/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200127.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 19

                            Headlines

A-S MEDICATION: Sells Contaminated Irbesartan Drugs, Suit Claims
ABBVIE INC: Underpays Domestic Workers, Avila Suit Alleges
ACLARA SMART: Mallory Sues Over Improperly Paid Wages Under FLSA
ACS STAFFING: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in California
AILY FOOT RELAX: Ji Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Definition Amended in Peterson Suit
ALERE HOME: Gooden Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to M.D. Fla.
ALLSTATE FIRE: Breaches Total-Loss Insurance Policy, Lappin Says
AMAZON: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Weak Camera Security

ANIXTER: Robbins LLP Files Shareholder Class Action
ANTHEM INSURANCE: Gonzalez Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
ASSETCARE LLC: Monroe Hits Deceptive Collection Letter
BAMBOO YA: Jianzheng Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
BIGBEAR TRUCKING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Su Claims

BIOSENSE MEDICAL: Removes Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri
CAFE CHINA GROUP: Du Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Torres Sues over Rental Payment Practices
CARAMICO 33 CORP: Ammar Seekss Unpaid Minimum Wages
CENTRAL COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zayika"

CENTURYLINK: Settles Oregon Lawsuit for $4MM Amid Class Action
CERTAINTEED CORP: Fisher Sues Over Defective Symphony Shingles
CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Mislabels Hemp Infused Creams, Benson Alleges
CHINA AUTO: Alternative Service on China Defendants Approved
CHOBANI FARM: Gunaydin Sues Over Underpaid Minimum and OT Wages

CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Class Suits Challenge CertainTeed Merger
DEBT RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zolandz"
DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Suit Alleges Dental Insurance Conspiracy
DETROIT DIESEL: Improperly Pays Employees Under FLSA, Garner Says
DR PEPPER: 9th Circuit Refuses to Reinstate "Diet" Class Action

DROPBOX INC: Macquarie Pulled Into Massive Dropbox Class Action
DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible App
EASTER SEALS: Lanza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ESSENDANT CO: Court Dismisses Class Action vs. Board, Sycamore
EXELON CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over 'Unlawful Lobbying'

FEDEX FREIGHT: Underpays Operation Supervisors, Sabine Alleges
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: April 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FLORIDA PANTHERS: Faces Jairam Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
FLORIDA: Sued Over Recreational Marijuana Petition Restrictions
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action

FS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Tatum Says
G&K HERSHCO: Faces Stringer Suit in Calif. Over Employment Issues
GEICO GENERAL: Subbaiah Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: CP4 Pump Suit Moved to E.D. Mich. to Join Chapman
GLOBAL CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls

GLOBAL PREMIER: Perez Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Telemarketing
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over Location Tracking Survives
GORANT CHOCOLATIER: Hamlin Challenges Violations of FLSA & OMFWSA
GREYSTONE PARK: Faces Class Action Over Hospital Assaults
GRUMA CORP: Olivares Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages

HAPPY RESTAURANT: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
HORMEL FOODS: Chong Hits Fat/Sodium Mislabeling in Spam Product
ICAPITAL FUNDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion
INN OF THE SEVENTH RAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosado Alleges
IOC-CAPE GIRARDEAU: Smith Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.

IOC-CARUTHERSVILLE: Dunlap Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
ISOLVED HCM: Villagomez Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
JAY PEAK: October 2020 Trial Set in EB-5 Scandal Case
JOE'S PUBLIC THEATER: Sued Over Blind-inaccessible Website
JPMORGAN CHASE: Chase Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

JUICY CRAB INC: Hall Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA & FMWA
KEVIN ISON: Final Approval of Simon Case Settlement Sought
KINETICO INC: Fails to Properly Overtime Wages, Fletcher Claims
KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
LABORATORY CORP: Heller Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices

LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Akerman Suit over Proposed Merger
LIFELABS: Collette Parsons Corrin Files Data Breach Class Action
LUCKY 99 CENT: Faces Gomez Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Hestrup Seeks Damages in Opioid Litigation
MATADOR RESOURCES: Martin Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA

MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Foamix Merger-Related Suits Ongoing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Whittington FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MIDLAND CREDIT: Galea Hits Deceptive Collection Letter
MILAN HOTELS: Website Not Accessible, Laufer Suit Alleges
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: George Lehman Class Suit v. Ohr Ongoing

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NICK'S GYRO'S: Djareche Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Sued by Pichardo for Mislabeling OWYN Drinks
PLATINUM BLACK: Underpays Salon Assistants, Sadoyan et al. Claim
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hayden Securities Suit in Calif.

PRO/DATA PAYROLL: HBS Sues Over Unremitted Gov't. Dues
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Did Not Pay Insurance Sales Tax, Suit Claim
PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUAPAW BATHS LLC: Masseuses Sue Over Illegally Withheld Tips
RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Contreras Says

REX MOORE GROUP: Faces Xiong Labor Suit in Sacramento
ROBERT GRONLUND: Class Action Over WARA Violation Certified
ROLLINS INC: Fleming Suit Challenges Excessive Fees in Plans
SECOND STREET PROMENADE: Underpays Line Cooks, Duran Alleges
SELECT COMFORT: Mitchell Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts

SPRINT CORPORATION: Faces Guzman Suit in California Super. Court
STANDDESK INC: Robinson Hits Unpaid Commissions, Retaliation
SUGAR STEEL: Illegally Collects Employees' Biometrics, James Says
TELHIO CREDIT: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of Bryant Suit
TENG DRAGON: Cao Claims, Overtime, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements

TENNESSEE: Harris, et al. Seek to Certify Class
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Faces Lewis Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA
TROPIC OIL CO: Diaz Suit Asserts Ilegal Termination
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action

UNITED STATES: Baley Water Rights Subordinate to Tribe Rights
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: To Pay $135,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
WAREHOUSE SERVICES: Montalvo Seeks to Recover Underpaid Wages
WAWA INC: Faces Cohen Suit in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
WAWA INC: Faces Nine Data Breach Class Actions in Philadelphia

WAWA INC: Faces Rapak Suit in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
WENIG HOLDINGS: Pet Parade Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Fax Ads
WEWORK COMPANIES: Osborne BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Harris Hits Product's False Claims
[*] New Law to Outlaw Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

[*] Pillsbury Winthrop Attorneys Discuss Significant ERISA Cases

                            *********

A-S MEDICATION: Sells Contaminated Irbesartan Drugs, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS LLC;
ACTAVIS, LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; ARROW PHARMA MALTA LTD.;
AUROBINDO; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA; AVKARE, INC.; CAMBER
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. GOLDEN STATE MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC.; HETERO
DRUGS, LIMITED HETERO LABS LTD.; HETERO USA INC. HUAHAI U.S. INC.;
NORTHWIND PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICALS INC.;
SCIEGEN PHARMACEUTICALS; SOLCO HEALTHCARE US, LLC; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
WESTMINSTER PHARMACEUTICALS.; and ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL
CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00310-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.,
Dec. 4, 2019) is an action arising from adulterated, misbranded,
and unapproved Irbesartan-containing drugs ("ICDs") that were
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and sold
by Defendants in the United States.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the ICDs contained
impurities, including, but not limited to, N-Nitroso-dimethylamine
(NDMA), N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), or other nitrosamine
compounds.

For years, the Defendants willfully ignored warnings signs
regarding the operating standards at several of the overseas
manufacturing plants where Defendants' generic ICDs were
manufactured for import to the United States, and knowingly and
fraudulently manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, or distributed
contaminated, adulterated, and misbranded ICDs for consumption in
the United States.

