, and do not intend to do so in the future." The
Plaintiff alleges that, Delta does, indeed, sell its customers'
personal information to a third party for profit. From the time the
Plaintiff paid for Delta airline tickets and travel insurance
offered by AGA Service Company Corp. d/b/a Allianz Global
Assistance until discussions with her counsel, she had no reason to
suspect that Delta had sold her personal information to AGA for a
profit.

Contrary to Delta's express promise not to sell its customers'
personal information, it does just that when, according to its own
admission, "Delta is paid a marketing fee for allowing AGA to sell
insurance to Delta customers." This "marketing fee," according to
Delta, is "derived from the number of data sets transmitted" to AGA
the Plaintiff and the Class provided Delta with sensitive personal
and financial information, including, but not limited to, their
full legal names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates,
CVV codes, email addresses, and other personal information, in
reliance on Delta's promise that it would not sell their
information for profit. Delta breached that duty, and was unjustly
enriched, by ignoring its own promises and selling the Plaintiff's
and the Class' Personal Information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida who used her
credit card to purchase airline tickets from Delta through Delta's
Web site, http://www.delta.com/.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364
          Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                 cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                 bbeall@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Shultz, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
          LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: 305/740-1975
          Fax: 305/437-8158
          Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                 aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                 jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com
                 jkahn@leoncosgrove.com


DIXIE GROUP: Pays $1,528,000 in Garcia Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie 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 paid
$1,528,000 as part of the settlement of the case, Carlos Garcia v.
Fabrica International, Inc. et al.

On November 16, 2018 the Superior Court of the State of California
granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the
matter of Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00949461-CU-OE-CXC.

The court further approved the procedures for Settlement Class
Members to opt-out of or object to the Settlement.

The terms of the settlement provide that Fabrica, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, has agreed to pay $1,514,000 (the "Gross
Settlement Amount") to fully resolve all claims in the Lawsuit,
including payments to Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration costs, and
the Class Representative's Service Award.

The amount of the proposed settlement was recorded during the
quarter ended June 30, 2018. The deadline for class members to
opt-out was February 1, 2019.

The deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion for final approval
of the class action settlement was March 29, 2019. The final
fairness hearing took place on April 12, 2019 with final approval
being granted.

On October 28, 2019 payment was made in the amount of $1,528,000
previously approved court settlement.

The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor
covering products for residential and commercial applications
primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and
is based in Dalton, Georgia.


DOLE FOOD: Bid to Vacate 2013 Dismissal Order in Chaverri Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrea L. Rocanelli of the Superior Court of Delaware denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate the November 2013 Dismissal Order
in the case captioned EDUARDO ALVARADO CHAVERRI, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., etal., Defendants, C.A. No.
N12C-06-017 ALR (Del. Super.).

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from alleged exposure to the pesticide
1, 2, dibromo 3, chloropropane by persons employed on various
banana farms throughout Central America, including Costa Rica,
Ecuador, and Panama.  Six years ago, the Court dismissed the case
on grounds of forum non conveniens under Delaware's McWane Doctrine
("November 2013 Dismissal Order").  The basis for the dismissal of
the action was that the claims made in the Delaware Superior Court
had already been filed in in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  By the time the Superior Court
granted the motion to dismiss at issue, the Louisiana District
Court had already dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims on statute of
limitations grounds and the U.S. of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
had already affirmed the Louisiana District Court's dismissal on
those grounds.

The Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, adopted the Superior
Court's reasoning and affirmed the November 2013 Dismissal Order on
Oct. 20, 2014.  Accordingly, the lawsuit was dismissed because the
Plaintiffs had first pursued their claims in another court even
though the claims in that other court had already been dismissed.

While the Delaware state-court litigation ended in 2014 in the Dow
Chemical Corp. v. Blanco and Chaverri cases, the parties to the two
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware continue to litigate their claims to this day.  Now, the
Plaintiffs have moved to vacate the November 2013 Dismissal Order
pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) on the
basis that "three groundbreaking rulings" issued since the November
2013 Dismissal Order have so radically disrupted the legal
foundations of the Court's November 2013 Dismissal Order that the
dismissal can no longer stand.

The first of these rulings is the Third Circuit's Decision in
Chavez v. Dole.  While a Third Circuit panel initially affirmed the
District Court's decision, the en banc Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's order on Sept. 2, 2016.  The Third Circuit
concluded that federal courts exercising discretion under the
federal first-filed rule, in the vast majority of cases, should
stay or transfer a second-filed suit.  The Third Circuit therefore
held that, based on the facts of the Chavez case and the federal
law governing the federal first-filed rule, the District Court
abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice.

The other two rulings are the two decisions in Marquinez v. Dole
Food Co.: (i) the Delaware Supreme Court's tolling decision, and
(ii) the Third Circuit adopting the Delaware Supreme Court's
Opinion.  On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its
answer to the Third Circuit's certified question, finding
Delaware's statute of limitations continued to toll after the Texas
District Court dismissed the Texas Federal Action in 1995.  In
reaching this conclusion, the court adopted the rule that
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling ends only when a sister
trial court has clearly, unambiguously, and finally denied class
action status.  It observed that this approach is consistent with
the Blanco Decision's rationale of avoiding wasteful and
duplicative litigation.

The Third Circuit also issued the Plaintiffs' final so-called
groundbreaking decision on May 29, 2018 -- seven months before the
Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Vacate.  First, the court adopted
the Delaware Supreme Court's answer to the Third Circuit's
certified question and vacated the Delaware District Court's
Tolling Decision.  Next, the court vacated the Delaware District
Court's First-Filed Decision, citing its decision in Chavez and
noting that the circumstances in Chavez were "materially identical"
to those in the lower court's First-Filed Decision.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion.

In consideration of the three decisions issued in federal cases
involving different plaintiffs allegedly affected by DBCP,
Rocanelli finds that the Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed filing
their Motion to Vacate and failed to set forth any extraordinary
circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).  The
Plaintiffs waited up to two years and, at minimum, seven months to
file their Motion, even though the Plaintiffs' Texas counsel also
represented the plaintiffs in each of the federal cases the
Plaintiffs cite.  In addition, even if seven months did not
constitute an unreasonable delay, the purported extraordinary
circumstances to which the Plaintiffs point are decisions issued in
federal cases, involving irrelevant and non-controlling law.
Therefore, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/0cwjmh from Leagle.com.

Andrew C. Dalton, Esquire -- adalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Scott M. Hendler, Esquire ,
Hendler Flores, PLLC, Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Somers S. Price, Jr., Esquire -- sprice@potteranderson.com --
Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Andrea
Neuman, Esquire, Thomas Manakides, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New
York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Dole Food Company, Inc.,
Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, and Standard
Fruit and Steamship Company.

Adam Orlacchio, Esquire -- orlacchio@blankrome.com -- Brandon
McCune, Esquire -- bmccune@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., Chiquita Brands, LLC, and Chiquita Fresh North
America, LLC.

Donald E. Reid, Esquire -- dreid@mnat.com -- Morris, Nichols, Arsht
& Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Michael L. Brem, Esquire,
Shirrmeister, Diaz-Arrastia, Brem, LLP, Houston, Texas, Attorneys
for Defendant Dow Chemical Company.

Timothy Jay Houseal, Esquire -- thouseal@ycst.com -- Jennifer M.
Kinkus, Esquire -- jkinkus@ycst.com -- William E. Gamgort, Esquire,
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorneys for Occidental Chemical Corporation.

John C. Phillips, Esquire, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant AMVAC Chemical
Corporation.

Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire -- farnan@rlf.com -- Katharine L. Mowery,
Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware,
Craig Stanfield, King & Spalding, LLP, Houston, Texas, Attorneys
for Defendant Shell Oil Company.

James Semple, Esquire -- jsemple@coochtaylor.com -- Cooch & Taylor,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant Del Monte Fresh
Produce, N.A., Inc.


DT CHICAGOLAND: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McQueen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. D.T. CHICAGOLAND EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a, CXI TRUCKING,
Case No. 2019CH14669 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant to stop its unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class'
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised - biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding
the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant
disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data, in
violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's
and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as
required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or
otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain
consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose,
redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

Defendant CXI Trucking is an Illinois corporation with places of
business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                 plesko@pwcklegal.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
PALM TRAN, INC. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1577 PENSION PLAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, RISHI VARMA, TIMOTHY C. STONESIFER, JEREMY K. COX, MUKESH
AGHI, AMY E. ALVING, DAVID HERZOG, SACHIN LAWANDE, J. MICHAEL
LAWRIE, JULIO A. PORTALATIN, PETER RUTLAND, MANOJ P. SINGH,
MARGARET C. WHITMAN, ROBERT F. WOODS and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 49CV359073 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933 by
issuing false and misleading representations in the registration
statement filed in connection with the merger transaction that
formed DXC.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of all persons and
entities that acquired DXC common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the April 2017 transaction by which HPE's Enterprise Services
segment was spun off and merged with Computer Sciences Corporation
(CSC) to form DXC.

In May 2016, HPE announced plans for a tax-free spin-off of its
Enterprise Services operating unit, which was merged with and into
CSC in a stock-for-stock transaction to form DXC, an end-to-end
information technology services company. The combined company had
been valued at over $20 billion.

To secure shareholder support for the Merger, on November 2, 2016,
DXC filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC, which,
after several amendments, was declared effective on February 27,
2017. That same day, DXC filed a Prospectus for the Merger on Form
424B3, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement.

The Registration Statement was used to solicit investors to
purchase DXC shares and to convince CSC shareholders to vote in
favor of the Merger, pursuant to which they would exchange their
CSC shares for DXC shares. Key to the recommendation that
shareholders approve the Merger was the representation in the
Registration Statement that the combined Company would achieve $1
billion in synergies in its first year of operation through
"workforce optimization," with a run rate of $1.5 billion by the
end of year one. Other purported strategic benefits of the tie-up
portrayed in the Registration Statement included DXC's increased
sales, complementary market access and capabilities, and enhanced
earnings and revenue growth.

The Plaintiff alleges that the representations in the Registration
Statement were materially false and misleading when made.
Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants failed to disclose
to investors that:

-- the so-called "workforce optimization" necessitated crippling
the Company's workforce infrastructure;

-- DXC planned to lay off thousands on a destructively expeditious
timeline, including the Company's most highly skilled and
longest-tenured employees;

-- the layoffs were designed to artificially inflate short-term
earnings and revenues at the expense of the Company's long-term
business prospects;

-- behind the scenes, senior executives had voiced concerns that
synergy targets would be unachievable without causing massive
damage to the Company's customer relationships; and

-- as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 8, 2019, DXC issued a press release announcing its first
quarter 2020 financial results. The Company again provided deeply
disappointing financial results. The Company stated that diluted
EPS for the quarter had declined 22% year over year to $0.61 and
revised downward its already disappointing 2020 revenue targets by
$500 million.

By the commencement of this action, DXC stock was trading at less
than $30 per share, a 50% decline from the price of DXC stock at
the time of the Merger.

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

Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan
acquired DXC shares directly in the Merger and pursuant and
traceable to the Registration Statement for the Merger.

HPE is an information technology company based in northern
California. HPE offers a wide range of products and services,
including computer hardware, software, data management, and
financial and enterprise services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: 619 231-1058
          Facsimile: 619 231-7423
          E-mail: jamesj@rerdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rerdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Sugarman, Esq.
          Pedro A. Herrera, Esq.
          SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A.
          100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305 529-2801
          Facsimile: 305 447-8115
          E-mail: sugarman@sugarmansusskind.com
                  pherrera@sugarmansusskind.com


E-TRADE SECURITIES: Rupnow Balks at Charging of Hidden Interests
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA RUPNOW, PETER SZOSTAK, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. E-TRADE SECURITIES, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10942 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought on behalf of
customers of eTrade, who were charged undisclosed interest on short
sales of "hard-to-borrow" securities between November 26, 2013, and
October 15, 2019, alleging breach of contract.

Pursuant to the contract between securities broker-dealer eTrade,
and its brokerage customers (the "Agreement"), eTrade promises to
disclose prior to executing a short sale an indicative interest
rate for the short sale of hard-to-borrow securities in the preview
trade window.

In violation of its express contractual obligation, eTrade did not,
until October 15, 2019, disclose that the security being shorted
was hard-to-borrow, and did not disclose before the trade was
placed, what the estimated interest rate would be, the Plaintiffs
allege.

As customers discover only after placing the trade, the interest
rate in many instances is shockingly high, the Plaintiffs say. When
annualized, the rates have at times exceeded hundreds of percent.
The charged interest is automatically deducted from customer
accounts, and is much higher than the fee schedule that eTrade
makes available online to its customers, which is what customers
agree to pay, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged by having
extra-contractual interest taken directly from their brokerage
accounts. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek relief on behalf of all
eTrade customers in the United States who were charged interest on
hard-to-borrow securities, but who did not receive an estimated
interest rate prior to the trade being executed, in breach of an
express contractual provision.

The Plaintiffs have investment account on the Defendant's
platform.

eTrade is an online-focused broker-dealer and has over 30
brick-and-mortar locations across the United States. It also offers
other financial products and services including online
banking.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Kent Bronson, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com
                  kbronson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Scott Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com


EDWARD JONES: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint in IN RE EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.).

In March 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a federal securities and state
breach of fiduciary duty putative class action against investment
firm Edward Jones, as well as a set of companies and individuals
related to the investment firm.  

The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants improperly moved their Edward
Jones commission-based accounts into fee-based accounts.  They
allege this account conversion violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the Investment Advisers Act of
1940; and state common law.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  The Court granted their
motion, dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.


The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), in which
they attempted to cure their claims' deficiencies and raised
several new claims.  Once again, the Defendants move to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty
claims under California and Missouri state law remain preempted by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA").  Judge
Mendez agrees.  For the same reasons articulated in the Court's
first dismissal order, SLUSA bars the Plaintiffs' state law
fiduciary duty class claims.  Accordingly, the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims under California and Missouri Law (Counts I
and II).  The Judge finds amendment to these claims is futile and
dismissed them with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint introduces new breach of
contract claims.  However, they fail to show these allegations are
not likewise premised on misstatements or omissions, the Court
notes.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's contract claims
are repackaged versions of the Rule 10b-5 claims, because they
assert false promises or promissory fraud.  

While the does not agree that the breach of contract claims
repackage the Plaintiffs' specific securities claims, the Judge
does find that these claims repackage the elements of a security
claim, generally.  By the Plaintiffs' own terms, these newly-raised
breach of contract claims rests upon the old idea that the
Defendants misrepresented what they were promising.  The
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims undeniably coincide with a
securities transaction, since they allege the Defendants' breach
was partly due to them not placing its "clients' interests first"
and "profiting at client expense."  The Judge therefore finds SLUSA
also bars the Plaintiffs' state law breach of contract claims.  He
finds amending these claims is futile and dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint also added an unjust
enrichment claim.  They contend this claim rests upon the same
allegations supporting their breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duties claims.  The Judge finds the Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations and omissions are a factual predicate of this
claim.  Accordingly, SLUSA bars this claim and deprives the Court
of jurisdiction.  The claim is thus dismissed with prejudice.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' 10b-5(b) claims,
since they failed to allege the prima facie elements of these
claims.  The Plaintiffs reassert their Rule 10b-5(b) claims in the
Second Amended Complaint.  The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have
once again failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards
applicable to their 10b-5(b) claims.  The Judge agrees.  The
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any element in their Rule
10b-5(b) claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
PSLRA.  He therefore dismisses these claims with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs also attempt to revive their 10b-5(a) and (c) claim,
this time alleging the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud by
converting their assets from commission-based accounts into
fee-based ones without first conducting a suitability analysis and
by not providing financial advisors with a computer system
containing suitability analysis tools.  The Defendants argue the
Plaintiffs fail to add anything beyond their 10b-5(b) claim and
fail to allege adequate particularized factual allegations
suggesting the Defendants committed a manipulative or deceptive
act.