A-S Medication Solutions is headquartered in the United States. The
Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and toiletries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
          626 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 376-7650
          Facsimile: (352) 374-7133


ABBVIE INC: Underpays Domestic Workers, Avila Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NADIA ARDALAN ESPINEL; and ABBVIE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08385 (N.D. Il., Dec. 21, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as domestic
worker.

AbbVie Inc. researches and develops pharmaceutical products. The
Company produces pharmaceutical drugs for specialty therapeutic
areas such as immunology, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis C,
women's health, oncology, and neuroscience. AbbVie also offers
treatments for diseases including multiple sclerosis, parkinson's,
and alzheimer's disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784


ACLARA SMART: Mallory Sues Over Improperly Paid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Mallory, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ACLARA SMART GRID SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 16, 2020), challenges the
Defendant's policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid an hourly wage by the
Defendant. Rather, the Defendant paid her $1.50 per inbound or
outbound phone call she made. She also alleges that the Defendant
did not pay her one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative on October 14, 2019.

The Defendant provides infrastructure solutions to gas, water, and
electric utilities throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 hans@ohlaborlaw.com


ACS STAFFING: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
SILVESTRE MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
aggrieved v. ACS STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; AMR
STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; SSI STAFFING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV45195 (Cal. Super., Dec. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants
have had a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to
the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, in violation of
California's wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required employees to
work more than eight hours per workday, 40 hours per workweek,
and/or seven straight workdays in a workweek without paying them
proper overtime wages; failed to accurately track and/or pay for
all hours actually worked; engaged, suffered or permitted employees
to work off the clock; detrimentally rounded off time entries; and
paid overtime hours at the regular rate of pay or otherwise
improper rate(s) of pay, to the detriment of the Plaintiff and all
other aggrieved employees.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee with
duties that included wrapping pallets, loading and unloading
deliveries in the shipping and receiving departments, among other
duties within the production department, from August 2018 through
mid-October 2018.

ACS is an employment agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


AILY FOOT RELAX: Ji Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
Yong Biao Ji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc., Linda Foot
Relax Spa Station, Xiang Man Zhang and Ke Xue Zheng, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-11881, (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws.

Defendants operate as "Foot Relax Spa Station" where Ji worked as a
masseuse. Ji laims to be denied lawful overtime compensation of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over forty in a given workweek and full and accurate records of
hours and wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com


ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Definition Amended in Peterson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAURA LEE PETERSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM GROUP INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 3:12-cv-00090-TMB (D. Alaska), Judge Timothy M. Burgess of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (i) granted
Defendants Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. and Alaska
Communications Systems Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Amend Class
Definition, and (ii) granted in part and denied in part their
Motion Regarding Manager Class Members.

Peterson, a former sales employee at Alaska Communications System
Group Inc. (ACS), sued ACS on behalf of herself, additional named
Plaintiffs, and a class of potential Plaintiffs for allegedly
violating the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the AWHA.  The instant dispute centers on the
Plaintiff's allegation that ACS improperly classified them and
other Client Account Managers ("CAMs") as exempt under the outside
sales exemption, and that ACS failed to pay overtime in violation
of state and federal law.

On Aug. 28, 2018, the Court certified the class represented by
Peterson as all full-time exempt employees who work or worked for
ACS in the job position which is currently titled Client Account
Manager (I, II, or III), (formerly known as Account Executive or,
in the case of the Carrier/Federal group, Senior Manager or Sr.
CAM), in the ACS Anchorage office from April 30, 2010 through the
date of judgment.

ACS filed the present Motion to Amend on Aug. 13, 2019, requesting
the Court amend the class definition to clarify that it includes
only current and former ACS employees who were employed on or
before March 14, 2019 -- the date the Class Counsel notified the
Class Members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Specifically, ACS argues the Court should adopt the following
definition: All full-time exempt employees who work or worked for
ACS in the job position which is currently titled Client Account
Manager (I, II, or III), (formerly known as Account Executive or,
in the case of the Carrier/Federal group, Senior Manager or Sr.
CAM) (Covered Positions), in the ACS Anchorage office from April
30, 2010 through the date of judgment, but provided their
employment in a Covered Position commenced on or before March 14,
2019.

Peterson filed a Response to the Motion to Amend on Sept. 17, 2019
-- proposing the alternative definition: All current and former
full-time exempt employees who worked for ACS in the job position
which is currently titled Client Account Manager (I, II, or III),
(formerly known as Account Executive or, in the case of the
Carrier/Federal group, Senior Manager or Sr. CAM), in the ACS
Anchorage office at any point between April 30, 2010 and March 14,
2019.

In its Reply, ACS stated that it did not oppose Peterson's proposed
definition.

On Sept. 19, 2012, ACS filed its Motion Regarding Managers, which
raised several questions related to eight absent class members who
currently manage or directly supervise other class members
("Manager Class Members" or the "MCMs").  Specifically, ACS raises
four issues: (1) whether the class definition should be amended to
exclude the MCMs due to a conflict of interest with the non-manager
class members;13 (2) if not, whether ACS may communicate ex parte
with the MCMs concerning their supervision of class members;14 (3)
whether Class Counsel can communicate ex parte with the MCMs about
their supervision of class members;15 and (4) if the class
definition is not amended and ACS is not allowed to communicate ex
parte with the MCMs about their subordinates, whether ACS will be
allowed to conduct additional depositions.

Peterson filed her Response on Oct. 18, 2019; and ACS filed its
Reply on Oct. 25, 2019.

Judge Burgess finds that the proposed modification does not
significantly change numerosity, commonality or typicality, under
Rule 23(a).  Furthermore, the modification decreases "the likely
difficulties in managing a class action" under Rule 23(b)(3)(D).
Additionally, the modification requires no additional discovery and
is generally agreed to by the Parties, neutralizing any prejudice.
In light of these considerations, Judge Burgess finds that
modifying the class to include only individuals employed by ACS
from April 30, 2010 to March 14, 2019 is appropriate.

Turning to ACS' Motion Regarding Managers, first, Judge Burgess
finds that the ACS has borne its burden to demonstrate that Sean
Lindamood ought to be excluded from the class.  Accordingly, ACS'
request that the MCMs be excluded from the class is granted in part
as to Lindamood and denied in part as to the remaining MCMs.

Second, Judge Burgess denied ACS' request to have ex parte
communications with the MCMs.  The Judge  is not persuaded that
ACS' limited ability to communicate with the class members warrants
deviation from the Rules of Professional Conduct.  ACS is to
refrain from discussing the subject of the litigation with any
class member unless it has received the prior consent of the Class
Counsel or leave of the Court.

Third, Lindamood is excluded from the class and is no longer an
MCM.  Therefore, the Class Counsel no longer represents Lindamood
and is precluded from having ex parte contact with him regarding
the litigation unless ACS gives its consent.  Accordingly, ACS'
request that the Class Counsel be prohibited from conducting ex
parte communications with the MCMs is denied as to Kimberly Booth,
Jeffery Glaser, Stephen Heckel, John Hoff, Ernest Hurst, Scott
Johnson, and Brian Solomon, and granted as to Lindamood.  The Class
Counsel is to refrain from discussing the subject of the litigation
with Sean Lindamood unless it has received the prior consent of
ACS's Counsel or leave of the Court.

Finally, Judge Burgess holds that it is unnecessary for the Court
to allow additional depositions at this time.  ACS has not
identified with particularity with which MCMs it wishes to conduct
additional depositions or the number of additional depositions that
are required.  

Accordingly, ACS' request to conduct additional depositions with
the MCMs is denied without prejudice.  The Parties were to meet and
confer without delay to negotiate discovery procedures which will
allow ACS sufficient opportunity to gather necessary information
from the MCMs.  Specifically, the Parties should be prepared to
discuss whether ACS will need to conduct additional depositions of
MCMs.