Judge Mendez agrees.  He finds that the Defendants conducted a
suitability analysis; they simply did not conduct one through the
computer program the Plaintiffs endorse.  Their failure to conduct
a suitability analysis through a non-existent computer program did
not have the principal purpose and effect of creating a false
appearance.  The Judge further finds Pthe laintiffs have failed to
properly allege the standard elements of a 10(b) violation:
reliance, scienter, and loss causation.  He therefore dismisses the
Plaintiffs' scheme liability claim under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c)
(Count VII) with prejudice.

To establish a cause of action under Section 20(a), the Plaintiff
must first prove a primary violation of underlying federal
securities laws, such as Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, and then show
that the Defendant exercised actual power over the primary
violator.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege a primary violation under Section 10(b).  Their Section
20(a) control person claim (Count VIII) therefore fails and is
dismissed with prejudice.

Finally, in their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs raised
Investment Adviser Act claims for the first time.  The Defendants
argue these claims fail as a matter of law.  Rather than respond to
this argument in their Opposition to the Motion, the Plaintiffs
withdrew these claims in a one sentence footnote.  Judge Mendez
treats a failure to respond to an argument as a concession.  The
Judge therefore dismisses these claims with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.  The Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

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

Edward Anderson, Raymond Keith Corum, Jesse Worthington & Colleen
Worthington, Plaintiffs, represented by Ivy T. Ngo --
ngoi@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., Brian
Hanlin -- HanlinB@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar and Associates,
P.C., pro hac vice, Franklin D. Azar, Franklin D. Azar and
Associates, PC, 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014, pro hac
vice, Joshua E. Moyer -- moyerj@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar &
Associates, Michael D. Murphy, III, Franklin D. Azar & Associates,
PC, 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014, pro hac vice & John
Randolph Garner -- john@garner-associates.com -- Garner &
Associates.

Janet Goral, Plaintiff, represented by Ivy T. Ngo, Franklin D.
Azar
and Associates, P.C., Joshua E. Moyer, Franklin D. Azar &
Associates & Michael D. Murphy, III, Franklin D. Azar &
Associates,
PC, pro hac vice.

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., The Jones Financial Companies, LLLP,
EDJ Holding Company, Inc., James D. Weddle, Penelope Pennington,
Daniel J. Timm, Kenneth R. Cella, Jr., Brett A. Campbell, Kevin D.
Bastien, Norman L. Eaker, Vincent J. Ferrari, Timothy J. Kirley,
James A. Tricarico, Jr., Olive Street Investment Advisors, LLC,
Passport Holdings, LLC & Passport Research, LTD., Defendants,
represented by Alexander Kosta Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Meryl Lyn Young --
myoung@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Julie LeAnn
Taylor -- julie.taylor@kyl.com -- Keesal, Young & Logan.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Continues to Defend Elberts Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, 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, Elberts v.
Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW.

On September 23, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and
captioned as Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW.  

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges
that the Company made material misstatements and/or omissions
during the period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019.  

The allegations relate to the subpoenas that certain of the
Company's directors and officers received from the SEC, which have
been previously disclosed in the proxy statement/prospectus filed
by the Company relating to the pending transaction with Caesars.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the Company's securities during the
period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Faces 8 Caesars Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, 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 as of November 6,
2019, eight putative class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the Company's merger with Caesars Entertainment
Corporation (Caesars).  

On June 24, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further
amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with Caesars
pursuant to which a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company will
merge with and into Caesars, with Caesars surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").

The Company has been named as a party in three of such actions:
Stein v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01656, United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (9/5/2019), Romaniuk v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et
al, Civil Action No 1:19-cv-17871, United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey (9/11/2019), and Biasi v. Caesars
Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-08547, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(9/13/2019).  

In general, the complaints assert claims under sections 14(a),
20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
challenging the adequacy of certain disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.  

In addition, one of the complaints, in which the Company has not
been named a party, alleges state law breach of fiduciary duty
claims against the Caesars directors.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing
consummation of the Merger, damages in the event that the Merger is
consummated and attorneys' fees.   

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


EXPRESS ENERGY: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES OPERATING, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04636 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages from Express Energy under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer
than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment
in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which [hey are or were employed, the
Plaintiff contends.

Jacob Smith resides in Midland, Texas, and has been employed by the
Defendant within the last three years. The Defendant has been
employed Smith as a floor hand from February 2019 to the present at
their Odessa location.

Express Energy is an oilfield services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FABRICATION AND MAINTENANCE: Solenberg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dewayne Solenberg, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated
v. FABRICATION and MAINTENANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:19-cv-01048-A (N.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked for FMS
in excess of 40 hours each week, but these workers never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek, according to the complaint. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, FMS improperly classified the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated as independent contractors, and these
workers received an hourly rate for each hour worked without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff received the same hourly rate regardless of whether
the time they worked was less than 40 hours or more than 40 hours
during the workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Solenberg worked for FMS as a Mechanic/Field Technician.

FMS provides equipment rebuilds and field service support to the
oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher E. Stoy, Esq.
          HUTCHINSON & STOY
          505 Pecan Street, Suite 101
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Phone: (817) 820-0100
          Email: cesservice@hsjustice.com

               - and -

          Lewis B. Gardner, Esq.
          Robert W. Frankhouser, Esq.
          GARDNER FRANKHOUSER, LLP
          7418 Brighton Road, Suite 211
          Pittsburgh, PA 15202
          Phone: (412) 903-7720
          Email: lgardner@gfemploymentlaw.com
                 rfrankhouser@gfemploymentlaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (NYSE: FCAU) from
February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fiat investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Fiat class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1732.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) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms
in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America; (2) high-ranking Fiat officials were aware of and
authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
31, 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-1732.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]


FRESH FARMS: Yarger Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danyale Yarger, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. FRESH FARMS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02767 (D. Kan., Dec. 19,
2019), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions
of the Defendant, which violate the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed
unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's and the
putative class members' cellular phone in violation of the TCPA.
The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior
express written consent as is required under the law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Goodland, Kansas.

Fresh Farms is a wholesaler that, according to its Web site,
delivers fruit and vegetables to customers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Tele/Fax: (816) 492-2826
          Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
                 jeremy@boulware-law.com


GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Seeks OT Pay for Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SKAGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GABRIEL BROTHERS, INC. d/b/a GABE'S,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02032-JPW (M.D. Pa., Nov. 26, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all relief available
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are current and
former "Assistant Managers" ("Ams"), who work (or worked) at any of
the Defendant's stores in the United States of America during the
relevant time period. They seek to recover unpaid overtime pursuant
to the FLSA and PMWA.

Although Gabe's considers its AMs to be "managers," AMs are not
responsible for true management functions. To the contrary, AMs
spend the vast majority of their time performing the same duties as
non-exempt employees, including helping customers, ringing up
customers on the cash register, unloading trucks, processing
freight, moving merchandise, taking orders, and cleaning the store,
the lawsuit says.

Gabe's systematic failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated AMs for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek violates the FLSA and PMWA, according to the complaint.

Ms. Skaggs resides in Hanover, Pennsylvania (York County). Between
August 2014 and March 2017, she was employed by Gabe's as an AM at
a store in York, Pennsylvania (York County).

Gabe's owns and operates more than 100 stores throughout the United
States. The Company's Web site is at
https://www.gabesstores.com/about-gabes/.[BN]

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


GATE GOURMET: Stokes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
LASHAUNE STOKES, ANTHONY RAY and ANTHONY DOUGHTY, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GATE
GOURMET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13755 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27,
2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs'
sensitive biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant enrolled employees,
including the Plaintiffs, in an employee database maintained by
Defendant to monitor the time worked by hourly employees. While
many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked or
accessing a building (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the
Defendant has its employees scan their fingerprints on a biometric
timekeeping device to clock in and out. Within the applicable time
period, Defendant also had its employee scan their handprints on a
biometric device for building access.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--fingerprints and handprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.

The Plaintiffs are long-time employees, who have worked for
Defendant in the state of Illinois. The Plaintiffs contend they
have continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and
harmful conditions created by the Defendant's alleged violations of
BIPA.

Gate Gourmet is a Swiss airline catering company with a location in
Schiller Park, Illinois. Gate Gourmet caters to American Airlines
and Aer Lingus at O'Hare Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


GODADDY INC: Settlement in Bennett Suit Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy 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 settlement in the class
action suit entitled, Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com, still awaits
court approval.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.AZ), filed on
June 20, 2016.

The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. On September 23, 2019, the parties fully
executed a written settlement agreement, which is still subject to
Court approval.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company would make
available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members,
at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used
for future purchases of products from the company, (ii) an
incentive payment to the class representative, (iii) notice and
administration costs in connection with the settlement, and (iv)
attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class.

GoDaddy said, "If approved, we would receive a full release from
the settlement class (other than from those class members who
timely elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims
asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the
claims released in the settlement agreement."

During the three months ended June 30, 2019, the company recorded
an estimated loss provision of $18.1 million to general and
administrative expense, which represents its best estimate of the
total settlement costs, inclusive of attorneys' fees to be paid to
legal counsel representing the class in connection with the
settlement agreement. The company made no changes to its estimated
loss accrual during the three months ended September 30, 2019. The
company's legal fees associated with this matter have been recorded
to general and administrative expense as incurred and were not
material.

GoDaddy said, "We have denied and continue to deny the allegations
in the complaint. Nothing in the settlement agreement shall be
deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such
litigation."

                          *     *     *

In an Oct. 3, 2019 order, Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver granted the
case parties' motion to stay the proceedings.  The hearing set for
Oct. 4, 2019, is vacated and this case is stayed pending further
Order by the Court.  The parties have been directed to seek
clarification from the Southern District of Alabama whether it
believes transfer of this case would be appropriate. The parties
shall file a statement in this Court within three days of learning
whether the Southern District of Alabama believes transfer is
appropriate.  If this case has not been transferred to the Southern
District of Alabama as of March 6, 2020, the parties shall file a
joint status report on that date.

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


GOOGLE LLC: Lefkowitz ADA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC removed the case captioned as YISROEL LEFKOWITZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 523387/2019
(Filed Oct. 25, 2019), from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Kings County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on Nov. 29, 2019.

The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-06739 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.
for alleged violations of Title III of the American with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges
that he is legally blind and that Gmail and Chrome are inaccessible
to individuals with vision impairments.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief; injunctive relief;
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; fines; and
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was created through
a corporate restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015, and became
the parent company of Google and several former Google
subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq.
          BALISOK & KAUFMAN, PLLC
          251 Troy Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael F. Fleming, Esq.
          Stephanie Schuster, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com
                  stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com


HEAVY MATERIALS: Fixes Price of Ready-Mix Concrete, St. Rose Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John St. Rose, Monrose Loctar, and Derrick James, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heavy Materials, LLC,
Spartan Concrete Products, LLC, and Warren Mosler, Case No.
3:19-cv-00117 (D.V.I., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought for treble
damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws, including
the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the
Virgin Islands Anti-Monopoly Law.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged
in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition by territorially dividing the U.S. Virgin Islands'
markets for ready-mix concrete and agreeing not to compete. This
combination and conspiracy was per se unlawful, the Plaintiffs
allege.

As a result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants and their
co-conspirators, the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class paid
artificially inflated prices for ready-mix concrete and suffered
financial injury. The Plaintiffs seek the protection of the Court,
on their behalf and on behalf of the Class, to recoup overpayments
and all lawful damages associated with Defendants' unlawful conduct
in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including statutory penalties, treble
damages, and punitive damages, according to proof.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands and reside
on St. Croix.

Heavy Materials, LLC is a limited liability company registered in
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and doing business in the Territory.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 799-2845
          Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
                 mhenry@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
          THE PATE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 890, St. Thomas, USVI 00804
          Phone: (340) 777-7283
          Cellular: (340) 690-7283
          Facsimile: (888) 889-1132
          Email: pate@sunlawvi.com
                 SunLawVI@gmail.com


HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company 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 pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of the company's
executive officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.

Hecla Mining said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HERITAGE INC: Zarrabi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Stolen Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEON ZARRABI, Plaintiff v. OCTAVIAN JURJ and BRITTANY JURJ,
individuals; HERITAGE, INC., an Oregon corporation; and TILT 1 LLC,
TILT 2 LLC, and TILT 3 LLC, Oregon limited liability companies,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01946-IM (D. Ore., Nov. 29, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, stolen tips, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, and prejudgment interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees.

According to the complaint, TILT failed to pay the applicable
Oregon minimum wage to its employees for their hours worked. This
included paying the old minimum wage rate for all hours in a pay
period during which the statutory minimum wage rate rose, when some
of the pay period fell within the new higher minimum-wage rate.

By collecting all tips and gratuities of all employees for the
purpose of redistributing them, the Defendants became the bailor,
fiduciary, and trustee of those funds, holding them in trust for
the proper recipients. Further, the Defendants have a statutory
duty to keep personnel files, and to track employees' time and pay
records, and to produce such records to employees upon demand, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to a full
accounting of the tips and gratuities received and/or paid out by
the Defendants, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the class and collective members are employees of
TILT, which are similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Octavian Jurj and Brittany Jurj own and operate Heritage, Inc.,
Tilt 1 LLC, Tilt 2 LLC, and Tilt 3 LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Williams' Appeal From Struck Class Claims Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EMIELOU WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
A155479 (Cal. App.), Judge James M. Humes of the Court of Appeals
of California for the First District, Division One, dismissed
Williams' appeal from the trial court's second order that struck
her class allegations.

Williams filed a class complaint against her former employer,
Impax, alleging violations of Labor Code provisions governing wages
and hours.  Williams stopped working for Impax in December 2013.
Almost four years later, in August 2017, she filed her original
complaint, which alleged one cause of action under the unfair
competition law.  The cause of action identified nine types of
unlawful business practices in which Impax allegedly engaged,
including failing to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest
periods, and pay minimum wages.  Williams brought the complaint on
behalf of herself and a similarly situated class, proposed to
consist of all individuals employed by Impax at any time during the
previous four years.

Impax filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, including
the class allegations.  It argued that Williams was not an adequate
class representative because the statute of limitations on her
personal claims had already run and she therefore could not assert
the types of claims reasonably expected to be raised by other
members of the class -- direct claims for penalties under the Labor
Code, including under the Private Attorneys General Act.

In December 2017, the trial court granted Impax's motion to strike
the class allegations, ruling that Williams was not an adequate
class representative. The court granted Williams leave to amend the
complaint to add another named Plaintiff, but instead of doing so
Williams filed an amended complaint reiterating the stricken class
allegations.  Relying on its prior order, the court again struck
those allegations.

Williams now appeals from the second order, claiming the trial
court erred by concluding she is not an adequate class
representative.  Williams also claims the order must be reversed
because the court thwarted her from pursuing discovery of the class
list, which she needed to name another class representative.

Judge Humes holds that because the December 2017 order was
appealable under the death knell doctrine and Williams did not
appeal it, it necessarily follows that WIlliams is foreclosed from
now attacking the dismissal of her class allegations.  Since death
knell orders are immediately appealable, a plaintiff who does not
appeal a death knell order is precluded from attacking it in the
future.  Even if the September 2018 order were otherwise
appealable, at this point, Williams can no longer challenge the
disposition of the class allegations in the December 2017 order,
which is now final.

Judge Humes also concludes that the Court does not have
jurisdiction to consider Williams' claim related to her failure to
obtain discovery of the class list.  Williams contends that the
trial court's refusal to allow her to bring a motion to compel is
memorialized in the September 2018 order.  Assuming, without
deciding, that this characterization is correct, the Judge agrees
with her that this ruling was not a separate, nonappealable
"discovery order" and that her notice of appeal is not defective
for failing to specify it separately.  But she does not argue that
the ruling is independently appealable, as opposed to reviewable in
the context of our consideration of the ruling on Impax's motion to
strike.  Thus, because the Court does not have jurisdiction over
the September 2018 order to the extent it struck the first amended
complaint's class allegations, it also does not have jurisdiction
over it to the extent it effectively denied Williams discovery of
the class list.

Finally, Williams asks in the alternative that the Court construes
the appeal as a petition for an extraordinary writ.  Williams
identifies no similar circumstances.  She claims only that writ
review is appropriate if we conclude that an order sustaining a
demurrer with leave to amend class claims is immediately
appealable, since there would be conflicting case law on this
point.  Williams cites other decisions that have granted writ
relief in the face of conflicts in the law, but they involved
petitioners who sought writ review in the first instance.  Thus,
those decisions did not involve the issue whether to construe an
appeal as a writ petition.  In his view, the Judge finds that more
is required than just a colorable dispute about an order's
appealability to create unusual circumstances justifying the
exercise of our discretion to treat an appeal as a writ petition.