In sum, Judge Burgess (i) granted ACS' Motion to Amend, and (ii)
granted in part and denied in part ACS' Motion Regarding Managers.


The Class Certification Order be amended to define the class as:
All current and former full-time exempt employees who worked for
ACS in the job position which is currently titled Client Account
Manager (I, II, or III), (formerly known as Account Executive or,
in the case of the Carrier/Federal group, Senior Manager or Sr.
CAM), in the ACS Anchorage office at any point between April 30,
2010 and March 14, 2019.  Sean Lindamood be excluded from the
Class.

Judge Burgess ordered ACS to refrain from discussing the subject of
the litigation with any class member unless it has received the
prior consent of the Class Counsel or leave of the Court.  The
Class Counsel is also ordered to refrain from discussing the
subject of the litigation with Sean Lindamood unless it has
received the prior consent of ACS's Counsel or leave of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lcq22O from Leagle.com.

Laura Lee Peterson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mary L. Holen, Lee
Holen Law Office, Michael Douglas Palmer --
mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Sandford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, pro hac
vice, Nicole Elizabeth Wiitala -- nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com --
Sandford Heisler Sharp, LLP & Melinda Lee Koster --
mkoster@sanfordheisler.com -- Sandford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Janet Furr, Matthew Hemmer, Daniel M. McCormick, Jan Marie Carroll,
Pamela Ramos, Isaac Taylor & Shawna Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented
by Mary L. Holen, Lee Holen Law Office.

Sylvija Kasper, James Kim, Carrie Shephard, aka Carrie McDermott,
Travis Horn, Julie Reich & Becky Baird, Plaintiffs, represented by
Mary L. Holen, Lee Holen Law Office & Michael Douglas Palmer,
Sandford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Hubbs, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sharon Ruth
Hubbs, Plaintiff, represented by Mary L. Holen, Lee Holen Law
Office, Melinda Lee Koster, Sandford Heisler Sharp, LLP, Michael
Douglas Palmer, Sandford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, pro hac vice & Nicole
Elizabeth Wiitala, Sandford Heisler Sharp, LLP.

Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc., doing business as Alaska
Communications & Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc.,
doing business as Alaska Communications, Defendants, represented by
Douglas S. Parker -- dparker@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson &
Erin O. Sweeney -- esweeney@littler.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


ALERE HOME: Gooden Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Yvonne Gooden individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. ALERE
HOME MONITORING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RG19046892, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 16,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00369 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's asserts causes of action for (1) unpaid minimum
wages in violation of Labor Code; (2) failure to timely pay final
wages in violation of Labor Code; (3) failure to provide compliant
wage statements in violation of Labor Code; (4) failure to
reimburse business expenses in violation of Labor Code; and (5)
unlawful business practices in violation of Business and
Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
          Gabriel M. Huey, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: 213-532-2000
          Facsimile: 213-532-2020
          Email: mbeilke@huntonAK.com
                 jtrankiem@huntonAK.com
                 ghuey@huntonAK.com

               - and –

          Jennifer A. Reith, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4604
          Phone: 415-975-3700
          Facsimile: 415-975-3701
          Email: jreith@huntonAK.com


ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned M.P. and S.S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc. (previously
Inamed Corporation), Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan PLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02858 (M.D. Fla., November 19, 2019) was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey on December
30, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-22126.

Plaintiffs seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL (C) saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. On July 24,
2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported cases of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

M.P. and S.S. had BIOCELL implants that are subject of the said
recall. Both were diagnosed with anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
M.P. underwent a bilateral mastectomy but S.S. couldn't have them
removed due to complications. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      SunTrust International Center
      One SE 3rd Ave Ste 2300
      Miami, FL 33131-1715
      Tel: (305) 358-2800
      Fax: (305) 358-2382
      Email: adelriego@podhurst.com

             - and -

      Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 358-2800
      Email: mweinshall@podhurst.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Brian T. Guthrie, Esq.
      SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
      100 N Tampa St Ste 2900
      Tampa, FL 33602-5810
      Tel: (813) 202-7100
      Fax: (813) 221-8837
      Email: bguthrie@shb.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Breaches Total-Loss Insurance Policy, Lappin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Lappin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00107-SL (N.D. Ohio, Jan.
16, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons insured under an
Allstate insurance policy, who suffered a total-loss covered claim
and were not paid the full sales tax, title-transfer fees, and
registration fees due under their policy.

Plaintiff Nicole Lappin is an Ohio citizen and was domiciled in
Summit County, Ohio. The Plaintiff suffered a total loss on an
insured vehicle. The Plaintiff was insured under an Allstate
private passenger auto policy of insurance and made a covered claim
for physical damage.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its policy by
failing to pay the full sales tax, title transfer fees, and
registration fees due under the Policy. In the Policy, the
Defendant's standardized policy language promises, upon the
occurrence of a total loss to an insured vehicle, to provide
payment of the actual cash value of the insured vehicle to the
insured. The Defendant's standardized policy language as to
coverage for ACV of total loss vehicles is present in every auto
policy issued by the Defendant in Ohio during the relevant time
period.

The Policy does not include any requirement that an insured must
purchase a replacement vehicle within 30 days, pay sales tax, title
transfer fees, and registration fees on the replacement vehicle,
and provide proof of payment of tax and fees as a condition to
receiving the full coverage under the Policy, the Plaintiff notes.
Rather, the Plaintiff asserts, the Policy provides that it will pay
ACV.

By imposing an extracontractual condition requiring insureds to
purchase a replacement vehicle and pay sales tax, title-transfer
fees, and registration fees on the replacement vehicle, the
Defendant has breached its insurance policy with the Plaintiff,
says the complaint.

Allstate transacts insurance in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
                 khulick@spanglaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          3331 Sunset Avenue
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com


AMAZON: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Weak Camera Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEPro reports that Ring and Amazon have come under fire in recent
weeks due to a rise of incidents in which hackers gained control of
a user's Ring security camera and began to speak through it.

Motherboard even discovered that hackers created a tool
specifically for compromising Ring cameras.

In addition to scrutiny from these events, Ring and owner Amazon
now have to contend with a class action lawsuit filed by Alabama
resident John Baker Orange.

Orange claims a hacker talked to his children through his Ring
camera while they were outside playing basketball.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California, which makes it a federal lawsuit.

Good Hackers or Bad Passwords?

The lawsuit targets Amazon and Ring's alleged negligence with
regard to security practices.

After the rise of hackings, Ring released a statement saying the
incidents were in no way related to a breach or compromise of the
company's security.

". . . We want to inform you that we have investigated this
incident and have no evidence of an unauthorized intrusion or
compromise of Ring's systems or network," the company posted on its
blog (bold emphasis Ring's).

Instead, it blamed the security breaches on poor password practices
and the lack of utilizing two-factor authentication. Ring does not
make two-factor authentication a requirement, but does emphasize
for customers to enable it in the Ring app.

According to Ring, "Upon learning of the incident, we took
appropriate actions to promptly block bad actors from known
affected Ring accounts and affected users have been contacted. Out
of an abundance of caution, we encourage Ring customers to change
their passwords and enable two-factor authentication."

The lawsuit holds Ring responsible for damages due to negligence,
invasion of privacy, breach of the implied warranty, breach of the
implied contract, unjust enrichment and unfair competition.

The total aggregated claims of class members in the suit exceed $5
million, exclusive of interests and costs.

"Customer trust is important to us, and we take the security of our
devices and services extremely seriously. As a precaution, we
highly encourage all Ring users to follow security best practices
to ensure your Ring account stays secure," Ring posted. [GN]


ANIXTER: Robbins LLP Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP disclosed that a shareholder of Anixter International
Inc. has filed a class action complaint against Anixter (NYSE: AXE)
and Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), among others, for the
proposed acquisition of Anixter by CD&R. Under the terms of the
agreement, CD&R will purchase Anixter for $82.50 per share in
cash.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for Anixter International Inc. and
Its Shareholders?

According to the complaint, on October 29, 2019, Anixter's board
approved a merger agreement with CD&R for $81 per share in cash,
subject to a 40 day go-shop process that would solicit other
potential bidders and included an extended 10-day "Excluded Party"
period that allowed Anixter to continue negotiating with a bidder
that made a proposal during the first phase of the go-shop.
Anixter's board chairman and Anixter's CEO had powerful incentives
to favor this deal with CD&R, including a promise from CD&R that
Anixter's CEO would continue to run the post-merger entity. Then,
in November 2019, rival bidder and Anixter's competitor WESCO
International, Inc. made a superior offer to acquire Anixter for
$90 per share consisting of 70% cash and 30% stock. Following this
offer and in response to a series of increasing offers from
alternate bidders, Anixter made several amendments to its merger
agreement, including materially shortening the length of its
go-shop and excluded party periods as well as increasing its
two-tiered excluded party termination fees. These changes made it
more difficult and expensive for WESCO to acquire the Company and
therefore prevented shareholders from benefitting from the most
favorable merger agreement.

Anixter International Inc. (AXE) Unitholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins LLP -- http://www.robbinsllp.com-- is a nationally
recognized leader in securities litigation and shareholder rights
law. The law 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. [GN]


ANTHEM INSURANCE: Gonzalez Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Diane Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05053 (S.D. Ind., December 30, 2019),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Anthem is a provider of health insurance that utilized prerecorded
messages to place calls to promote its products and services as
part of its marketing strategy. At no point in time did Gonzales
provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using
an automated dialer, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Eisenband, Esq.
      EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
      515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 533-4092
      Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


ASSETCARE LLC: Monroe Hits Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Monroe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Assetcare LLC, CF Medical LLC,
and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05039 (S.D. Tex.,
December 31, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act for
sending written communications that use false, deceptive, and
misleading representations and/or deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt.

CF Medical assumes defaulted consumer medical debts and routinely
hires other debt collectors, such as AssetCare, to collect money on
the defaulted consumer medical debts.

Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by Monroe for
medical services rendered on April 22, 2014, via collection letter
that offered a settlement. Said letter illegally implied to Monroe
that the 50% settlement offer was a one-time take-it-or-leave-it
offer and falsely implied the settlement offer will not be renewed,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Telephone (973) 379-7500
      E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
              Andrew@SternThomasson.com
              Francis@SternThomasson.com

              - and -

      Daniel J. Ciment, Esq.
      CIMENT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      24275 Katy Freeway, Suite 400
      Katy, TX 77494
      Telephone: (833) 663-3289
      E-Mail: Daniel@CimentLawFirm.com


BAMBOO YA: Jianzheng Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jianzheng Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chikurin Japanese Restaurant Inc. and Kwok
Tung Wan, Defendants, Case No. 657774/2019, (N.Y. Sup., December
31, 2019), seeks to recover to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours wage
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws.

Chikurin Japanese Restaurant operates as "Bamboo Ya," a Japanese
restaurant where Jianzheng worked as a general worker. He claims to
be denied lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a given
workweek and spread-of-hours premium for shifts that lasted longer
than ten hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
      Leanghour Lim, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com


BIGBEAR TRUCKING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Su Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XIN SU, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v.
BIGBEAR TRUCKING CORP., a California business; QIANG HUANG, an
individual; HONGXINGZHU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV46141 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 20, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay wages for
all hours worked, to pay overtime wage, and to provide lawful rest
breaks and meal breaks, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Company misclassified the Plaintiff and failed to pay her and
other non-exempt office workers overtime wages pursuant to the
requirement of the law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, residing in California, was an employee of Bigbear,
who worked for two years as a dispatcher.

Bigbear is a freight shipping and trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN
          13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 475
          City of Industry, CA 91746
          Telephone: (562) 692-5828
          Facsimile: (626) 389-5455
          E-mail: Attorney@KellyChenLaw.com


BIOSENSE MEDICAL: Removes Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BIOSENSE MEDICAL DEVICES, LLC; SCOTT ANTHONY CLIMES;
PATRICIA A. CLIMES; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of
Missouri, County of Louis (Case No. 19SL-CC04995) to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on December 20,
2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Missouri
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03303. The case is assigned to Judge
Ronnie L. White.

BioSense Medical Devices, L.L.C. operates as a medical device and
healthcare data management company. The Company provides a
comprehensive diabetes solution consisting of a suite of fully
audible glucose meters that transmit data to the cloud to a
connected health solution. BioSense Medical Devices operates
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
         SPENCER FANE LLP
         13520 California Street, Suite 290
         Omaha, NE 68154
         Telephone: (402) 965-8600
         Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
         E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com

              - and -

         Patrick T. McLaughlin, Esq.
         1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Telephone: (314) 863-7733
         Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
         E-mail: pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com


CAFE CHINA GROUP: Du Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
--------------------------------------------------------
Mei Rong Du, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dingxiang Inc., Cafe China Group LLC,
Shanzha Inc., Yiming Wang, Xian Zhang and Rui Gang Wang,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11924, (S.D. N.Y., December 30, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime
wage compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws.

Dingxiang operates as "Birds of a Feather". Cafe China Group
operates as "China Blue", while Shanzha operates as Cafe China.
These are pastry shops jointly owned/managed by Yiming Wang, Xian
Zhang and Rui Gang Wang. Du, a pastry worker, claims to be denied
lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek and
full and accurate records of hours and wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
      Leanghour Lim, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com


CAMDEN PROPERTY: Torres Sues over Rental Payment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
YVETTE TORRES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT,
INC. d/b/a CAMDEN MARTINIQUE; and DOES 1-50, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10780 (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Dec. 20, 2019), seeks to
stop the Defendants' illegal policy and practice of charging
tenants a liquidated damage fee of $55 for the late payment of
rent, even if the Defendants receive the rent as little as one day
late beyond the grace period and incurred no damages as a result.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants' policy and practice is
to charge tenants late fees of $55 if tenants carry any accrued
balance of unpaid late fees or other charges past subsequent
monthly grace periods, even when the tenants timely pay the monthly
rent itself, and regardless of whether the outstanding balance is
minimal.

The late fee is a liquidated damages penalty, allegedly for the
breach of tenants' rental contracts, and is void under California
laws because it is excessive and bears no relation to any actual
damages incurred by the Defendants when or other fees are paid
late.

Camden Property Trust is a self-administered and self-managed real
estate investment trust. The Company owns and operates multifamily
apartment communities. Camden Property Trust serves customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARAMICO 33 CORP: Ammar Seekss Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ammar on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quentin Carbone, Joseph Carbone and
Caramico 33 Corp., Defendant, Case No. 721620/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
December 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and minimum wage including all tips kept by the employer,
liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Freelance Isn't Free Act and New York labor laws.