Accordingly, Judge Humes dismissed the appeal.  The Respondent is
awarded its costs on appeal.

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

Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill
J. Parker , Lawyers for Justice, PC, Counsel for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith &
Prophete LLP, Barbara I. Antonucci -- bantonucci@constangy.com --
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Philip J. Smith --
psmith@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP,
Aaron M. Rutschman -- arutschman@constangy.com -- Constangy,
Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Counsel for Defendant and
Respondent.


INFINITE PRODUCT: Dasilva Sues Over Illegal Sale of CBD Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM DASILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITE PRODUCT COMPANY LLC, d/b/a Infinite
CBD, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10148 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to halt the
Defendant's unlawful sale and marketing of its products containing
cannabidiol.

The CBD Products include "Absolute Zero 99% + CBD Isolate,"
"Freezing Point CBD Topical Cream," "Afterglow Healing Oil 100 mg
CBD Total," "Nano Enhancer Pure Nano CBD," "Nano Freezing Point CBD
Topical Cream," "Asteroid Gummies," "Sour Asteroid Gummies,"
"Sweetened Dropper," "Isolate Dropper", and "Nano Non Dairy
Creamer."

The CBD (cannabidiol) Product market is a multibillion-dollar
business enterprise that is lucrative for its market participants
and is expected to further expand into a $16 billion-dollar
industry by 2025.

All of the Products are promoted as products containing cannabidiol
(CBD), for personal use and not for resale. The Defendant's
Products, however, are illegal to sell, the Plaintiff alleges.

On November 22, 2019, the United States Food & Drug Administration
sent the Defendant a Warning Letter discussing numerous violations
of the Products, including: Unapproved New Drugs, Misbranded Drugs,
Adulterated Human Foods, Unapproved New Animal Drugs, and Adultered
Animal Foods.  All of these violations of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act make the Products illegal to sell, the Plaintiff
says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the express
warranties by selling the Products that do not and cannot provide
the promised benefits. The Plaintiff and the Class Members would
not have purchased the Products had they known the true nature of
the Products' ingredients and benefits and what the Products
contained.

The Defendant's multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of
the Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business
practices that harms the public, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Plaintiff contends he and each of the Class members suffered injury
caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading
practices, and seek compensatory damages, statutory damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: 313 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com


J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Michael Brown, Jr., Nathan
Cole, Aaron Floyd, Brandon Horton, Eric Moore, Gregory Seal, John
Wilterding, Manny Rivera, Richard Padilla, Dan Vischansky, Neal
Nida, Brent Reed, Kevin Shofner, Shaun Stockton, Michael Wade
Yearby, Kyran Adams, Cody Piper, John Gable, Donna Turbville,
individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. J&W Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc.,
Radar Apps, Inc., ECO IQ LLC, Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy LLC, Mojo
Transport, LLC, Ronnie Guthrie, Jonathon Kotthoff, Carol Leese,
Jason Neilitz; Ivelisse Estrada Rivero; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01263-WGY-MBB (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals from all over the United States who traveled
   to Puerto Rico at Defendants' behest to assist in debris clean-
    up after Hurricane Maria."

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants doing debris clean-up in
Puerto Rico for twelve weeks, at least six days per week for an
average of 10-14 hours per day. A subclass of Plaintiffs owned
equipment that Defendants shipped to Puerto Rico and used in the
debris clean-up.[CC]

JETRO HOLDINGS: West Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WEST, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. JETRO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH13681 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 25, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. While doing so,
the Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois.

While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
the Defendant mandated and required that employees have finger(s)
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time
cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers
associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's
employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the Class members may be
aggrieved because the Defendant may have improperly disclosed
employees' biometrics to third-party vendors in violation of
Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff and the putative
Class are aggrieved by the Defendant's failure to destroy their
biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining
such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees'
last interactions with the company, the lawsuit says.

Jetro Holdings operates as a holding company. The company, through
its subsidiaries, wholesales dry and perishable groceries and
offers beer, wine, and liquor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUUL LABS: Frederick County Sues Over Underage Nicotine Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County, Maryland, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC. and ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-08259 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, public nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment relating to underage nicotine addiction caused by
"vaping."

This action arises out of the Defendants' creation of a nationwide
epidemic--based on numerous fraudulent activities--of underage
nicotine addiction caused by "vaping" with JUUL's popular
electronic cigarette or "e-cigarette," which has directly resulted
in the Plaintiff and other municipalities, counties, and schools in
New Hampshire and across the country to expend their limited
resources to attempt to curb the severe public nuisance the
Defendants created, and which is ongoing.

The Defendants created the public nuisance by, among other things:
designing the JUUL e-cigarette and its packaging to aesthetically
appeal to kids and be easily concealable; selling nicotine
cartridges or "JUULpods" in multiple fruity flavors that appeal to
kids; designing its patented nicotine formula to be significantly
more addictive than cigarettes; directly marketing the JUUL
e-cigarette to children through youthful and vibrant images in
print advertising and by paying "influencers" to endorse JUUL's
products and by making purported "educational" presentations to ids
on school campuses to falsely represented and the purported
"safety" of JUUL's e-cigarette; and making false and misleading
statements about the safety of the JUUL e-cigarette and downplaying
or omitting disclosure of the risks of addiction associated with
its use, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Frederick County is a county in the State of Maryland.

JUUL manufactures, markets, and sells e-cigarettes and pre-filled
nicotine cartridges called JUULpods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364
          Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                 cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                 bbeall@rgrdlaw.com


KINDER MORGAN: Oates Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Oates, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., Case No.
5:19-cv-01171-SLP (W.D. Okla., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant does not pay its Day Rate Inspectors overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Defendant
pays its Day Rate Inspectors a flat daily rate for all hours worked
in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. The
Defendant's day rate pay plan violates the FLSA because the Day
Rate Inspectors are owed overtime pay for hours worked in excess of
40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular
rates, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Oates worked for the Defendant as an Inspector.

Kinder Morgan is "one of the largest energy infrastructure
companies in North America."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KITCHEN UNITED: Wallace Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN WALLACE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. KITCHEN UNITED, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH13771 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data, pursuant to the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers
use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant mandated and required that
employees have face(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's
employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed--such as in the recent Equifax, Uber, Face book/
Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or
misuses--employees have no means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of
this highly personal and private information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required
to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her face
scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee,
including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA,
the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

Kitchen United provides restaurant brands a turnkey, capital-light
way to expand their reach to the off-premise diner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LALAJA INC: Vazquez-Aguilar Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VAZQUEZ-AGUILAR, JUSTA HERNANDEZ-ROJO, JOSAFAT JUAREZ-CHAVEZ,
SANDRA CATALINA-TORRES, and SUSANA MENDOZA-BUSTILLO, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
ARTURO GASCA, MARIA D. GASCA, and LALAJA, INC., d/b/a EL CERRO
GRANDE MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00171-FL
(E.D.N.C., Nov. 29, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages, back wages
and liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest, and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were group of workers continuously employed on a
fulltime basis at the Defendants' restaurant. They allege that they
work in excess of 40 hours in the same workweek, but were not
properly compensated.

Arturo Gasca and his spouse Maria Gasca operated the Lalaja, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1828
          488 Thompson Street
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919)821-1763
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Price Fixing-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, 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 related to alleged
price-fixing of generic drugs.

On September 25, 2018, two other alleged direct purchasers filed a
purported class action complaint alleging an overreaching,
industry-wide horizontal and vertical conspiracy involving the
company, numerous other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, and
various pharmaceutical distributors to allocate markets and fix
prices generally for a variety of generic drugs.

The case has been added to the multidistrict litigation.

On December 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
February 21, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims. On August 15,
2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual
motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overarching conspiracy
claims as to it.

The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Company disputes
the allegations set forth in these class actions and plans to
vigorously defend itself from these claims.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, 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 final hearing
to consider approval of the settlement in a Pennsylvania class
action suit has been set for February 7, 2020.

In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer
damaged the purported class by making false and misleading
statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP
Distribution Agreement.  

In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
January 2019.  

In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss.  In May 2019, the Company filed an
answer to the amended complaint.  

During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed
settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the
Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of
liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a
stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court.  

In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31,
2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling
a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7,
2020.

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

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Suit Over Drug Pricing Methodologies Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, 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 related to the company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company damaged
the purported class by including in its securities filings false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing
methodologies and internal controls.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017.  

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company’s
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018.  In July 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in November 2018.  In May 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In
July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable
laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this
time.

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

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LEGACY FIELD: Tipton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Tipton, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LEGACY FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
5:19-cv-01472 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant required her to work more than 40 hours in a workweek
without overtime compensation, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant
misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers
throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the
FLSA.

The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welding inspector.

Legacy Field Services, LLC provides inspection services to the oil
and gas industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Phone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


LINDT AND SPRUNGLI: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit styled as Lindt and Sprungli USA Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lindt and
Sprungli USA Inc., a New York corporation and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10111-CJC-JPR (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 26, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney.

The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lindt & Sprungli a global leader in the premium chocolate sector
with a long standing tradition of more than 170 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


MATCH GROUP: Appeal in Kim Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Match 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 appeal from the
court decision approving the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093, is pending.

On June 19, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action
asserting the same substantive claims in Allan Candelore v. Tinder,
Inc., No. BC583162, and pending in federal district court in
California, the court issued an order granting final approval to a
class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the
Company. Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District
Court, Central District of California).

On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with
its prior order.

Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed
settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would
effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit.
Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement,
represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice
of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Their opening brief is due on November 20, 2019.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore
lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously
against it."

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel in Crutchfield Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 has
been named as a defendant in a securities class action suit
entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W.
Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C.

On October 3, 2019, a Match Group shareholder, Phillip R.
Crutchfield, filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal
court in the Northern District of Texas against Match Group, Inc.,
Amanda Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, on behalf of himself and as
class representative for people and entities who acquired Match
Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019, in
relation to the FTC lawsuit and the allegations therein. Phillip R.
Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary
Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division).

The Complaint alleges that (i) Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the Company induced customers to buy and upgrade
subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that the Company
made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and
that, as a result, the Company was likely to be subject to
regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that the Company lacked adequate
disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Match Group believes that the allegations in the Crutchfield
lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

                  *     *     *

Motions to appoint lead counsel and lead plaintiff were filed by:

      -- Samir Ali Cherif Benouis;
      -- Stefan Bubik; and
      -- Phillip R. Crutchfield

Bubik later withdraw his request.

Judge Ada Brown said in a Dec. 12 order that the Defendants have no
obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint at this
time. After the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, it will set a schedule for any amended complaint and for
the Defendants' response.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Bid to Stay Candelore Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 motion to stay
the class action suit entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.,
No. BC583162, is pending.

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).  

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and
over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its
premium Tinder Plus service.  

The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder
Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified
amount.  

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint.  On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.  

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action.  

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On
January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate
District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment
of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining
Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a
cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.  

Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning
was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California
precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the
California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court
of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court
denied the petition.

The case was then returned to the trial court for further
proceedings and is currently in discovery.

On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the case
pending the appeal of the decision to approve the Kim settlement,
discussed below; the plaintiff has opposed the motion.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.



MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bid in GM Ignition Switch Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Langdon & Emison, LLC ("L&E")'s motion
for a declaratory judgment in IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION
SWITCH LITIGATION, Case Nos. 14-MC-2543 (JMF), 14-MD-2543 (JMF)
(S.D. N.Y.).

As a general rule, litigants in the United States are required to
shoulder the costs of litigating their own cases.  In the main,
this is a sensible rule because it means that those who may benefit
from work are responsible for its costs.  In aggregate litigation,
however, the value of attorney work product is often widely
dispersed, benefiting not only those who hired the attorneys, but
also others who are similarly situated.  If only a few were made to
bear the costs of legal work that benefits many, high-quality legal
work would be under-incentivized and, ultimately, under-produced.
Where aggregate litigation proceeds as a class action, courts solve
this classic free-rider problem by permitting class counsel to
recover a percentage of the common fund obtained for the class,
thereby spreading the costs among those who benefited from
counsel's work.  But where aggregate litigation does not proceed as
a class action -- as is the case in much multidistrict litigation
-- solving the free-rider problem requires more creativity.  In
that context, many courts have entered orders imposing assessments
on claimants' recoveries, which are then deposited into a "common
benefit fund" and disbursed to counsel that conducted work for the
common benefit.

In February 2014, General Motors, LLC ("New GM") announced the
recall of certain General Motors vehicles that had been
manufactured with a defective ignition switch - a switch that moved
too easily from the "run" position to the "accessory" and "off"
positions, causing moving stalls and disabling critical safety
systems. In the months that followed, New GM recalled millions of
other vehicles, some for reasons relating to the ignition switch
and some for other reasons. Not surprisingly, litigation followed,
in both state and federal courts. The federal cases were ultimately
consolidated in the New York District Court by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, in Order No. 42, the Court established the
Common Benefit Fund to ensure that the parties for whose benefit
legal work is performed share the costs and expenses associated
with that work.  Pursuant to that Order, neither the Plaintiffs nor
their counsel are required to pay an up-front fee in order to
receive and use work product intended to serve the the Plaintiffs'
common benefit.  Instead, the Order requires New GM to withhold an
assessment of a specified amount from certain settlements and
judgments and to deposit that sum into the Fund.

More specifically, New GM is required to withhold assessments only
from amounts paid in "Common Benefit Actions," which include: (1)
all cases then pending, as well as any cases later filed in,
transferred to, or removed to the Court and included as part of the
MDL; (2) all Related Actions in which the Plaintiffs and their
counsel voluntarily execute the Participation Agreement"; and (3)
"all unfiled and tolled actions of clients of Participating Counsel
that would be Related Actions if filed.  Related Actions, in turn,
are actions that involve the same subject matter as the MDL (not
including shareholder derivative suits and securities class
actions), whether filed in state or in federal courts.
Participating Counsel is defined to include Lead Counsel and
others, including counsel who have been specifically approved by
this Court as Participating Counsel.  In Order No. 42, the Court
approved as Participating Counsel all attorneys representing
Plaintiffs in Common Benefit Actions.

More than four and a half years have passed since Order No. 42 was
issued, and in that time, the Lead Counsel has performed a
remarkable amount of work on behalf of the Plaintiffs in Common
Benefit Actions.  As the Lead Counsel notes, over the course of
these proceedings, the Lead Counsel has conducted more than one
hundred depositions of GM employees (and hundreds of other
case-specific depositions), reviewed more than 20 million million
pages of documents produced by New GM, generated thirty expert
reports, briefed dozens of discovery disputes, and led pretrial
and/or trial proceedings for 13 bellwether trials, with extensive
briefing on a wide range of issues.  These contributions have been
tremendously valuable to individuals with claims against GM.
Indeed, no doubt as a result in part of these efforts, the vast
majority of claims against New GM have been settled.

L&E represents clients who have claims against New GM relating to
the allegedly defective ignition switches.  Some of their claims
have not been filed in any court; others have been asserted in
state courts in Missouri, Texas, and Mexico; and, more recently,
many have been filed in federal court and consolidated in the MDL.
On April 23, 2015, before L&E first entered the MDL, L&E received
access to MDL discovery materials.  Additionally, between May and
November of 2015 -- also before L&E first entered the MDL -- L&E
attorneys attended more than a dozen MDL depositions of GM
employees.  L&E first appeared in the MDL in November 2017, and,
since then, the firm has filed nearly 250 cases in the MDL while
continuing to press other clients' claims in state-court actions
and outside of court altogether.

On Feb. 28, 2019, New GM and L&E jointly announced that they had
reached a settlement agreement resolving more than 100 pre-closing
personal injury and wrongful death claims, more than 40 of which
were not pending in the MDL.  Shortly thereafter, New GM and L&E
jointly moved the Court to appoint, pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(A) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Special Master who would,
among other things, create a Settlement Framework that identifies
the criteria relevant to evaluation of claims under the settlement
agreement, evaluate claims pursuant to the terms of" the settlement
agreement and framework, and allocate dollar values to" the various
claims.