Defendants operate a pizzeria where Ammar worked as a freelance
expeditor from June 17, 2019 to September 28, 2019. Ammar claims to
have rendered in excess of 400 hours for the entire duration but
was not paid any compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      T. Bryce Jones, Esq.
      JONES LAW FIRM, P.C.
      450 7th Avenue, Ste. 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 258-0685
      Email: bryce@joneslawnyc.com


CENTRAL COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zayika"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRYNA ZAYIKA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CENTRAL COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00088 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

Attorneys for Iryna Zayika, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

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

CENTURYLINK: Settles Oregon Lawsuit for $4MM Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Iboshi, writing for KGW8, reports that Oregon Attorney General
Ellen Rosenblum announced that CenturyLink will pay $4 million to
the state to settle a lawsuit accusing the internet and TV provider
of deceiving customers.

"Purchasing internet, phone service and cable is confusing enough
without false promises, and confusing prices and fees," Rosenblum
said in a statement.

"The settlement sends a clear message that hidden fees and other
forms of unfair and deceptive business practices will not be
tolerated in Oregon."

Since 2014, more than 1,200 consumers complained to the Oregon DOJ
about CenturyLink. Many CenturyLink customers said they were
charged more than the promised price, received multiple bills each
month for different amounts, were billed for services after they
cancelled service or were billed for modems before they were
installed.

As part of the settlement, CenturyLink will also refund $672,000 to
8,212 Oregonians who were overcharged for their services or didn't
receive the discount promised. Impacted consumers will be contacted
directly by CenturyLink, but any consumers with questions can call
the Oregon AG consumer hotline at 877-877-9392.

Under the settlement, which was filed in Multnomah County Circuit
Court, CenturyLink must:

   * Stop charging new customers the "Internet Cost Recovery Fee",
     a fee that was not always previously disclosed to consumers
     until they received their first bill.

   * Stop charging a "Broadband Cost Recovery Fee".

   * Allow current customers to have an opportunity to
     transition to another plan without the fee.

   * Clearly disclose all mandatory fees and charges in future
     advertisements.

   * Stop charging cancellation and unreturned equipment fees
     if they are not disclosed at the time of sale.

In December, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson
announced that CenturyLink will pay $6.1 million to the state
following a similar lawsuit.

The company is also facing a nationwide class-action lawsuit.

CenturyLink provided the following statement in response to the $4
million settlement with the Oregon DOJ:

"We have appreciated the on-going and productive dialogue with the
Oregon Attorney General's Office. While we disagree with the
Attorney General's position, we believe it is in the best interests
of our company and our customers to amicably resolve these matters.
Toward that end, CenturyLink has entered into an assurance of
voluntary compliance to settle disputed claims and avoid the
distraction and costs of litigation. CenturyLink looks forward to
continuing to serve its Oregon customers consistent with the
company's unifying principles of fairness, honesty and integrity."
[GN]


CERTAINTEED CORP: Fisher Sues Over Defective Symphony Shingles
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK D. FISCHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-06051-NIQA
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's Symphony
shingles were defective as to design and manufacture, causing the
shingles to prematurely deteriorate and making them unfit for their
intended use.

According to the complaint, the installation of defective Symphony
shingles has caused property damage to the Plaintiff and the Class
members. The Defendant's Symphony shingles fail to perform in the
accordance with the reasonable expectations of Plaintiff and the
Class members, the Plaintiff contends. The benefits of the Symphony
shingles design do not outweigh the risk of their failure, he
adds.

As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the
Defendant's Symphony shingles, the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' homes and properties suffered structural roof damage and
other personal property damage, the Plaintiff argues. The Plaintiff
demands judgment against the Defendant for damages and equitable
and injunctive relief under statutory and common law.

Symphony shingles are an engineered polymer composite roofing
product designed to simulate the appearance, texture and contours
of traditional natural slate.

CertainTeed manufactures exterior and interior building materials
and supplies, including roofing, siding, insulation, windows and
foundations. CertainTeed is a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain, a French
corporation listed on numerous stock exchanges across Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Laura K. Mummert, Esq.
          William J. Olson, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399-4770


CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Mislabels Hemp Infused Creams, Benson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shaida Benson, Caitlin Campbell, Chelsey DiDomenico, Amy Hucke,
Craig Looney, Steven Pfister, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHARLOTTE'S WEB HOLDINGS, INC., a
Colorado Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00418 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17,
2020), is brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased the
Defendant's "Soothing Scent Hemp Infused Cream" and "Unscented Hemp
Infused Cream" both of which are promoted as products containing
hemp extract for personal use.

Consumers seek out Cannabidiol (CBD) skin products, such as the
Products, for their skin soothing properties, according to the
complaint. Further, CBD skin care products are often purchased to
help minimize issues related to skin sensitivity, including redness
and reactivity. With knowledge of growing consumer demand for hemp
extract products because of the claimed benefits from use, the
Defendant has marketed the Products both online and on the product
packaging as containing a certain amount of hemp extract and
intentionally conceals that the Products actually contain an amount
of hemp extract significantly less than the amount claimed both
online and on the product packaging, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Defendant has marketed its Products in a consistent and uniform
manner representing that the Products contain "750 MG Hemp
Extract," the Plaintiffs note. However, the Plaintiffs allege, none
of the Products conform to the "750 MG Hemp Extract"
representation. The Plaintiffs say this common misrepresentation
permeates throughout all the products and is located on the front
of each of the Product's label, and is designed to induce buyers to
pay a premium and purchase the product over other moisturizing skin
creams.

The Plaintiffs assert that consumers seeking to alleviate their
pain--often chronic pain--or seeking other alleged health benefits
from the Defendant's Products end up purchasing Products with
negligent efficacy. The Defendant's multiple and prominent
systematic mislabeling of the Products form a pattern of unlawful
and unfair business practices that harm the public.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Unscented Hemp Infused Cream and
Soothing Scent Hemp Infused Cream products manufactured by the
Defendant.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.283.3814
          Fax: 773.496.8617
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and –

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
                 hunter@wbmllp.com
                 dlietz@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 dmagagna@lfsblaw.com


CHINA AUTO: Alternative Service on China Defendants Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACY VANDERHOEF, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS INC.,
TONG SHIPING, and WANG XINWEI, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10174-CCC-SCM (D. N.J), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
Motions by Lead Plaintiffs, Zengyu He, Harold Brooks Moss, and
Andrew Pagliara ("He Plaintiffs") for Alternative Service on
Defendants Tong Shiping, Cheng Weihong, Wang Xinwei, Lv Fuqi, Bai
Shaoha and Yang Lili ("China Defendants") and Defendant Howard
Barth by serving the counsel representing each of the defendants in
another action.

The He Plaintiffs commenced the federal securities class action in
the District of New Jersey against China Auto and the China
Defendants on behalf of the putative class consisting of all
persons and entities who possessed publicly traded securities of
China Auto between March 28, 2017 and Sept. 5, 2018.  The China
Defendants are officers and directors of China Auto.

On April 6, 2018, a separate action was filed against the China
Defendants in the District of Nevada.  A U.S. based counsel at the
law firm Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP represents the China
Defendants in the Nevada Action.  In January 2019, China Auto's
counsel provided the China Defendants' addresses in the People's
Republic of China.  The He Plaintiffs then submitted all the
requisite service forms and papers to China's Central Hague
Authority pursuant to the Hague Convention.

On April 25, 2019, the He Plaintiffs filed the current Motion for
Alternative Service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3).  They assert that
service on the China Defendants' U.S.-based counsel in the Nevada
Action will provide constitutionally adequate notice. The He
Plaintiffs further argue that service on the China Defendants
through other means is unduly burdensome.

On May 6, 2019, the China Defendants filed their Brief in
Opposition, requesting the motion be denied.  They aver that the He
Plaintiffs failed to make a good faith attempt to serve them under
the Convention, and that their U.S. counsel is not authorized to
accept service on their behalf.

On May 13, 2019, the He Plaintiffs filed a Reply within which they
argue that the Convention is only mandatory when service of process
occurs in a foreign jurisdiction.  They aver that Rule 4(f)(3) does
not require the China Defendants to authorize their U.S. counsel to
accept service as long as the service comports with due process
requirements.  On July 5, 2019, the He Plaintiffs filed the current
Motion for Alternative Service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) with
respect to Defendant Barth.  The July 5th motion largely mirrors
the April 25th motion, asserts that service on the Barth's U.S.
based counsel in the Nevada Action will provide constitutionally
adequate notice.

On July 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit in Support of
the Motion for Alternative Service on Defendant Barth, stating that
despite hiring a local process server, in compliance with the Hague
Convention in Canada, they were unable to successfully serve
Defendant Barth at the provided address in Ontario.

On Aug. 23, 2019, the He Plaintiffs received and filed certificates
of non-service from the Chinese authorities with respect to
Defendants Tong Shiping, Cheng Weihong, Bai Shaohua, and Lv Fuqi at
the addresses provided by CALI, stating there was no such person
and company at the address provided.  On Nov. 5, 2019, the He
Plaintiffs similarly received and filed certificates of non-service
with respect to Defendants Wang Xinwei and Yang Lili, stating that
Lili does not live at the address provided, the house located there
has been demolished, and the process server was unable to serve
Xinwei after multiple attempts.  Furthermore, the He Plaintiffs
claim that no one who resides at the addresses provided has ever
heard of the respective Defendants, at least one address has been
unoccupied for a least a year, and the Plaintiffs know of no other
addresses for the Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mannion opines that the He Plaintiffs' proposed
method of alternative service on the China Defendants' U.S. counsel
is not prohibited by international law, specifically the
Convention, of which the United States and China are both
signatories.  The China Defendants incorrectly assert that the He
Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the requirements of the Convention.
The He Plaintiffs' proposed method of service is not governed by
the Convention because it does not require the delivery of
documents abroad.  Rather, the He Plaintiffs seek an order
permitting service on the China Defendants' U.S. counsel.  Because
the He Plaintiffs do not seek transmittal of service abroad,
alternative service on the China Defendants' U.S. counsel pursuant
to Rule 4(f)(3) is not prohibited by the Convention.

Moreover, complying with the Hague Convention would unnecessarily
delay the case.  The He Plaintiffs have established they have made
efforts to serve the China Defendants personally, by having an
investigator research potential addresses and by attempting to
serve them at the addresses associated with them.  They have
actually attempted to comply with the Hague with respect to the
Chinese Defendants and Defendant Barth, both to no avail.  Even so,
nothing in Rule 4(f) itself or controlling case law suggests that a
court must always require a litigant to first exhaust the potential
for service under the Hague Convention before granting an order
permitting alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3).

Finally, the He Plaintiffs' proposed alternative service through
U.S. counsel appears reasonably calculated to provide the China
Defendants notice.  Beyond briefs and filings, the He Plaintiffs
assert, and the China Defendants do not deny, that the China
Defendants are currently engaged in the Nevada Action through the
U.S. counsel to be served.  The He Plaintiffs' requested service
through the China Defendants' U.S. counsel in the Nevada Action is
reasonably calculated to apprise them of the current action against
them and therefore satisfies due process requirements.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Mannion granted the He
Plaintiffs' Motions for Alternative Service pursuant to Rule
4(f)(3).  

The Plaintiffs may effect service on Defendant Howard Barth by
mailing a copy of the Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations
of Federal Securities Laws and summons to the counsel who are
representing Mr. Barth in a related derivative action, Barna
Capital Group Ltd. v. Shiping, et al., Case No. A-18-772474-B (Nev.
Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty.), Joni Jacobsen, Esq. and Christopher
Burrichter, Esq. of the law firm, Dechert LLP.

The Plaintiffs may effect service on the China Defendants by
mailing a copy of the Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations
of Federal Securities Laws and summons to the counsel who are
representing the China Defendants in a related derivative action,
Barna Capital Group Ltd. v. Shiping, et al., Case No. A-18-772474-B
(Nev. Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty.), Michael Gayan, Esq. and Jon Randall
Jones, Esq. of the law firm Kemp, Johnes & Coulthard, LLP.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Judge Mannion's Nov. 26, 2019
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/iFM9NX from
Leagle.com.

Keerthipati Venkateswarlu, Movant, represented by CORREY ANN KAMIN
-- ckamin@hs-law.com -- Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP.

SHERYL MINTZ GOSKI, Mediator, pro se.

ZHENGYU HE, HAROLD BROOKS MOSS & ANDREW PAGLIARA, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

TRACY VANDERHOEF, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS INC., Defendant, represented by GEORGE PETER
BARBATSULY -- george.barbatsuly@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP &
MEGHAN T. MEADE -- meghan.meade@klgates.com -- K&L Gates.


CHOBANI FARM: Gunaydin Sues Over Underpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Musap Gunaydin, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. CHOBANI FARM CORP. d/b/a CHOBANI FARM,
MUSTAFA ERSOY, SABRI OKKE, and FILIZ YAZICI a/k/a ESRA FILIZ
YAZICI, Case No. 1:20-cv-00271 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week during his employment with the Defendants, but did not
receive any overtime pay for those hours nor was he paid time and
one half his regular rate.  He adds that he regularly worked more
than 10 hours per day during his employment with the Defendants,
but did not receive spread-of-hours pay for those days. As a
result, he argues, his effective rate of pay was always below the
statutory federal and state minimum wages in effect.

Mr. Gunaydin is a New York resident and was employed by the
Defendants as a cashier/cleaner/runner.

The Defendants owned and operated a Fruit Vegetable Store in New
York under Chobani Farm Corp. d/b/a Chobani Farm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Phone: 718-269-2240
          Email: Plynch@saccofillas.com


CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Class Suits Challenge CertainTeed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Building Products, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 16,
2020, that the company is facing three putative class action suits
related to its agreement and plan of merger with CertainTeed Gypsum
and Ceilings USA, Inc.

On November 12, 2019, Continental Building Products, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with CertainTeed Gypsum and Ceilings USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), Cupertino Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A., a societe anonyme organized
under the laws of France (the "Guarantor").

The Merger Agreement provides, among other things and subject to
the terms and conditions set forth therein, that Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

In connection with the Merger, between December 19, 2019 and
December 27, 2019, three putative class actions complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and members of the Company's board of directors
(the "Litigation").

The complaints are brought by putative stockholders of the Company
and allege, among other things, that the disclosures in the
Company's December 30, 2019 Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy
Statement") violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder,
including because the Proxy Statement omitted material information,
rendering it false and misleading.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief,
including unspecified monetary damages, legal fees, and injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Litigation are
without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law. However, in order to moot the plaintiffs'
unmeritorious disclosure claims, to avoid the risk of the
Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement .

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3aHcVQU.

Continental Building Products, Inc. provides construction products.
The Company manufactures gypsum wall board, joint compound and
complementary finishing products. Continental Building Products
serves the residential, commercial, and repair and remodel
construction markets in North America. The company is based in
Herndon, Virginia.


DEBT RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zolandz"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00089
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

Attorneys for Iryna Zayika, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

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

DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Suit Alleges Dental Insurance Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Delta Dental Insurance Company and various
affiliated entities alleges that the Defendants have engaged in the
conspiracy of allocating territories of operation within the U.S.
The Defendants are independent companies who have agreed with each
other to allocate markets into geographic areas in which they agree
not to compete. The contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per
se violation of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit contends. Its harm is
reflected in suppression of compensation below levels that would
prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists who are members of
the Delta Dental provider network, as well as in the value and
choices of dental care available to patients who are subscribers to
the dental insurance provided by Delta Dental.