New GM and L&E also moved the Court for an order approving the
creation of a settlement trust fund and retaining the Court's
continuing jurisdiction and supervision over the Trust.  The Court
granted both motions.  On April 17, 2019, New GM and L&E reached
settlement on additional claims.  New GM and L&E later filed
requests to appoint a Special Master and approve the creation of a
settlement trust fund that were, in all material respects,
identical to the requests filed previously.  On May 7, 2019, Court
again granted both motions.

L&E filed the present motion on Sept. 27, 2019.  L&E, a law firm
representing many individuals with claims against New GM -- some of
whom have cases pending in the MDL, some of whom have cases pending
in state court, and some of whom do not have cases pending in any
court -- moved for a declaratory judgment clarifying that
recoveries obtained by their clients with cases pending in state
courts or not filed in any court are not subject to assessments
pursuant to Order No. 42.  The Lead Counsel -- appointed by the
Court to represent the interests of all the Plaintiffs in the MDL
-- opposes L&E's motion, insisting that L&E's clients are required
to pay assessments into the Common Benefit Fund even if their cases
are not pending in the MDL.

Judge Furman holds that Order No. 42 applies to all settlements
resolving claims asserted by L&E's clients that were part of the
master settlement agreements submitted to the Court, without regard
for whether those claims were pending in state court or no court at
all.  Accordingly, he denied L&E's motion for a declaratory
judgment.

That said, the dispute between L&E and the Lead Counsel and the new
motion filed by BCH, raise the question of whether Order No. 42
should be clarified or otherwise modified (for example, to expand
its application, if appropriate, to the full extent of the Court's
jurisdiction and authority to impose common benefit fund
assessments).  The Judge did not need to resolve the disagreements
between L&E and the Lead Counsel over the interpretation and scope
of Order No. 42 only because L&E's clients invoked the Court's
jurisdiction by voluntarily submitting their settlements to the
Court.

In the next dispute (perhaps BCH's), the Court may have to confront
those issues -- and, in any event, counsel and parties negotiating
settlements should understand whether those settlements will be
subjected to a common benefit fund assessment under Order No. 42.
The Counsel -- including L&E and BCH -- should confer and, within
two weeks of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, submit a joint
letter to the Court with respect to whether Order No. 42 should be
clarified or modified and, in the event of disagreement, proposing
a procedure to resolve the issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/myn6SB from Leagle.com.

General Motors LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer
-- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Arthur Jay Steinberg, King & Spalding LLP, Kyle James
Kimpler, Paul Weiss, Paul Basta , Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Richard Cartier Godfrey , Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Scott
Ian Davidson, King & Spalding LLP & Mark J. Nomellini, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP.

Economic Loss Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Sean R. Matt
--
sean@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Administrator, Defendant,
represented by Kristin Kendra Going , McDermott Will & Emery.

Certain Ignition Switch and Non-Ignition Switch Plaintiffs,
Defendant, represented by Edward S. Weisfelner --
eweisfelner@brownrudnick.com -- Brown Rudnick LLP, Howard Supplee
Steel, IV , Brown Rudnick LLP, Sander Esserman, Stutzman,
Bromberg,
Esserman & Plifka, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser ,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., pro hac
vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Wilmington Trust Company, as Trust Administrator and Trustee for
the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Defendant, represented
by
Clay J. Pierce -- clay.pierce@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath,
LLP & Marsha Jessica Indych -- marsha.indych@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath, LLP.

Certain Unaffiliated Holders of the Beneficial Units of the Motors
Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Interested Party, represented by
Daniel H. Golden, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Naomi
Moss, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Seamus Cotter Duffy,
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.

Designated Counsel for the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs and Certain
Non-Ignition Switch Plaintiffs in the Bankruptcy Court, Interested
Party, represented by Edward S. Weisfelner, Brown Rudnick LLP &
Howard Supplee Steel, IV, Brown Rudnick LLP.


MERCK & CO: Faces Luttrell Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax
---------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY LUTTRELL, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05646-HB (E.D. Pa., Nov.
29, 2019), alleges that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiff and
other consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, which carry
the risk of serious side effects, such as those suffered by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients.

According to the complaint, Merck failed to exercise ordinary care
in making representations concerning its product and its
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and
distribution in interstate commerce. Merck negligently and/or
carelessly misrepresented and intentionally concealed the truth
regarding the high risk of the product's unreasonable, dangerous
and adverse side effects associated with the administration, use,
and injection of the product.

Merck breached its duty in representing to the Plaintiff, his
physicians and healthcare providers, and the medical community that
Merck's product did not carry the risk of serious side effects,
such as those suffered by Plaintiff and other similarly situated
patients.

In September 2016, the Plaintiff was inoculated with the
Defendants' Zostavax vaccine for routine health maintenance and for
its intended purpose: the prevention of shingles.

In February 2017, the Plaintiff presented to Liberty Medical Clinic
in Liberty, Kentucky, with complaints of a rash in the top of his
mouth, across his face and around his ears. The Shingles outbreak
lasted several weeks.

As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax
vaccine, the Plaintiff's symptoms have resulted in physical
limitations not present prior to using Merck's product. The
Plaintiff also experiences mental and emotional distress due to
resulting physical limitations and seriousness of the Plaintiff's
condition.

As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution and/or sale of Zostavax, the Plaintiff sustained
severe and permanent personal injuries. Further, as a tragic
consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered
serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as
significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional
distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and
injury.

Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the
intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the
varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that
causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes
chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous
system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such
as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by
vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve
cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin
served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus.

In May 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved
the Zostavax vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States
by Merck. Zostavax was initially indicated for "the prevention of
herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older
when administered as a single-dose." FDA approval was based in
large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS)
supported by Merck.

The results of the SPS were published in the New England Journal of
Medicine on June 2, 2005. The paper was titled "A Vaccine to
Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults".
N. Engl. J. Med. 2005; 352(22):2271-84.

The Luttrell case is consolidated in RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE
LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY MDL NO. 2848. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co. developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States. Merck Sharp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck &
Co.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea L. Sapone, Esq.
          Annesley H. DeGaris, Esq.
          Harold T. McCall, Esq.
          DEGARIS WRIGHT MCCALL
          2 North 20 Street, Suite 1030
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 509-1817
          Facsimile: (205) 588-5231
          E-mail: asapone@dwmlawyers.com
                  adegaris@dwmlawyers.com
                  hmecall@waynewright.com


MERIT MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:MMSI) between February 26, 2019
and October 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased Merit securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Merit Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information concerning Merit's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (a) the
integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights, including their
products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had caused operational
disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (b)
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; and (c) in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported
financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a
reasonable basis.

On July 25, 2019, following the Company's second quarter 2019
financial results the Company held a conference call for analyst's
and investors to discuss the results. On that call Defendants
admitted that the miss and guidance reduction were in part due to
the fact that ClariVein had zero orders for the first half of the
year due to pipeline filling prior to the acquisition.

Following these disclosures the Company's stock price fell more
than 25% from a close of $54.84 per share on July 25, 2019, to a
close of $41.00 per share on July 26, 2019, on volume of more than
6.2 million shares.

Then, on October 30 2019, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing the Company's third quarter 2019
financial results. The Company disclosed significant operational
issues in all aspects of Merit's business. Defendants admitted that
they were months behind in their integration of Cianna and Vascular
Insights, their integration of R&D facilities was too expensive and
had necessitated a 2% to 5% reduction in headcount, and that they
had to take a material revenue recognition adjustment in the
quarter.

Following this disclosure, Merit's stock price declined more than
29%, from a close of $29.11 per share on October 30, 2019, to a
close of $20.66 per share on October 31, 2019.

If you purchased Merit securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/meritmedicalsystems-mmsi-shareholder-investigation-stock-fraud-lawsuit-169/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Cogley Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Nicole M. Cogley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10108-CJC-JEM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 997-0471
          Facsimile: (866) 286-8433
          E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Stay Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DEBORAH MATKE and ROLAND
OBARSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1831 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn
Adelman entered an order Dec. 16, 2019, granting Plaintiffs' motion
to stay the class certification motion and motion for relief from
the local rules.

No briefing schedule is imposed, the Court added.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

To prevent defendant from mooting the action, the Plaintiffs moved
for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016).

The Plaintiffs also moved for relief from local rules requiring
every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and
imposing a briefing schedule.[CC]

MOJITO CLUB: Valdes FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mojito Club, L.L.C., et al., removed the case captioned as YULIAN
VALDES, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
MOJITO CLUB, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company, and HENRY
A. LEACE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2019-021813-CA-01,
from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Nov. 26, 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Mojito Club is a hospitality company based out in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

Mojito Club is represented by:

          Justin D. Edell, Esq.
          Rachel K. Beige, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          Esperante Building
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone (561) 383-9228
          Facsimile (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: rachel.beige@csklegal.com
                  justin.edell@csklegal.com


NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 28, 2019, that
FirstSight's motion to dismiss the class action suit before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California is still pending.

On January 29, 2016, FirstSight, the company's wholly-owned
specialized health maintenance organization, was named as a
defendant in a proposed class action filed on behalf of all persons
who paid for an eye examination from an optometrist at a Walmart
location in California from November 5, 2009 through the date of
the resolution of the litigation.

The complaint alleges in particular that FirstSight participated in
arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations
to the plaintiffs, and that FirstSight thereby violated, among
other statutes, the Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws
of California.

In March 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017.

In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court’s
dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court seeking, among other claims, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed
a motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to continue to vigorously defend the litigation.

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

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NCB MANAGEMENT: Collection Practices Violate FDCPA, Rowley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rowley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NCB Management Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02305-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Some time prior to June 24, 2019, an obligation was allegedly
incurred by Plaintiff to Republic Bank & Trust Co. The Defendant
NCB, a debt collector, purchased the Republic Bank & Trust Co debt
and is collecting the alleged debt. The Defendant NCB sent the
Plaintiff an initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt
owed.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter does not meet the
requirements of the FDCPA, as interpreted by the Third Circuit,
because it falsely omits the requirement of the "G Notice" in the
first sentence by leaving out the requirement that a consumer must
dispute in writing. In omitting the writing requirement, the
Defendants falsely communicate the consumer's requirements under
the FDCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware, County of
Kent.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions 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 class action suits related to its merger with
C&J Energy Services, Inc.

On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") among the Company, C&J Energy
Services, Inc. (C&J) and King Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, one putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by
a purported C&J stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J
stockholders (excluding defendants and related or affiliated
persons) against C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, two
putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J, members of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger
Sub, one putative class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a
purported stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related
or affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board
of directors, and one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.

The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.) (collectively,
the "Stockholder Actions").

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed Merger allegedly omitted or misstated
material information.

The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Merger, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.

C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the
Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder
Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and
the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain
supplemental disclosures in connection with the Merger.

Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods
and Bushansky actions voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot on
October 16, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the
complaints in the remaining Stockholder Actions, but the Company
continues to believe that the allegations therein lack merit and no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


NOHO HEALTH: Fischler Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. NOHO HEALTH, INC., d/b/a care/of, Case No.
1:19-cv-11656 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site, http://www.takecareof.com/,to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant denies full and equal
access to its Web site. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law,
and New York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Fischler is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

The Defendant is an online retailer of vitamins and other health
supplements for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: 212.392.4772
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com


NVR, INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Paul Smith, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. NVR, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order Dec.
16, 2019, denying the motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Dec. 16, by Jan.
8, 2020, the parties shall file a status report setting forth their
joint proposal or competing proposals as to expert discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.

NVR, Inc. is a company engaged in home construction. It also
operates a mortgage banking and title services business. The
company primarily operates on the East Coast of the United
States.[CC]

NYC TAXI: Vicente Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERONIMO VICENTE, Plaintiff v. NYC TAXI GROUP, INC, and ALEKSEY
MEDVEDOVSKIY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06695 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants maintained a pattern and
practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees at the overtime rate of one-and-one half times the
regular hourly rate/applicable minimum wage rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants also failed to furnish annual wage notices and wage
statements and failed to maintain an accurate record keeping of
hours worked and wages paid to Mr. Vicente and similarly situated
employees.

Mr. Vicente was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from 2007 to May 2019 and returned to work from June 2019 to
October 6, 2019. From 2007 to May 2019, Plaintiff Vicente would
work from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.(9 hours per day) six days per
week, and was paid $900 per week ($16.00 per hour) in check. From
June 2019 to October 6, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente would work from
4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (9 hours per day) six days per week, and was
paid $850 per week ($15.00 per hour) in check.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendants' unlawful actions,
including compensation for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

NYC Taxi Group is a taxi fleet based in Brooklyn and serves all of
New York City. Mr. Medvedovskiy possesses or possessed operational
control and policy-making authority, an ownership interest, or
significant control of Defendant NYCTG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leopold Raic, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400


OFFICE DEPOT: Andrews Privacy Invasion Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. removed the case captioned as JAMES ANDREWS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. RIC1905460 (Filed Oct. 31, 2019), from the
Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 27, 2019.

The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02282-DSF-SHK on the proceeding.

The Plaintiff generally alleges that Office Depot recorded
telephone conversations with the Plaintiff without the knowledge or
consent of the Plaintiff, in violation of Section 632.7 of
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative
California class.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the proposed class
includes thousands with statutory damages of $5,000 per member,
thereby causing the aggregate amount in controversy to exceed $5
million.

Office Depot Is an American office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Spencer Persson, Esq.
          Phillip R. Ditullio, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
          E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  phillip.ditullio@nortonrosefulbright.com


ON THE BARRELHEAD: Soldevilla Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Diane Soldevilla Individually
and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. On the
Barrelhead, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 56-02019-CA-001964, was
removed from the 19th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 27, 2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-14462-XXXX to the proceeding.

The suit arises from personal property related issues.

Founded in 2017, On The Barrelhead, LLC is engaged in
manufacturing, importing and exporting business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (404) 797-9696
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacqueline Zee DerOvanesian, Esq.
          Ian M. Ross, Esq.
          STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
          One Biscayne Tower
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2550
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 614-1400
          E-mail: jderovanesian@sfslaw.com
                  iross@sfslaw.com


ONTO INNOVATION: Class Suits Related to Rudolph Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Onto Innovation 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 28, 2019, that the purported class
action suits related to a merger deal with Rudolph Technologies,
Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed.

On October 25, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") among Nanometrics Incorporated
("Nanometrics"), Rudolph Technologies, Inc. ("Rudolph"), and PV
Equipment Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nanometrics ("Merger
Sub"), Rudolph merged with Merger Sub with Rudolph surviving the
merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nanometrics.

Following the announcement of the Company's proposed merger
transaction with Rudolph, two purported class action complaints and
three complaints were filed on behalf of Rudolph's stockholders
against Rudolph and its directors; of those five complaints, three
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, one in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and one in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

One of those five complaints also names the Company and the
subsidiary formed to effectuate the proposed merger transaction as
defendants.

A sixth complaint was filed on behalf of a Company stockholder
against the Company and its directors in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaints are captioned as follows: Stein v. Rudolph
Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Rosenblatt v. Rudolph
Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Stein v. Rudolph
Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Parikh v. Rudolph
Technologies, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.); Roy v. Rudolph Technologies,
Inc., et al. (D. Mass.); and Bryden-Moore v. Nanometrics Inc., et
al. (N.D. Cal.). The Company refers to these actions collectively
as the "Shareholder Actions."  

The complaints in the Shareholder Actions generally assert claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the
adequacy of certain disclosures made in the version of the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on August 15, 2019,
or, solely with respect to the complaint captioned Roy v. Rudolph
Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.), the version of the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on September 10,
2019.

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing
Rudolph from holding the Rudolph special meeting or consummating
the transaction, an injunction preventing the Company from
consummating the transaction, damages in the event that the merger
is consummated, and attorneys' fees.  

On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs in each of the Shareholder Actions
agreed in principle to dismiss their claims in connection with the
issuance of certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
transaction and reserved the right to seek attorneys' fees.

Onto Innovation Inc., formerly Nanometrics Incorporated, is a
semiconductor equipment and software technology company. It offers
a portfolio of technologies for wafer manufacturing, front-end
process control and lithography technology for advanced
semiconductor packaging. The company is based in Wilmington,
Massachusetts.


OUT-LOOK SAFETY: McMillian Seeks Unpaid Prevailing and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig McMillian and Eian McMillan, individually and On Behalf of
the Putative Class Members v. OUT-LOOK SAFETY LLC, RESTANI
CONSTRUCTION CORP., SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, TRIUMPH
CONSTRUCTION CORP. and ELECNOR HAWKEYE, LLC, Jointly and Severally,
Case No. 657577/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 19, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and
supplemental benefits, which the Plaintiffs and members of the
putative Class are entitled to receive for work they performed
pursuant to contracts entered into between the Defendants, Con
Edison and/or state or city public entities,

For their work, the Defendants pay the Plaintiffs an hourly rate
that does not include prevailing wages or supplemental benefits
when they perform work on gas, electric, water main, and other
public works projects on New York City public streets and roadways,
according to the complaint.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs at their regular hourly rate,
and one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for overtime
and weekend hours worked; thus, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs at the applicable New York State and/or New York City
prevailing wage rates, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are construction flaggers, who work for the
Defendants.

Out-Look Safety has employed flaggers in the construction
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


P&S SELECT: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Chacon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE DIMAS GUTIERREZ CHACON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. P&S SELECT FOODS, INC., P&S SELECT MEATS INC. d/b/a P&S Select
Foods, RAY MILLAN SR., GARY LANGSAM, ANTHONY MILLAN, and RAY MILLAN
JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01037-ER-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Clerk of Court entered the order on Nov. 20, 2019, granting the
Defendants' Motion for Summary judgment.

According to the order, the case is closed.

PS Select distributes sea food and meat products. The Company
offers beef, lamb, goat, pork, and fishes. PS Select Foods serves
customers in the State of New York.[CC]


PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Suits over Chesapeake Lodging Merger Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park Hotels & Resorts 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 litigation related
to the Company's merger deal with Chesapeake Lodging Trust has been
dismissed and now closed.

On May 5, 2019, the Company, PK Domestic Property LLC, an indirect
subsidiary of the Company ("Domestic"), and PK Domestic Sub LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Domestic ("Merger Sub") entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
with Chesapeake Lodging Trust ("Chesapeake").

On September 18, 2019, pursuant to the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Chesapeake merged
with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger") and each of Chesapeake's
common shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value per share
("Chesapeake common shares") was converted into $11.00 in cash and
0.628 of a share of the company's common stock. No fractional
shares of our common stock were issued in the Merger. The value of
any fractional interests to which a Chesapeake shareholder would
otherwise have been entitled was paid in cash.

Following the May 6, 2019 announcement that the company and
Chesapeake had entered into the Merger Agreement, two purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware captioned: Kent v. Chesapeake
Lodging Trust, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01201 (D.Del.) (filed June 25,
2019) (the "Kent Action") and Terlinden v. Chesapeake Lodging
Trust, et al., No. 1;19-cv-01263 (D.Del.) (filed July 8, 2019).

The complaint in each case alleged purported violations of the
federal securities laws and named as defendants Chesapeake, the
individual members of the Chesapeake board of trustees, the
Company, Domestic and Merger Sub. The plaintiffs alleged that
Chesapeake and the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by
providing inadequate disclosure regarding the proposed merger in
the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on June 14,
2019.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the individual defendants, the
Company, Domestic and Merger Sub violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the
merger, an award of damages in the event the merger was consummated
and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

While the company believes that these claims were without merit, in
order to avoid the risk of these claims delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger, to minimize the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Chesapeake agreed to amend and supplement
the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 26, 2019
in connection with the Merger in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on September 3, 2019. The plaintiffs in these actions
subsequently dismissed each case with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs only. The cases are now closed.

Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. owns and operates hotels. The Company
offers services and amenities such as accommodation, dining,
meeting and wedding rooms, spa, and fitness center. Park Hotels &
Resorts serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Tysons,
Virginia.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Newsome Sues Over Bias Against Nursing Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLE NEWSOME, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05590-MMB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the
Philadelphia Police Department has systematically and willfully
failed to provide nursing female police officers with "reasonable
break time to express breast milk for their nursing children for 1
year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to
express the milk."

The Plaintiff further alleges that the City failed to provide "a
place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free
from intrusion from coorkers and the public, which may be used by
employees to express breast milk."

The Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff also brings the action for
personal relief from sex discrimination in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of
1871.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest as remedies for Defendant's violations of
her rights.

On December 22, 2014, Ms. Newsome started working for the PPD as a
Police Officer assigned to the 18th District. In July 2018, Ms.
Newsome gave birth to her child. In January 2019, Ms. Newsome
returned to work from leave and was detailed to the PPD's
Neighborhood Services Unit on restricted duty. She was still
nursing her infant child and expected to do so until her child
reached age 1 in July 2019.

Upon returning to work, Ms. Newsome experienced ongoing pregnancy
discrimination regarding her need to express milk at work. The
Defendant denied Ms. Newsome reasonable break time to express
breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child's
birth each time she had the need to express the milk, the lawsuit
says.

As a result, women employed by the PPD are kept unaware and
deprived of their statutory civil rights, the Plaintiff asserts.

Philadelphia City owns, operates, manages, directs and controls the
Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), whose agents, servants and
employees at all relevant times were acting within the course and
scope of their employment under color of state law and operating
pursuant to official policies, customs or practices of the City and
the PPD.

The PPD employs over 6300 sworn members, approximately 35% of which
are women. There are eleven different ranks in the PPD in the
following order, beginning at the entry level position of Police
Officer and ending with Police Commissioner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian M. Bryson, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 391-4790
          E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEVEN DOHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-03589-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles L. Breyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (i)
consolidated the securities class actions; (ii) appointed Oklahoma
City Employee Retirement System and Police Retirement System of St.
Louis as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action; and (iii)
appointed Labaton Sucharow LLP as the lead counsel, and Wagstaffe,
Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP as the liaison counsel for the
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The case stems from three class actions alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act.  The purchasers of
Pivotal's securities assert that they are entitled to damages
caused by Pivotal's alleged false and/or misleading statements
about its financial and business condition.  

On June 20, 2019, Doherty filed a complaint asserting claims under
Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On the same day, Mikebeb M. Abera
filed a complaint (Abera v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No.
19-cv-3601-HSG) asserting claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act. The Abera Action named the same Defendants as
the Doherty Action, and included additional Defendants such as
Pivotal directors and underwriters of its IPO.  Doherty published
notice of the action on June 20, 2019, which advised investors in
Pivotal securities that they had until Aug. 19, 2019 to seek
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.  The next day, on June 21, 2019,
Peter Kleinman filed a complaint (Kleinman v. Pivotal Software,
Inc., No. 19-cv-3605-RS) asserting claims under Section 11, Section
12(a)(2), and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the same
Defendants as the Abera Action.  

All three actions advance substantially the same allegations.  The
complaints allege that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements regarding Pivotal's business, operational, and
compliance policies.  Specifically, they allege that the Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Pivotal was facing major problems with
its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (2) those
issues resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and
diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment
shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because they were
outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard
platform; and (3) Pivotal's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On Aug. 19, 2019, class members Dana Penza, Vasant Punjabi, Mary
Anderson, Oklahoma, and the Pivotal Investor Group filed five
competing motions to consolidate the related actions, appoint the
Lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel.

On Aug. 28, 2019, Penza withdrew his motion, conceding that he does
not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA").  On the same day, Punjabi withdrew his motion
for the same reason.  On Sept. 3, 2019, Anderson filed a notice of
non-opposition to competing motions.  Movants Oklahomaoui, and
Steven Doherty and the Tech Trader Fund LP continue to seek
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.

Judge Breyer agrees with the parties that consolidation of the
Doherty Action, the Abera Action, and the Kleinman Action is
proper.  No party has opposed such consolidation.  That the
complaints differ slightly does not impede consolidation.  All
three actions involve common questions of law and fact related to
the Pivotal IPO, and contain similar allegations regarding
Pivotal's public dissemination of false and misleading information
to investors during the same time periods.  Consolidation is proper
because it serves the judicial interest in convenience, there is no
reason to think it would increase delay, including each claim in
one action will reduce confusion, and no party has articulated a
concern regarding prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Breyer ordered the the three actions are
consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) for
all purposes including, but not limited to, discovery, pretrial
proceedings and trial proceedings.  The consolidated cases will be
identified as: In re Pivotal Securities Litigation and the files of
the action will be maintained in one file.  Any other actions now
pending or htereafter filed in the District which arise out of the
same or similar facts and circumstances as alleged in these related
actions will be consolidated for all purposes as the Court is
notified of them.  The parties will notify the Court of any other
action which is pending or filed outside of the District which may
be related to the subject matter of these consolidated actions when
they become aware of such actions.  Every pleading filed in the
consolidated action will bear the following caption: "IN RE PIVOTAL
SECURITIES LITIGATION, (TBR) Master File No., (TBD) CLASS ACTION."

Two competing movants seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff: (1)
the Pivotal Investor Group and (2) Oklahoma.  Judge Breyer finds
that both the movants have timely moved for appointment as lead
counsel in response to the PSLRA notice.  Thus, both have satisfied
the first PSLRA requirement.  He also finds that although the Group
has the largest financial interest in the litigation, it cannot
plausibly allege that its shares are traceable to the Pivotal IPO,
and therefore it lacks Section 11 standing.

If the presumptive lead plaintiff is inadequate or atypical under
Rule 23, the court must then consider the plaintiff with the
next-largest financial stake and repeat the inquiry.   Judge Breyer
finds that Oklahoma meets the requirements under the PSLRA.
Accordingly, he appointed Oklahoma as the Lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action.

Finally, while the appointment of the counsel is made subject to
the approval of the Court, the Lead Plaintiff gets to select the
lead counsel for the class.  Accordingly, Judge Breyer appoints
Labaton Sucharow LLP as the lead counsel and Wagstaffe, Von
Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP as the liaison counsel for the
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/18kPp1 from Leagle.com.

Steven Doherty, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.

Pivotal Software, Inc., Robert Mee & Cynthia Gaylor, Defendants,
represented by Andrew David Yaphe -- adyaphe@gmail.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP & Neal Alan Potischman --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Dana Penza, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Vasant Punjabi, Movant, represented by Danielle Smith, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore, Hagens Beman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Mary Anderson, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato, Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System & Police Retirement System
of St. Louis, Movants, represented by Francis P. McConville,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, James Matthew Wagstaffe,
Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP & Alec T. Coquin,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

The Tech Trader Fund LP, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice &
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JEREMY RICHARDSON and MANDY
LARSON, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, J.D. POWER & ASSOCIATED, and
MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00715-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class and two subclasses:

      Statewide Florida Class defined as:

      all persons and entities that have made first-party claims
      since October 1, 2012 under, an automobile insurance policy
      issued within the state of Florida by Progressive whose
      vehicles were declared a total loss by Progressive and were
      valued using J.D. Power and Mitchell's WCTL system"

      Condition Adjustment Subclass defined as:

      "all Florida insureds whose total loss claims were reduced
      by negative or downward condition adjustments"; and

      Market Value Subclass:

      "all Florida insureds whose vehicles received Market Value
      and Settlement Amounts as determined by WCTL Valuations
      which were less than the actual Retail Values for each
      vehicle as required by Fla. Stat. section 629.9743(5)(a)(2)
      (b), as determined by guidebooks";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
      Waller Law Office, PC, and Arnold Law Firm as Class Counsel;

      and

   4. granting Plaintiffs any other and further relief which they
      may show themselves justly entitled to in this matter.

The complaint alleges that until 2010 Progressive determined the
actual cash value of total losses using the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA) Guidebook, but in 2010 it switched to a
Work Center Total Loss (WCTL), which uses a different methodology.
Progressive uniformly adjusted Plaintiffs and Class Members' total
loss claims by utilizing the WCTL throughout the class period,
according to the lawsuit.

The Defendants continue to employ this practice in violation of
Florida law. For this reason, injunctive relief barring Defendants'
continued practice of using the WCTL to value total loss claims is
appropriate and necessary, the Plaintiffs asserts.

Progressive Casualty Company is the parent of various Progressive
subsidiaries that issue automobile policies in various states,
including the Progressive Defendants in this action.

Progressive American Insurance Company issued its policy to Mr.
Richardson.  Progressive Select issued its policy to Mr.
Larson.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          Kenya J. Reddy, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
          2001 Park Place, Suite 900
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 313-7330
          E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com

PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Proteon Therapeutics, Inc.
("Proteon") (NASDAQ CM: PRTO) common stock in connection with the
proposed merger of Proteon and ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. ("ArTara")
announced on September 23, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Proteon, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and ArTara,
is captioned Plumley v. Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-02143 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On September 23, 2019, Proteon entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ArTara.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, ArTara stockholders will own
approximately 90% of the combined company, while stockholders of
Proteon will own approximately 10% (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and ArTara's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Proteon's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Proteon common stock.

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.  Any member of the proposed 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Contact:

         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Tel: (888) 969-4242, (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com
         Email: gms@rl-legal.com
                sdr@rl-legal.com
[GN]


QUALCOMM INC: Makes Case for Trimming Size of Patent Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Freeman, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that
Qualcomm's efforts to shrink one of the largest consumer class
action lawsuits ever filed received a somewhat sympathetic
reception at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Ryan Nelson expressed skepticism about whether a lower
court's decision to allow a class of 250 million smartphone buyers
nationwide was proper— particularly in regards to imposing
California law across all 50 states.

Nelson was part of three-judge panel hearing Qualcomm's appeal of
San Jose District Judge Lucy Koh's ruling last year to certify the
huge class action case.  Oral arguments were held December 2.

Billions in damages could be at stake.  The lawsuit covers 1.2
billion cell phone sales over eight years.  It accuses Qualcomm of
violating anti-trust laws to charge inflated patent royalties to
smartphone makers, who passed the cost on to consumers.

Qualcomm contends Judge Koh was wrong to allow such a large,
diverse and unwieldy class, making it hard for the San Diego
company to exercise its due process rights to challenge whether
consumers were harmed.

Millions of phones, for example, were subsidized by wireless
operators so consumers didn't directly pay anything if they signed
up for a two-year mobile plan, said Robert Van Nest, Esq., an
attorney representing Qualcomm.

Qualcomm and the U.S. Department of Justice also argued Koh's
certification improperly imposed California law on other states.

California allows indirect purchasers - say cell phone buyers - to
seek damages, even though they didn't directly pay Qualcomm patent
royalties. About 20 other states don't allow such pass-through
claims.

"The district court chose to federalize California policy and
impose it on all other states," Van Nest said. "For a variety of
reasons those states have drawn a different balance between
consumer protection and fostering an attractive business
environment."

Marc Seltzer, Esq. -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- a Susman
Godfrey partner representing smartphone buyers, said they have
enough in common to fall under the same grouping.

An expert witness performed a massive regression analysis on
smartphone purchases that concluded this large group of consumers
were damaged because of Qualcomm's high patent fees.

Judge Koh "made a meticulous analysis of the evidence, and she took
into account all of Qualcomm's arguments," Seltzer said. "She
responded and showed why the evidence supported a contrary
position."

Van Nest countered that the expert's analysis was flawed, and said
Koh didn't dig deep enough into the methodology before certifying
the class.

That concerned Judge Nelson, who questioned whether it was the
appeals court's job to re-examine Koh's fact finding.

Appeals courts typically limit their work to whether the law was
properly applied, giving substantial weight to lower court rulings
on the facts.

"I appreciate your arguments. I think they're really strong,"
Nelson said to Van Nest. "But everything you're arguing, we would
have to find that the district court abused its discretion, and I
feel like you're re-arguing some of the same arguments you made" in
district court.

The panel did not make a decision on December 2. It is unclear when
it will issue a ruling. Qualcomm's shares ended trading Thursday up
50 cents at $82.58 on the Nasdaq exchange. [GN]


QUORUM HEALTH: Accord in Della-Maggiora Suit Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health 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 lawsuit styled as, Mary Della-Maggiora, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Watsonville Community Hospital, entity unknown, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive (Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Cruz), are awaiting the court's preliminary
approval of their settlement.