The case is captioned as DR. JACK BALDWIN, DDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL
PLANS ASSOCIATION; DELTAUSA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
ARKANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF
COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
IDAHO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
INDIANA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC.; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE CORP.; DENTAL
SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MICHIGAN,
INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA
DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA;
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA;
OREGON DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL
OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF
SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF
WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WYOMING, Defendants, Case
No. 0:19-cv-03141 (D. Minn., Dec. 20, 2019).

Delta Dental Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, dental, and disability insurance
services. Delta Dental Insurance Company serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

Delta Dental Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, dental, and disability insurance
services. Delta Dental Insurance Company serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
         Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
         HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
         310 Clifton Avenue
         Minneapolis, MN 55403
         Telephone: (612) 338-4605
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
         E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                 vesades@heinsmills.com

              - and -

         Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
         Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
         485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (646) 722-8500
         Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
         E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
                 choltzman@gelaw.com

              - and -

         William A. Isaacson, Esq.
         Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
         BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
         1401 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 237-2727
         Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
         E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                 mzappala@bsfllp.com


DETROIT DIESEL: Improperly Pays Employees Under FLSA, Garner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Garner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00109-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, Jan. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's practices
and policies of not properly paying its non-exempt employees for
all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Mr. Garner the Defendant failed to properly pay its employees for
all hours worked, including overtime compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours
they worked over 40 in a workweek. He estimates that he worked on
average between 40 and 50 hours per workweek but he was not paid
overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Garner was employed by the Defendant between July 2019
and September 2019 as a picker/packer at its Canton, Ohio
facility.

The Defendant manufactures vehicle parts and operates distribution
centers/warehouses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


DR PEPPER: 9th Circuit Refuses to Reinstate "Diet" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Einhorn, writing for NBC News, reports that a federal appeals
court has ruled that there's  nothing deceptive about calling a
soda "diet," even if it doesn't help you lose weight.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco declined to reinstate a class-action lawsuit by a
California woman who accused the makers of Diet Dr Pepper of false
advertising for using the word "diet" in the product's name.

"Dictionary definitions of the term 'diet' commonly refer to weight
loss, or to other health benefits resulting from a special or
limited selection of food or drink," the woman, Shana Becerra,
asserted in her suit.

She said she had been drinking Diet Dr Pepper for 13 years,
believing it would help her lose weight. She felt cheated when it
didn't.

The suit, which also said decades of advertising featuring skinny
models enjoying the drink was deceptive, argued that aspartame, the
calorie-free sweetener in Diet Dr Pepper, can, in fact, lead to
weight gain and other health challenges.

But the court rejected those claims, upholding a lower court
decision that found that the drink's maker, Dr Pepper/Seven Up
Inc., had broken no laws and that the studies Becerra cited about
aspartame were insufficient.

In an opinion that came down on Dec. 30, Senior Circuit Judge Jay
Bybee wrote that the definition of "diet" changes depending on
whether the word is used as a noun, a verb or an adjective.

While Becerra had claimed that the word was a noun or a verb
meaning "he is dieting" or "she is starting a diet," Bybee said
that when it's used as an adjective or a proper noun, the word can
mean "reduced in or free from calories."

"When considering the term in its proper context, no reasonable
consumer would assume that Diet Dr Pepper's use of the term 'diet'
promises weight loss or management," Bybee wrote.

He added: "In common usage, consumers know that Diet Dr Pepper is a
different product from Dr Pepper -- different not only in name, but
in packaging and, importantly, taste."

Becerra and her attorneys didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment. Neither did attorneys for Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc.
[GN]


DROPBOX INC: Macquarie Pulled Into Massive Dropbox Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Macquarie Group's US advisory and capital markets arm has been
pulled into a class action brought by investors against cloud
storage technology darling Dropbox over the billions of dollars of
lost shareholder wealth since its 2018 float.

The case, filed in the District Court for Northern California,
alleges that San Francisco-based Dropbox and the underwriters of
its 2018 float, including Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc, made
misleading statements during its initial public offering, causing
its share price to be artificially inflated.

Macquarie has been named in the legal action as one of the
"underwriter defendants", alongside other investment banks
including Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs.

Shareholders allege Dropbox misled investors about the company's
ability to monetise its customer base, with documents presented to
investors saying it had 300 million customers it could monetise,
despite Dropbox knowing far fewer customers would actually pay for
its product.

"Less than 1 per cent of the '300 million' registered users were
likely to be added to the company's paying user base in the year
following the IPO, and internal Dropbox data had demonstrated that
the company was tracking behind its budgeted monetisation targets,"
court documents allege.

"Indeed, the company was on track to convert only 1.7 million
registered users to paying users in all of 2018, or approximately
0.6 per cent of the 300 million advertised figure," the claim
states.

Shareholders also allege company insiders sold stock and earned
more than $184 million through the IPO.

The investors allege the underwriters, including Macquarie, aided
the company in misleading potential shareholders.

"The underwriter defendants and their agents and representatives
met with potential investors and presented favourable, but
materially incorrect and/or misleading, information about the
company, its business, products, plans and financial prospects
and/or omitted to disclose material information required to be
disclosed under the federal securities laws.

"The underwriter defendants also purported to conduct an adequate
and reasonable 'due diligence' investigation into the company's
business, operations, products, plans and prospects."

Shareholders allege these misleading statements caused them
losses.

Dropbox raised about $US756 million ($1.07 billion) in its float
where new shares were priced at $US21 each. The tech darling had a
stellar debut on Nasdaq, closing its first day of trading up over
30 per cent to more than $US28.

At one point its market capitalisation was $US12 billion. But
Dropbox's slowing revenue growth has seen the value of its shares
fall in recent months to below $US17. It is now worth $US7.4
billion.

Shareholders allege they were also misled in IPO documents about
the prospects of Dropbox's revenue growth, given they highlighted
annual revenue growth of 40 per cent in 2016 and 31 per cent in
2017.  Its revenue growth has since decelerated to 27 per cent in
2018 and is expected to be just 19 per cent for 2019.

According to the shareholder claim, the IPO registration statement
stated: "Our revenue growth rate has declined in recent periods and
may continue to slow in the future."

But the shareholders allege the document, the company and the
underwriters "failed to disclose what the company's own internal
analyses were showing that revenue growth deceleration was then
occurring".

Macquarie and Dropbox have been contacted for comment. [GN]


DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-20232-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by offering
and maintaining a mobile application that is not fully accessible
and independently usable by visually impaired consumers.

Ms. Lucius contends that the Defendant's app does not properly
interact with Apple's assistive technology in a manner that will
allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it
provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired.
The Plaintiff has downloaded and attempted to patronize the
Defendant's app in the past and intends to continue to make further
attempts to patronize the Defendant's app.

Unless the Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers
at issue and required to change its policies so that access
barriers do not reoccur on the Defendant's app, the Plaintiff
asserts she will continue to be denied full and equal access to the
app, and will be deterred from fully using the Defendant's app or
shopping at the physical locations. The Plaintiff has suffered, and
continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the result of
the discriminatory conditions present at the Defendant's app, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine years.

The Defendant offers its app to the general public from which it
sells a variety of shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-351-2014
          Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com


EASTER SEALS: Lanza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgardo Lanza, and other similarly situated individuals v. EASTER
SEALS SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-20198-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges he worked in excess of 40 hours every week,
but he was paid for just 40 regular hours. He adds that he was not
paid for a minimum of 4.5 overtime hours weekly. Therefore, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at
the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that
he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance employee.