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a purported class action
alleging violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a). On May
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains two
causes of action.

The first cause of action is brought by Plaintiff in her individual
capacity and as potential class representative for all other
Watsonville Community Hospital employees for alleged violations of
Labor Code Section 226(a), subsections (6), (8), and (9).

The second cause of action is brought under the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 by Plaintiff in her individual
capacity and as "appointed" representative of the State of
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, for alleged
violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsection (9).

Plaintiff generally alleges that the paystubs issued to Watsonville
employees did not include all information required by California
Labor Code Section 226(a).

The case was settled between the parties on July 16, 2019. A
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was scheduled for November 12, 2019.

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health 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 discovery is still
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Zwick Partners LP and
Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems,
Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael
J. Culotta.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against us and certain of our former officers.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, CHS, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry
Cash. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants)
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the company
between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016.

The Complaint sought damages related to the claims.

On June 23, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiff opposed. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss, and the company filed its answer to
the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018. On July 13, 2018,
Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, which
Defendants opposed. On March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion
and certified the class.

Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which petition was denied on July 31, 2019.

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
alleging additional misstatements. On October 12, 2018, Defendants
moved to dismiss, and, on March 29, 2019, the Court granted the
motion and dismissed the new allegations.

Quorum Health said, The case is in discovery, and we are vigorously
defending ourselves. We are unable to predict the outcome of this
matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a
loss. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
such possible loss. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in
connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be material.

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


RAY STONE: Faces Otis Employees Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ray Stone
Incorporated, et al. The case is captioned as Sean Otis, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Does 1-25, Ray Stone
Incorporated, Renoir Staffing Services, Inc., Renoir Staffing,
Inc., and Renoir Staffing, LLC, Case No. 34-2019-00269952-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Nov. 26, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

Ray Stone is doing business in real estate investing and
management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Swearingen Sues Over Sale of Defective Zantac
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Froehlich Swearingen, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES
INC., CHATTEM, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
and WALMART INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-11632 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019),
arises from Defendants Sanofi and Boehringer's manufacturing and
Defendant Chattem's distribution of Zantac, an over-the-counter
medication that contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.

Defendant Walmart sold the defective medication to the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated consumers. Mr. Froehlich purchased and
consumed Zantac manufactured, distributed, sold by the Defendants.

Neither the manufacturers, distributors nor retailers ever
disclosed to consumers that the drug has two critical defects:
first, ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac, is an
inherently unstable compound, which as manufactured, stored,
shipped and stored causes Zantac to contain dangerously high levels
of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA); and second, when ingested, Zantac
produces in the human body even higher quantities of NDMA,
according to the complaint. NDMA is a semi-volatile organic
chemical, produced as by-product of several industrial processes.

Mr. Froehlich contends that he and the Class were injured by the
full purchase price of their Zantac medications. He asserts that
these medications are worthless, as they contain harmful levels of
NDMA. As the medications expose users to NDMA well above the legal
limit, the medications are not fit for human consumption. The
Plaintiff is further entitled to statutory damages, damages for the
injury sustained in consuming high levels of acutely-toxic NDMA,
and for damages related to the Defendants' conduct.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the Class for
equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: breach
of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law, unjust
enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and fraud.

The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of defective Zantac in the United States,
including in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          VOZZOLO LLC
          345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
          Phone: (201) 630-8820
          Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com


SAREN RESTAURANTS: Pelka Sues Over Unlawful Use Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Pelka and Robert Pelka, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAREN RESTAURANTS INC., Case No.
2019CH14664 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant to stop its unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class'
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiffs, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiffs contend.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs' and
other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required
by BIPA; receive a written release from Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose,
or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in Peru, Illinois.

The Defendant is an Illinois corporation with places of business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                 plesko@pwcklegal.com


SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER UNGER, and DUSTIN
LACH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, vs. SC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, and JOHN K. SEARS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00125-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. and authorizing Plaintiff to send notice of the
      case and the proposed settlement to:

      "all current and former hourly employees who worked for
      Defendants during the recovery period";

   2. certifying the collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   3. designating Plaintiffs Christopher Unger and Dustin Lach as
      Representative Plaintiffs; and

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

SC Environmental Services, LLC is headquartered in the United
States. The company's line of business includes providing wrecking
and demolition services.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq.
          LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY,
          DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.
          124 W. Allegan St., Suite 700
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone(517) 482-2400
          E-mail: jstheuer@loomislaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Randall B. Kleiman, Esq.
          Ted W. Stroud, Esq.
          OADE, STROUD & KLEIMAN, P.C.
          200 Woodland Pass, P.O. 1296
          East Lansing, MI 48826-1296
          E-mail: rkleiman@osklaw.com

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 SciPlay is
defending against a class action suit initiated by the Police
Retirement System of St. Louis.

On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering.


The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities
who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in
connection with SciPlay’s initial public offering on or about May
3, 2019.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $144.7 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.

Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them."

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: SciPlay Faces Good Class Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 SciPlay is
facing a class action suit initiated by John Good.

On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay's
underwriters with respect to SciPlay's initial public offering.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.

Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them."

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: March 2020 Standing Trial in Anderson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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
standing trial in the case, Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld
Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW,, is
scheduled for March 9, 2020, after which the Court will determine
if there needs to be a trial on the merits which currently is
scheduled for April 27, 2020.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment,
Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW.  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego.  

The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law
and California CLRA.  

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket and orca plush purchasers with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiffs and purported class members.  

The complaint seeks restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.  Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the
amount in controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the
class became certified. The liability exposure is speculative
though.  

On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017
which the Court granted in part and denied in part. On May 23,
2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not
file a motion for class certification.  The case is no longer a
class action.

All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual
restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court
bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases:  the Plaintiffs'
standing to sue and the merits of their claims.  

The standing trial is scheduled for March 9, 2020, after which the
Court will determine if there needs to be a trial on the merits
which currently is scheduled for April 27, 2020.

Pre-trial motions and mediation proceedings are continuing.  

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker Suit Set for Feb. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 trial in
the class action suit entitled, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), has been scheduled to
begin for February 18, 2020.  

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund, filed an amended
complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board,
certain of its directors, certain of its executive officers,
Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and
secondary public offerings.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially
false and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were
reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s
business at the time of each public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 31, 2016, the Court
granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its
entirety, without prejudice.  On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated class action complaint, which, among
other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters
as defendants and no longer brings claims based on the prospectuses
and registration statements.

On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the renewed motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017,
Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the Court's
class certification order with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June 28, 2018.

Discovery is now complete and, on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment. Also on April 15, 2019, Defendants
filed motions to exclude each of Plaintiffs' three expert witnesses
and Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude two of Defendants’ expert
witnesses.  

On November 6, 2019 the Court issued a ruling on the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and the parties' motions to exclude,
denying most of the motions, including that for summary judgment.


The trial has been scheduled to begin on February 18, 2020.  

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEIU LOCAL 1000: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hamidi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned KOUROSH KENNETH
HAMIDI, et al., AND THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, Plaintiffs,
v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, Defendant,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00319 WBS KJN. (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi et al., and the class they
represent (Employees) brought the class action against defendants
Service Employees International Union Local 1000 ( SEIU Local 1000)
and the California state controller, alleging that Local 1000's
opt-out system for collecting optional union fees violates the
Employees' First Amendment rights.

In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME,
Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), requiring employees' affirmative
consent prior to any collection of union fees, the district court
is now presented with the (1) parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment, (2) defendant's motion to decertify the class, and (3)
plaintiffs' motion to amend the class certification order.

Plaintiff seeks repayment of all fees, both germane and non-germane
to collective bargaining, collected from non-members prior to the
Supreme Court's decision in Janus.

Defendant does not contest that Local 1000's opt-out system to
collect agency fees from non-members violates nonmembers' First
Amendment rights under Janus. Defendant instead asserts a good
faith defense to Section 1983 liability because the law at the time
of Local 1000's collection of agency fees permitted such a system.


District Judge William Shubb notes that the Supreme Court in Janus
itself did not specify whether the plaintiff was entitled to
retrospective monetary relief for conduct the Supreme Court had
authorized for the previous forty years. The controlling law in the
Ninth Circuit, however, recognizes a good faith defense in
shielding private defendants from liability in Section 1983
actions.  

Judge Shubb finds that Local 1000 is entitled to the good-faith
defense because its opt-out system complied with then-valid Supreme
Court precedent. Prior to Janus, the California district court
specifically found that Local 1000's opt-out procedure was
consistent with both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions on
agency fee collection. When plaintiffs filed suit, it was well
established that unions may require non-members to pay the portion
of the fair share fees that are used to fund expenditures germane
to collective bargaining.  

Local 1000's Subjective Belief

Plaintiffs contend that defendant did not in fact act in good faith
because they should have known that the Court would overturn Abood.
Plaintiffs are correct that unions have been on notice for years
regarding the Court's misgivings about Abood. But reading the tea
leaves of Supreme Court dicta has never been a precondition to good
faith reliance on governing law. To find otherwise would force
defendants to engage in constitutional gambling and decide if they
truly agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning to avoid future
liability.

Local 1000's compliance with what was then the law is sufficient
for a finding of good faith, the District Court finds. Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED,
Judge Shubb rules.

The district court's ruling here resolves plaintiffs' "sole
remaining claim." Defendant's motion to decertify the class and
plaintiffs' motion to amend the class certification order are
therefore moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yylo86oy from Leagle.com

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, Kim McElroy, Dawn P. Ammons, William L.
Blaylock, Christopher Browne, Ryan Christensen, Kelli Giles,
Madeline L. Lopez, Clint Miller, Gary W. Morrish, Virginia Ollis,
Olayemi Sarumi, Cecilia Stanfield, Antonia Toledo & Diane C. Tutt,
Plaintiffs, represented by W. James Young , National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation Inc, 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22160,  pro hac vice & Steven R. Burlingham , Gary, Till,
Burlingham & Lynch, 1380 Lead Hill Blvd Ste 200, Roseville, CA
95661-2997

Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Defendant,
represented by Anne M. Giese , Service Employees International
Union, 1800 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, Eve H.
Cervantez-  ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Jeffrey B. Demain - jdemain@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Patrick Casey Pitts -cpitts@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler
Berzon, LLP & York Jiann Chang  -ychang@cta.org -


SIRIUS XM: Nazario Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
EVEIANA NAZARIO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07844 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks redress
for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Sirius XM's outbound telemarketing
efforts include the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) to solicit consumers nationwide and within Illinois. Sirius
XM's outbound dialing system has the capacity (A) to store or
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.

On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received a phone call from Sirius
XM. The Plaintiff answered the phone call and informed the Sirius
XM representative that she was not interested in Sirius XM's
services and requested that the solicitation calls cease. Despite
Plaintiff's request that the calls cease, Sirius XM continues to
place marketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone. At no time did
the Plaintiff provide her cellular phone number to Sirius XM or
otherwise consent to receiving phone calls from Sirius XM.
Consequently, Sirius XM shifts the burden of wasted time to
consumers with unsolicited calls and messages, the lawsuit says.

Sirius XM provides radio-broadcasting services to consumers
nationwide on a subscription fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8180
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com


SMC CORP: Palomar Seeks to Recover Illegally Deducted Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT PALOMAR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04693-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to
recover all unpaid wages, including illegally deducted wages, and
liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff and others under the
Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

Mr. Palomar is a former employee of SMC Corporation. He began his
employment with SMC Corporation in April 2018 and worked until he
voluntarily resigned his employment on August 7, 2019.

SMC Corporation of America manufactures pneumatic and electric
automation equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market St., Ste. 220
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
                  rfh@indianawagelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail kondras@hkmlawfirm.com


SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gomez Suit over Roche Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Therapeutics, 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, Gomez v. Spark
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, in relation to its
merger with Roche Holdings, Inc.

On February 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Roche Holdings, Inc.
(Roche) and 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub). Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the
conditions thereof, Merger Sub has commenced a cash tender offer
(the Tender Offer) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock at a price per share of
$114.50, net to the seller of such shares in cash, without
interest, subject to any withholding of taxes required by
applicable law.

On March 7, 2019, a complaint, Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et
al., No. 1:19-cv-00479, or the Wang Complaint, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware by
purported company stockholder Elaine Wang against the company and
its directors in connection with the merger.

On March 11, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00485, or the
Kent Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Michael
Kent against the company, its directors, the Merger Sub, and Roche
in connection with the merger.

On March 18, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00528, or
the Newman Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder
Arthur Newman against the company and its directors in connection
with the merger.

On March 20, 2019, a complaint, Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc.
et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, or the Gomez Complaint, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purported company stockholder Zarrin Gomez against the company
and its directors in connection with the merger.  

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed on March
7, 2019 in connection with the merger omitted certain supposedly
material information.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint assert claims against all the defendants for
violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against the
company's directors, and in the case of the Kent Complaint, Roche,
and in the case of the Gomez Complaint, the company, for violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint and the Gomez Complaint also
assert claims against all defendants for violation of Section 14(d)
of the Exchange Act.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 5, 2019, the Kent Complaint and the Wang Complaint
were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On October 31, 2019, the Newman Complaint was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice to the alleged class.  

On April 18, 2019, a complaint, Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02615, or the Grant Complaint, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
certain trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, the company and
Roche, alleging intellectual property infringement and false claims
by the trustees and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the
licensing of all adeno-associated virus patents by the University
of Pennsylvania to the company's and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On June 25, 2019, the court dismissed the Grant Complaint with
prejudice for lack of prosecution of the case due to plaintiff's
failure to respond.

Spark said, "We, and our board, believe that the Gomez Complaint is
without merit and we, our board, the Merger Sub, and Roche intend
to defend vigorously against such claim. Additional similar cases
may also be filed in connection with the tender offer or the
merger."

Spark Therapeutics, Inc. focuses on the development of gene therapy
products for patients suffering from debilitating genetic diseases.
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Joseph Sues Over Improper Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph V. Joseph, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No.
0:19-cv-63121-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for the benefit of Florida
consumers, who have been subjected to improper debt collection
efforts by the Defendant.

The Defendant sent initial written communications to those
consumers demanding payments on alleged debts, threatening
foreclosure proceedings, and indicating that the consumers' alleged
debts will be assumed valid, generally, absent their dispute of the
debts, according to the complaint. It is important to consider that
Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 to "eliminate abusive debt
collection practices by debt collectors."

This case centers on the Defendant providing insufficient and
improper validation notices to Florida consumers by advising them
that their alleged debts would be assumed valid--potentially by
anyone, including creditors or courts of law--unless the consumers
disputed the debts within 30 days. These same notices constituted
misleading collection efforts in leading consumers to believe that
persons or entities other than the Defendant would assume their
debts to be valid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who is obligated, or allegedly
obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or
due, a creditor other than the Defendant.

The Defendant is a part of Computershare Loan Services, "a leading
international third party mortgage services provider."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matis H. Aberbanel, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: matis@fight13.com


STANDARD INDUSTRIES: Imburgia Sues Over False Master Elite Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Imburgia and Sarah Mabry, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. STANDARD INDUSTRIES, INC. DBA
GAF MATERIALS COPRORATION, Case No. 2019CH14672 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to remedy a deceptive marketing
scheme that GAF directs at the public, enriching itself at the
expense of homeowners, who hire and pay more for roofing
contractors based on a largely worthless "Master Elite"
certification GAF bestows upon them.

GAF holds out its "Master Elite" program as a way that it provides
"peace of mind" to homeowners in choosing qualified roofing
contractors. GAF claims that to become "certified" as "Master
Elite," contractors must meet stringent standards which provide
assurance that such contractors are professional and dependable.
GAF further claims that only 2% of all roofing contractors meet
this standard.

In reality, GAF's Master Elite program is little more than a
licensing agreement between GAF and nominally independent roofing
contractors through which GAF calls them "Master Elite" and allows
them to sell certain warranties from GAF in exchange for those
contractors committing to use predominantly GAF products, the
Plaintiffs allege. This makes GAF's "certification" unreliable and
far from objective.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs say, GAF does not disclose to homeowners
that to obtain a Master Elite certification, a roofing contractor
must commit to using predominantly GAF products. GAF's largely
worthless certification allows "Master Elite" contractors to charge
a significant premium for their services and to win business from
homeowners who might otherwise hire other contractors, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Illinois.

GAF is a leading manufacturer of roofing products and sells a wide
range of roofing products, including residential roofing systems
and shingles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth Yohalem, Esq.
          Adam Waskowski, Esq.
          Daniel R. Johnson, Esq.
          WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP
          954 West Washington Boulevard, Suite 322
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: 312-278-3153


STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Conditional Certification Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA
LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., et al,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00740 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Eli Richardson entered an order directing Clerk to withdraw
Plaintiff's motion for condition certification and the issuance of
court-supervised notice.

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Withdrawal of
Motion for Conditional Certification and the Issuance of
Court-Supervised Notice.[CC]

STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA
LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER
vMEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19−cv−00740 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of potential opt-ins
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "all mobile phlebotomists who, at any time since [3 years
      prior to the date the parties' filed their Stipulation
      Regarding Conditional Certification], have resided in
      Tennessee and worked for Defendants";

   2. approving distribution of Parties' agreed proposed
      Notices of the action to be sent via U.S. mail and
      electronic mail, to potential opt-ins consistent with
      the Order;

   3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel the
      name, last known mailing address(es), and e-mail
      address(es) for each member of the above-referenced
      class, within 14 days from the entry of the Order;

   4. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to send the Court-approved
      Notice to each member of the class via U.S. Mail,
      accompanied by a Consent Form and pre-addressed, pre-paid
      return envelope addressed to Plaintiffs' counsel, and the
      Court-approved Notice that is attached to the Parties'
      Joint Motion via e-mail, accompanied by a Consent Form,
      within seven days from the receipt of the names, mailing
      address(es), and email address(es) for class members
      from Defendants;

   5. directing Plaintiffs that all signed Consent Forms must be
      postmarked or submitted electronically to Plaintiff's
      Counsel within 60 days from when the Notices and Consent
      Forms are sent by U.S. mail and electronic mail to
      putative 216(b) Opt-In Plaintiffs who meet the class
      definition; and

   6. directing Counsel for Plaintiffs to file with the Court
      upon receipt, and no later than 21 days after the close
      of the Notice Period, all signed consents to join that
      are timely postmarked or submitted electronically to
      Plaintiffs' Counsel within the Notice Period.[CC]

TANDY LEATHER: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. between
March 7, 2018 and August 15, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 6, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tandy
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tandy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1717.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, the defendants' statements throughout the
Class Period were false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain costs of inventory had been improperly valued and
expensed; (2) Tandy's financial results for certain periods were
misstated; (3) Tandy lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (4) there was a material weakness in Tandy's
internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a result,
defendants' statements regarding Tandy's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading. 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 January 6,
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-1717.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
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]


TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tegna 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey &
Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et al., is pending.

In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets
reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into
the local television advertising sales practices of station owners.
On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters
settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively
sensitive information in the broadcast television industry.

On June 17, 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered
into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ. The settlement
contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no
penalty.

It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from
sharing certain confidential business information, or using such
information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited
circumstances.

The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain
enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to
cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation and to permit DOJ to
verify compliance. The company do not expect the costs of
compliance to be material.
  
Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action
lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the
Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a
class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States
who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local TV
provided by the defendants.

The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as
injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct.

These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc.
et. al., filed on July 30, 2018.

At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although
the company was named as a defendant in sixteen of the original
complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a
defendant.

After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent
decrees with the Department of Justice in June 2019, the plaintiffs
sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add
TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding.  

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed
the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8,
2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter.


Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims
asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against them."

Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company.
The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing
services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States
markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services
to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT)
local advertising network, Premion.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Spinney Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Opioids
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SPINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a
company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02030-APG-VCF (D. Nev., Nov. 22,
2019), arises from opioid epidemic allegedly caused by the
Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of
deception.

The Defendants include Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Cephalon, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Johnson &
Johnson, a New Jersey corporation; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a
New Jersey corporation; Endo Health Solutions, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC, a public limited company
incorporated under the laws of the State of Ireland; Actavis
Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Actavis, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc., a Delaware limited
liability company; Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation;
McKesson Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Cardinal Health,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amerisourcebergen Corporation, a
Delaware corporation.

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

The Plaintiff alleges that for years, the Defendants misrepresented
the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell,
misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a
direct result of the harms they inflicted.

According to the complaint, prescription opioids have devastated
communities across the country and in the State of Nevada. In
addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on
children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid
crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as
much as $500 billion per year.

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

The Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors
and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced
them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat
chronic pain, according to the complaint. The Defendants targeted
susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable
patient populations, like the elderly and veterans.

The class action is a potential tag-along action and, in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. section 1407 should be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to be
included in In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No.
2804, the lawsuit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Urga, Esq.
          Bruce L. Woodbury, Esq.
          Brian E. Holthus, Esq.
          JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY HOLTHUS & ROSE
          330 S. Rampart Blvd., Suite 380
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: 702 699 7500
          Facsimile: 702/699-7555
          E-mail: wru@juwlaw.com
                  blw@juwlaw.com
                  beh@juwlaw.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          Keller Lenkner LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 506.5641
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                 tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                 sam@kellerlenkner.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: 703 243 9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com


TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL: Withrow Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE WITHROW, KATHERINE YOUNTS and CONNIE MEADORS, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES, L.C., and ACADIA
HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05220-TLB
(W.D. Ark., Dec. 2, 2019), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
the Plaintiffs and others lawful overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as nurses within the three
years preceding the filing of the complaint. The nurses encompass
Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Certified Nurse
Assistants.

The Defendants' primary business purpose is to provide psychiatric
and mental health treatment. The Defendants employ nurses to
accomplish this goal.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TRANS UNION: Tanaka Sues in Hawaii Alleging Violation of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC. The
case is captioned as Paanaakala Tanaka, on behalf of herself and
all consumers similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-00642-LEK-RT (D. Haw., Nov. 27, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Trans Union was formed in order to issue notes to finance future
working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and other
general business purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          7 Waterfront Plaza
          500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 400
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 543-1122
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com


U.S. SUGAR: Faces Class Suit Over Sugar Field Burns in Poor Towns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For residents of the Glades, a string of poor, predominantly
African American rural towns dotting the southern shore of
Florida's Lake Okeechobee, the beginning of the annual sugar cane
harvest in October means the arrival of "black snow."

"You'd hate to come down here when it's snowing," said Kaniyah
Patterson, an asthmatic 12-year-old who lives with her mother and
grandmother in a housing project surrounded by several large sugar
cane fields in the Palm Beach County community of Pahokee.

"That black stuff irritates me," Kaniyah said, sighing. "Sometimes
I can't breathe."

The "snow" is an airborne byproduct of the disputed practice of
burning sugar fields before harvests. Kaniyah says it "stuffs up"
her nose and stains her clothes. At times, she says, the poor air
quality makes it difficult to keep up with her friends when playing
outside.

For generations, Florida's sugar cane farmers have legally set fire
to their fields prior to the harvest, leaving only the cane, a
practice that reduces transportation costs because they ship the
cane without the surrounding vegetation.

In the Glades community alone, home to more than 40,000 people,
cane growers burned more than 1.5 million acres (2 million
hectares) of sugar cane between 2008 and 2018 - a land mass about
the size of Delaware - according to state data.

In several major sugar-producing countries such as Brazil, the
practice is being phased out due to health concerns. The fires can
produce sooty plumes of smoke that hover over the surrounding
communities and dust the area with burnt flakes of plant matter.

Research in Florida on the potential health consequences of sugar
cane burning has produced conflicting results: A 2015 study funded
by the U.S. Education Department concludes that residents of areas
such as the Glades that are frequently exposed to large burns
experience a greater amount of "respiratory distress." The
Environmental Protection Agency has said residents are exposed to
hazardous air pollutants on par with some urban areas.

But an analysis last year by the American Lung Association and data
compiled by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection both
concluded that air quality in Palm Beach County was up to code.

A class-action lawsuit filed in June against nearly a dozen sugar
companies in the region - which leads the nation in sugar
production - claims the burns reduce property values and compromise
air quality with toxic carcinogens. The two other states where
sugar is grown are Texas and Louisiana. In Florida, 75% of sugar is
grown in the Glades region of Palm Beach County. The rest is
harvested in the adjacent counties of Hendry, Glades and Martin.

Patrick Ferguson, who is leading an anti-burn campaign for the
Sierra Club, called the matter a lopsided "environmental justice
issue" that disproportionately affects poor communities of color.

U.S. Sugar, one of the companies listed in the lawsuit, stands by
the practice of burning. It contends that its methods are safe,
closely monitored and highly regulated, and that the overall
well-being of its workers and the greater community is "vitally
important" to the company.

Opponents of burning argue cleaner, safer alternatives exist. The
Sierra Club and local activists are urging growers to switch to a
practice known as green harvesting, a burn-free process that is
already the industry standard in Brazil. They argue that instead of
burning, sugar producers could repurpose plant waste into mulch,
bioplastics or a clean energy source. In Florida, the method is
sometimes employed by local growers at times when they are not able
to burn.

But a full switch to green harvesting could mean a massive and
costly overhaul of production infrastructure for sugar producers.
U.S. Sugar, for one, has yet to find a large-scale use for the
massive amounts of leaf material left over after a harvest, company
spokesman Judy Sanchez said.

In the past, the company has said those who oppose sugar field
burning are attacking the very industry that supports the local
economy.

Activist Kina Phillips, 44, a mother of three from South Bay whose
husband works for one of the local sugar companies, said that is
not the case.

"We don't want the sugar mill to close down," Phillips said. "Why
would I take food out of my own mouth?"

But Phillips said she believes green harvesting would be healthier
while potentially bringing more jobs to the poor area.

She calls the burning season a "battle," especially for her
5-year-old grandson Jamal Tillman, whose immune system suffers and
asthma worsens. Philips declared that it's time for locals to "step
up and stop turning a blind eye" to a powerful industry that she
says is poisoning her community.

Florida law requires sugar companies to take into account wind
directions at the start of a burn to avoid populated areas, but
residents say that because their communities are so close to the
sugar crops, they get the smoke anyway.

Last month, Florida Department of Agriculture Commissioner Nicole
"Nikki" Fried announced that while sugar cane burning would remain
legal, she would implement a series of rule changes, including
working with producers to encourage green harvesting and
potentially shortening burn seasons.

In Pahokee, Kaniyah Patterson's 64-year-old grandmother Annie
Young, who also has asthma, said she is doubtful anything will
change.

"I got to deal with it," she said. "I don't have another place to
stay." [GN]


UNITED SERVICES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Ruby Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RUBY, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and
CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-02922-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' systemic and intentionally wrongful under-valuation of
total losses involving the vehicles of USAA first party insureds.

According to the complaint, USAA has spent tens of millions of
dollars to market itself as a fair and honest insurance company.
However, USAA is not fair and honest in providing valuations to
USAA insureds whose vehicles have been involved in an accident and
are determined to be a total loss.

Through its auto insurance policy contracts, USAA has agreed to
provide, inter alia, collision coverage for losses resulting from
damage to insureds' vehicles. When the costs of repairs exceed a
specified percentage of the vehicle's value, USAA declares the
vehicle a total loss and must fairly adjust that total loss claim
by properly valuing the insured vehicle.

USAA has contracted with CCC to receive Market Valuation Reports to
determine the "Base Vehicle Value" of a total loss vehicle and the
"Adjusted Value" after any "Condition Adjustment" and applicable
deductible. Through this agreement with CCC, USAA and CCC have
engaged in a scheme to artificially deflate the value of the total
loss claims with the specific intent to pay first party insureds
less than the actual pre-loss value of total loss vehicles by
making improper downward adjustments for the "condition" of the
total loss vehicle, the purported comparable vehicles, or both.

When it entered into the policies at issue in this case with
Plaintiff and Class Members, USAA was aware, but failed to disclose
to the Plaintiff and the Class, that CCC's Reports would wrongfully
under-value total loss vehicles and that USAA would intentionally
underpay total loss claims based on those Reports, according to the
complaint. Through this scheme, the Plaintiff asserts, USAA and CCC
have engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Florida law, and
their respective contractual obligations and have, thereby,
uniformly damaged USAA insureds in Florida in a readily
ascertainable dollar amount.

Capt. Brian Ruby was the owner of a 2014 BMW 3 Series 328i RWD.
USAA issued its Automobile Policy No. 03476518371028 (the "Policy")
to the Plaintiff which insured the Vehicle. The Policy was
effective from December 21, 2015, to the present. Following an
automobile accident with another vehicle operated by a third party,
on July 25, 2019, USAA determined that the Plaintiff's Vehicle was
a "total loss."

The terms of USAA's Policy issued to the Plaintiff are not
individualized, unique or specific to Capt. Ruby. The Plaintiff's
Policy is the same standard form used by USAA in Florida.

On July 26, 2019, USAA provided the Plaintiff a CCC Report
purporting to state a "Base Value" in the amount of $12,352.00, and
an "Adjusted Value" of $12,520.00 after a positive condition
adjustment in the amount of $168.00. On October 2, 2019, USAA
provided Plaintiff with a revised CCC Report purporting to state a
"Base Value" in the amount of $13,127.00, and an "Adjusted Value"
of $13,295.00 after a positive condition adjustment in the amount
of $168.00. USAA ultimately paid the Plaintiff the amount of
$13,295.00 for the purported "actual cash value" of his Vehicle.

USAA concealed from the Plaintiff that its purported total loss
valuations were based upon the statistically invalid and unlawful
CCC Valuation Methodology, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the
Class Members have been damaged by USAA's systemic underpayment of
total loss claims. This underpayment results from USAA's
intentional failure to fairly and properly determine Actual Cash
Value and its knowingly improper downward Condition Adjustments.

The Plaintiff and the putative Class are USAA automobile insurance
policy holders whose vehicles USAA determined to be a total loss,
and who have been subject to USAA and CCC's scheme to artificially
deflate the value of their total loss claims by making such
improper downward condition adjustments.

USSA is a foreign corporation operating under the laws of the state
of Texas with its principal place of business in San Antonio,
Texas. USAA issued automobile liability insurance policies,
including coverage for property damage and first-party total loss
claims, to the Plaintiff and Class Members, and many thousands of
other insureds who have not incurred a total loss in Florida.

CCC Information Services, Inc., is a foreign corporation operating
under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. CCC has entered into a contract with
USAA to prepare and provide all USAA total loss insureds with
purported valuations for total loss vehicles in the form of CCC
Reports throughout the class period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
          2001 Park Place, Suite 900
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 313-7330
          E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com


UNITED STATES: Young Balks at Mich. Medicaid's Work Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA YOUNG, MARIA YAKOVCHIK, JAMIE ARDEN, Homeless, KATINA
PETROPOULOS, Plaintiff v. ALEX M. AZAR, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in his official capacity;
SEEMA VERMA, ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
SERVICES in her official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; and CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03526 (D.D.C., Nov. 22,
2019), asks the Court to declare that the Defendants' issuance of
the Dear State Medicaid Director Letter and the approval of the
Michigan HMP Amended Extension Application, which set out certain
work requirements for Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees, violate the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act and the
United States Constitution.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the Defendants from implementing the practices purportedly
authorized by Dear State Medicaid Director Letter and the approval
of the Michigan HMP Amended Extension Application.

On January 11, 2018, Defendant CMS issued a letter to State
Medicaid Directors titled "Opportunities to Promote Work and
Community Engagement Among Medicaid Beneficiaries." The nine-page
document "announc[es] a new policy" that allows states to impose
"work and community engagement" requirements on certain Medicaid
recipients--specifically, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid
beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than
disability."

In June 2018, the Michigan Legislature passed a law directing the
State to request permission under Section 1115 to condition
Medicaid eligibility for the expansion population on mandatory work
requirements and, for a subset of the expansion, on heightened and
mandatory premiums. The State submitted the corresponding Section
1115 waiver application on September 10, 2018 as an amendment to a
pending application to extend the Healthy Michigan Plan waiver
("HMP amended extension application"). The Secretary approved the
amended extension application on December 21, 2018, with Special
Terms and Conditions.

On February 8, 2019, as required by the state law, Michigan
Governor Gretchen Whitmer accepted the Special Terms and
Conditions, noting that between 61,000 and 183,000 individuals will
lose health coverage as a result of the work requirements.

Michigan will begin implementing the work requirements on January
1, 2020. The State will begin suspending the coverage of
individuals who have not met the work requirements on May 1, 2020.

Under the Secretary's approval, Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees,
including the Plaintiffs, aged 19 to 62 must engage in specified
work or work-related activities for 80 hours per month. The work
requirements do not apply to pregnant women, medically frail
individuals, or individuals with a disability or other condition
that prevents them from working, as verified by a licensed medical
professional. In addition, enrollees who meet certain other
criteria are exempt from the requirements, such as being a
full-time student, serving as the primary caregiver for a child
under age six, caring for an individual with a disability, having
been incarcerated within the last six months, or current receipt of
unemployment benefits.

Enrollees, who are not exempt must report their work activities
monthly. Enrollees who do not report the required hours for three
months in a 12-month period will lose coverage at the end of the
fourth month, unless during the fourth month, the individual
completes 80 hours of qualifying activities or demonstrates that
they qualify for a good cause or other exemption. There is one good
cause exemption: individuals who are unable to meet the requirement
for reasons related to their own or an immediate family member's
disability or serious illness.

An individual who is dis-enrolled at the end of the fourth month is
not permitted to re-enroll for one month. Thereafter, an individual
can re-enroll by completing 80 hours of qualifying activities in
one month.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Secretary's approval will harm them
and other individuals throughout the State--teachers, social
workers, students, and caregivers--who need a range of health
services, including treatment for heart conditions, asthma, high
blood pressure, sleep apnea, cancer, arthritis, migraines, and
mental health services. Without access to Medicaid coverage, people
across Michigan will be forced to forgo treatment for their
conditions or will incur significant medical debt when their
conditions become so severe that they have no choice but to seek
treatment in acute care and emergency department settings, the
Plaintiffs add.

HHS is a federal agency with responsibility for overseeing
implementation of provisions of the Social Security Act, of which
the Medicaid Act is a part. CMS is the agency within HHS with
primary responsibility for overseeing federal and state
implementation of the Medicaid Act as required by federal law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          Sarah Somers, Esq.
          Sarah Grusin, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          200 N. Greensboro Street, Suite D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: 919 968-6308
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
                  somers@healthlaw.org
                  grusin@healthlaw.org

               - and -

          Kelly L. Bidelman, Esq.
          Linda A. Jordan, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CIVIL JUSTICE
          436 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 400
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: 810-244-8044
          E-mail: kbidelman@ccj-mi.org
                  ljordan@ccj-mi.org

               - and -

          Lisa Ruby, Esq.
          MICHIGAN POVERTY LAW PROGRAM
          15 S. Washington
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197
          Telephone: 734-998-6100 ext.617
          E-mail: lruby@mplp.org


UNITI GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion to serve
as lead plaintiff in a securities class action on behalf of
investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Uniti Group
Inc. ("Uniti" or the "Company") (UNIT) between April 20, 2015 and
February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased Uniti securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Uniti Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that Uniti made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Uniti's
financial results were not sustainable because its customer
Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; and (ii) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Uniti's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 15, 2019, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman
released his finding of facts and conclusions of law declaring that
Windstream breached the indenture and awarded Aurelius a monetary
judgment of $310,459,959.10 plus interest. On this news, the price
of Uniti's common stock fell $7.47 from a close of $19.98 per share
of Uniti common stock on February 15, 2019, to a close of 12.51 per
share of Uniti common stock on February 19, 2019. A drop of
approximately 37.39%

If you purchased Uniti securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/unitigroupinc-unit-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-211/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


UNITI GROUP: Safadi Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Uniti 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 putative class action suit initiated by
Ibrahim E. Safadi.

On October 25, 2019, Ibrahim E. Safadi filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The putative class action seeks to represent investors who acquired
the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15,
2019.

The lawsuit asserts violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by
allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry in the
Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream.  

The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

Uniti said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously, and,
because it is still in its preliminary stages, have not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our
financial position or results of operations."

Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.


UNO RESTAURANT: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. UNO RESTAURANT HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND UNO
RESTAURANTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10960 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26,
2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards
to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls Uno Restaurant
restaurants across the United States. Several of these restaurants
are located in the Southern District of New York. These restaurants
constitute places of public accommodation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


USA: Denial of Writ of Habeas Corpus in Aguilar ICE Suit Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OSCAR ALEXIS GONZALEZ AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. KEVIN
McALEENAN, MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, WILLIAM P. BARR, JOSE M. CORREA,
DEAN KING, and CHAD MILLER, Respondents, Case No. 19-cv-0412 WJ/SMV
(D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico recommended that the
Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on May 3,
2019, be denied.

The Petitioner is a 22-year-old transgender woman from Honduras.
She fled Honduras at age 12 after suffering abuse due to her gender
identity.  She travelled to Mexico where she was held captive in a
Mexican bar, and forced to engage in sex work for about five years.
When she was 17, the Petitioner presented herself to immigration
officials at the U.S.-Mexico border and requested asylum.  She had
no valid entry documents.  She was detained and sent to the San
Diego Juvenile Coordinator.  On July 9, 2014, the Petitioner was
released from custody on an Order of Release on Recognizance.

In August 2017, the Petitioner was arrested in Louisiana and
charged with prostitution and crimes against nature.  The Louisiana
authorities transferred her to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") custody.  ICE revoked her Order of Release on Recognizance
and detained her under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) as an alien
seeking admission into the United States.

The Petitioner has remained in custody since 2017.  She is detained
at the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico.  The
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has repeatedly denied her
requests for parole or to be released on her own recognizance.  

In May 2018, an immigration judge denied her asylum claim and
ordered her removed from the United States to Honduras.  She
appealed that decision.  The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed
her appeal and affirmed her order of removal.  The Petitioner
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit and filed an emergency motion to stay her removal pending
judicial review.

The Tenth Circuit granted Petitioner's motion to stay her removal,
finding that she had made a strong showing that she is likely to
succeed on the merits.  Her removal is stayed pending the Tenth
Circuit's decision on her appeal.

The Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus on May 3, 2019.  She brings her Petition under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241.  She argues that her continued detention violates the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Petitioner asserts that the Court should order the Respondents
to release her from DHS custody because her prolonged and
potentially indefinite detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due
Process Clause.  Alternatively, the Petitioner requests that the
Court orders the  Respondents to release her within 30 days unless
Respondents schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge and
establish that she presents a flight risk or danger to the
community.

The Respondents raise a number of arguments against the Petition.
First, they argue that because Petitioner is an arriving alien who
has not yet been admitted to the United States, she has no
statutory or Fifth Amendment right to a bond hearing or immediate
release.  Second, they contend that even if the Fifth Amendment
protects her from indefinite detention, that right is not
implicated because her detention will not continue indefinitely.
Third, the Respondents argue that Congress has plenary power of
immigration regulation, and Petitioner has received all the process
that Congress has provided her.  Fourth, the Respondents argue that
if the Court were inclined to require a bond hearing, the
government should not bear the burden of proving that the
Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community.  Finally,
the Respondents contend that only Warden Chad Miller -- the person
with custody of Petitioner -- is a proper Respondent.

Because Magistrate Judge Vidmar finds that the DHS is currently
detaining Petitioner under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) after her arrest
in the United States for prostitution.  Though she requests to be
released, the text of Section 1225(b)(2) mandates her continued
detention.  Neither does the text of Section 1225(b) require a bond
hearing.  The Plaintiff does not argue that any other statute
authorizes her release.  The Petitioner's case therefore turns on
whether the Fifth Amendment permits her continued detention under
Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Magistrate Judge must determine (1)
whether the Petitioner has received the process provided by the
relevant statutes, and (2) whether her continued detention violates
the substantive-due-process component of the Fifth Amendment.

First, the Magistrate Judge finds that as an arriving alien who has
not yet entered the United States, the Petitioner is not entitled
to be released or entitled to a bond hearing because the relevant
statutes do not provide for that relief.  The Petitioner is an
applicant for admission detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).
hough the government released her on her own recognizance prior to
her most recent detention, she had not yet been admitted to the
United States and is still considered an arriving alien.
Therefore, she is legally considered to be detained at the border.

Next, the Magistrate Judge turns to the substantive component of
the Due Process Clause.  Any substantive-due-process claim that the
Petitioner could have raised is waived because she has failed to
sufficiently brief one.  Though she does not expressly state
whether she brings her habeas petition under the substantive or
procedural component of the Due Process Clause, the Petitioner
devotes all her briefing to the argument that the United States has
continued to detain her pursuant to an unconstitutional procedure
-- specifically, the lack of a bond hearing.  Such an argument may
raise procedural-due-process concerns, but not a
substantive-due-process claim.  The Magistrate Judge recommends the
Petitioner's Petition.

The Petitioner requests her costs and reasonable attorney fees in
this action under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA").  EAJA
only permits an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees to a
"prevailing party," however.  Because he recommends denying the
Petitioner's Petition, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying her
request for EAJA fees as she is not the prevailing party.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Vidmar recommended that
the Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Findings & Recommended
Disposition is available at https://is.gd/I4jlau from Leagle.com.

Oscar Alexis (Kelly) Gonzalez Aguilar, Petitioner, represented by
Katherine Elizabeth Goettel, National Immigrant Justice Center,
Leon F. Howard, III, ACLU-NM & Tania P. Linares Garcia, National
Immigrant Justice Center.

Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Matthew T. Albence, in
his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official
Performing the Duties of Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, William P Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States, Floyd Sam Farmer, in his official
capacity as Acting Field Office Director, El Paso Field Office,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dean King, in his
official capacity as Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Cibola County
Correctional Center & Chad Miller, in his official capacity as
Warden of the Cibola County Correctional Center, Respondents,
represented by Tiffany L. Walters, U.S. Attorney's Office.


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Tosses Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Jenilee Johnson, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07818 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Martha M. Pacold entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' pending
motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk, status hearing and
motion hearing was held on Dec. 16, 2019.  Defendant, U.S. Asset
Mangement's motion to compel arbitration is voluntarily withdrawn.
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification and defendant
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis' joinder to the motion to compel
arbitration are dismissed

Th Plaintiffs were given until Dec. 23, 2019 to file a new motion
for class certification. Responses to the motion for class
certification will be due on Jan. 24, 2020.

By Jan. 24, 2020, the parties are to work out the deposition
schedule and file a stipulation in regards to an appropriate date
for Plaintiffs to file a reply brief in support of the motion for
class certification, the Court added.[CC]

WHITE STONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE STONE DEVELOPMENTS LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24897-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 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.

On August 12, 2019, and October 22, 2019, the Defendant sent
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 3245. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's
text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., selling the Plaintiff construction services.

The Defendant is a south west Florida developer and general
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILL COUNTY, IL: Walsh, et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK WALSH, SHANE MITCHELL, TERRELL HILL, BRIAN
ENGELSMAN, and WILLIAM HINTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIKE KELLEY, in his
official capacity as sheriff of Will County, Illinois, and WILL
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05405 (N.D.
Ill.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting a motion for class certification of:

      "all individuals presently or in the future detained in the
      Will County Adult Detention Facility (the jail) who are
      subjected to the restrictions on reading materials and
      unreasonable delays in their incoming and outgoing mail
      challenged in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint"; and  

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 847-361-3869

               - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
          3612 N. Tripp Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: 773 283-3913

X FINANCIAL: Faces Ningappa Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVAKUMAR NINGAPPA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. X FINANCIAL, YUE TANG, JIE ZHANG,
SHAOYONG CHENG, DING GAO, SHENGWEN RONG, ZHENG XUE, LONGGEN ZHANG,
RICHARD ARTHUR, COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES INC., CHINA EVERBRIGHT SECURITIES (HK) LIMITED,
CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LTD. and AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS
LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 657033/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 26,
2019), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who
purchased X Financial American Depositary Shares in or traceable to
the Company's September 19, 2018 initial public offering seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

In August 28, 2018, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the
IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on
September 18, 2018.

On September 19, 2018, the Company filed a prospectus for the IPO
on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to sell
to the investing public more than 11.7 million X Financial ADSs
(including the exercise of the underwriters' overallotment option)
at $9.50 per ADS. The Defendants generated more than $111 million
in gross offering proceeds from their sale of X Financial ADSs in
the IPO.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents.

On May 21,2019, during X Financial's earnings call to discuss the
Company's first quarter 2019 results, Defendant Tang admitted that
X Financial was unlikely to achieve significant loan or revenue
growth because its preferred loan business had failed "over the
last year" and that the Company was shelving the entire business.

On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS.
This price represented an 80% decline from the price at which X
Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing public in the IPO.

The Plaintiff purchased ADSs traceable to the IPO and has been
damaged thereby.

X Financial is a financial technology company based in Shenzhen,
China, that provides an online lending and borrowing marketplace.
Yue was X Financial's CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors at
the time of the IPO. He is also the Company's founder. Prior to the
IPO, Defendant Tang owned more than 101 million X Financial
ordinary shares, or approximately 36% of the Company's total
outstanding shares.

The Underwriter Defendants are investment banking houses that
specialize in, inter alia, underwriting public offerings of
securities. They served as the underwriters of the IPO
and shared over $7.3 million in fees collectively for their
services. The Underwriter Defendants determined that in return for
their share of the IPO proceeds, they were willing to solicit
purchases of X Financial ADSs in the IPO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Black, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South S. Drive Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  kennyb@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212 292-5690
          Facsimile: 212 292-5680
          E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com


ZARA USA: Fouts Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nafisa Fouts, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. ZARA USA, INC., a New York corporation, Case No.
2019CH14680 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and to obtain redress for persons injured
by its conduct.

The BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as the
Defendant, may not store an individual's biometric information,
such as fingerprints and hand scans, or any biometric information,
including any data regardless of the manner from which it was
converted unless they first: inform that person in writing that
biometric identifiers or biometric information will be stored;
inform that person the specific purpose of the length of term for
which such biometric identifier or biometric information is being
stored; receive a written release from the person for the storage
of their biometric identifier or biometric information; and publish
publicly available retention guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and biometric information.

This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by the
Defendant. Using biometric enabled technology, the Defendant is
capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the
biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members, without their
informed written consent as required by law, in order to track
their time at work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a resident of the state of Illinois, who
worked at one of the Defendant's store locations in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Defendant is a major national retailer of men's and women's
clothing, shoes and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                 tkingsbury@mcgpc.com


ZERO OTTO: Hoxha Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes Hoxha and Besart Mjeku, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ZERO OTTO NOVE INC. d/b/a TRATTORIA
ZERO OTTO NOVE and ROBERTO PACIULLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-11652
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated gratuities,
liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants began to pay the Plaintiffs and its waitstaff $7.50
per hour for weekly hours worked up to forty, but failed to pay
proper overtime at one-and-one-half times the employees' regular
rate of pay for weekly hours worked over forty, failed to
compensate their employees for all of their hours worked, and
allowed a manager to participate in the waitstaff tip pool and to
retain portions of the tips that customers left for the waitstaff,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as busboys,
also allege that the Defendants also failed to pay its waitstaff
spread-of-hours pay and failed to provide the Plaintiffs and its
waitstaff with wage notices upon hiring and whenever there was a
change to their respective rate(s) of pay.

The Defendants own, operate and do business as Trattoria Zero Otto
November, an Italian restaurant located in, Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 583-9500
          Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 slotnick@pechmanlaw.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Bid for Class Cert. in Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow 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 plaintiffs in
the consolidated class action suit, Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc.
et al., are seeking certification of a class.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in December approved the
case parties' Stipulation and Order re Class Certification Briefing
Schedule . Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion shall be filed no later than February 21,
2020. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their class
certification motion shall be filed no later than April 6, 2020.
Plaintiffs' class certification motion is renoted for April 6,
2020.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
practices.

The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In October 2018, the company's motion to dismiss was granted
without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to
dismiss in December 2018.

On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed
its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019.

On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Zillow Group said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do
not believe a loss related to this complaint is probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.



                            *********

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 2020. 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 ***