EASTER SEALS is a non-profit provider of health and human services
to children and adults with physical and mental disabilities and
special needs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ESSENDANT CO: Court Dismisses Class Action vs. Board, Sycamore
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Braithwaite, writing for opi.net, reports that a US court has
dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against Essendant's former
board of directors and Sycamore Partners over allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duty.

At the end of October 2018, Essendant shareholders filed a class
action complaint in a Delaware court alleging the company's board
had failed to obtain the highest reasonable value for the
wholesaler by agreeing to be acquired by Staples' owner Sycamore
Partners. The complaint also alleged Sycamore and Staples had aided
and abetted the Essendant board in these fiduciary breaches. A
later amendment added a claim against Sycamore for breaching its
fiduciary duties as a controlling shareholder in Essendant and
against the Essendant board for aiding and abetting Sycamore's
alleged breach.

In April 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the claims. In his
ruling made at the start of this week, Joseph Slights, Vice
Chancellor at the Delaware Court of Chancery, sided with the
defendants on all counts.

The class action ruling does not affect a separate lawsuit filed
against Essendant by Genuine Parts.  This complaint is also being
heard in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and a motion by Essendant
to dismiss was rejected by Slights last September. [GN]


EXELON CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over 'Unlawful Lobbying'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of the
deadline to file regarding claims against Exelon Corporation (EXC)
for possible breaches of Federal Securities law.

According to the filed complaint, on July 15, 2019, the Company
filed an 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon and
Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd") had "received a grand jury subpoena
from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Illinois requiring production of information concerning their
lobbying activities in the State of Illinois."  Thereafter, on
October 9, 2019, Exelon filed another 8-K disclosing that, on
October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "received a second grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois that requires production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities, including
Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval."

On October 15, 2019, Exelon issued a press release announcing,
without explanation, that Anne Pramaggiore, CEO of Exelon
Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd had resigned. Analysts
following Exelon concluded that the subpoenas and Pramaggiore's
abrupt resignation were related. Following this news, Exelon's
stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%, to close at $44.91 per
share on October 16, 2019.

On November 1, 2019, the Chicago Tribune reported that "[a] source
with knowledge of the case in Chicago" confirmed that "Pramaggiore
is one focus of the ongoing federal investigation." According to
the same article, "[t]he ComEd lobbying investigation dates to at
least mid-May, when the FBI executed search warrants at the homes
of former lobbyist Mike McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of
House Speaker Michael Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael
Zalewski." Following this news, Exelon's stock price fell an
additional $0.15 per share to close at $45.34 per share on November
1, 2019.

The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in
unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing increased the risk
of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii) ComEd's revenues
were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, Exelon's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Exelon between February 9, 2019 and
November 1, 2019 and wish to discuss the legal ramifications of the
investigation, or have any questions, you may e-mail or call the
law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or
cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. The deadline for
filing is February 14, 2020. You may contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire
or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/exelon-corporation-nasdaq-exc/,
or by calling toll free 877-534-2590.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country
to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.
[GN]


FEDEX FREIGHT: Underpays Operation Supervisors, Sabine Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SABINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situate, Plaintiff v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
99765777 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade Cty., Dec. 4, 2019) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Sabine was employed by the Defendant as operation
supervisor.

FedEx Freight Inc. provides delivery and transportation services.
The Company offers courier, mails, freight, pack shipments, bill of
lading, billing adjustments, shipping documents, proof of delivery,
and pickup schedule services. FedEx Freight serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Bujan, Esq.
          Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: Dbujan@rgpattorneys.com
                  pmh@rgpattorneys.com
                  Ns@rgpattorneys.com


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: April 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY OF SUNRISE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RONALD F. CLARKE, and
ERIC R. DEY, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-02207-LMM, (N.D. Ga.), a hearing
has been set on April 14, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. to consider the
proposed class settlement.

The case involves all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of FleetCor Technologies, Inc.
("FleetCor") from February 5, 2016 through May 3, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case has been certified as a class action on behalf of the
Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of
the Action for $50,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve
all claims in the Action.

The April 14 hearing will be held before the Honorable Leigh Martin
May at the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Courtroom 2107 of the Richard B. Russell Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive SW,
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309.

The settlement fairness hearing will determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
November 6, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved.

A member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment
under the proposed Settlement, must submit a Claim Form postmarked
no later than May 13, 2020.  If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than March 24, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than March 24, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

The Lead Counsel in the case is:

         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Tel No: (800) 380-8496
         Email: settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         FleetCor Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 2312
         Portland, OR 97208-2312
         1-833-935-1366
         www.FleetCorSecuritiesLitigation.com


FLORIDA PANTHERS: Faces Jairam Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Jairam and Kevin Hillow, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FLORIDA PANTHERS HOCKEY CLUB, LTD.,
Case No. 0:20-cv-60112-RKA (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

In an effort to boost attendance at its games, the Defendant
engages in deceptive and aggressive telemarketing, the Plaintiffs
allege. Specifically, the Plaintiffs say, the Defendant lures
consumers to provide their telephone numbers to it in exchange for
promises of free gifts and/or coupons. Once a consumer provides
their telephone number, the Defendant automatically opts these
unsuspecting consumers into its text messaging marketing campaigns.
To make matters worse, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendant
provides consumers with no mechanism or instructions on how to
opt-out of its aggressive text message spam.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs believed they were
providing their numbers to the Defendant in connection with a
specific promotion. The Defendant captured the Plaintiffs' cellular
telephone numbers, automatically opted them into its marketing
campaigns, and relentlessly spammed the Plaintiffs with
solicitations about its games. The Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of
the Plaintiffs and Class Members, causing them injuries, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons, who were residents of Broward
County and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant is a professional ice hockey team and a member of the
National Hockey League.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FLORIDA: Sued Over Recreational Marijuana Petition Restrictions
---------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 13 News reports that a group is suing the state of Florida to
get recreational marijuana on the 2020 ballot.

They're called "Make it Legal Florida" and members say the state is
imposing unnecessary roadblocks on a petition to let voters decide
in November.

As reported by WINK out of Fort Myers, the class action lawsuit
centers on a law signed last spring that placed additional
restrictions on gathering signatures. Specifically, the
pro-cannabis group argues that the February 1 deadline for their
petition is getting undercut by the fact that county supervisors
need a 30-day window to verify and report signatures beforehand.
The stipulation effectively pushes the deadline up to January 2.

The court filing argues that the law is unconstitutional and Make
it Legal Florida says that problems with a state database are
hurting its efforts to get recreational marijuana on the ballot. If
the proposed constitutional amendment does make it into voting
booths come November, voters would decide whether adults 21 and
older could have as much as 2.5 ounces of marijuana for personal
use.

The group wants more time to get the signatures necessary for a
vote. It needs more than 766,000 validated signatures to get the
measure on the November ballot. The state reports having less than
a third that many. [GN]


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under
20-cv-00076, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout securities between
February 7, 2019, and October 9, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Forescout securities during
the class period, you have until March 2, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Forescout was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.  The Company provides network security products in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and
Japan, selling its products and services through distributors and
resellers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout was experiencing
significant volatility with respect to large deals and issues
related to the timing and execution of deals in the Company's
pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
("EMEA"); (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, Forescout issued a
press release announcing preliminary third quarter 2019 ("3Q19")
financial results.  That press release lowered 3Q19 revenue
guidance to $90.6 million to $91.6 million, compared to prior
revenue guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8 million, and market
consensus of $100.52 million.  In explaining these results,
Defendants cited "extended approval cycles which pushed several
deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in
EMEA."

On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
37.32%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019.

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

Contact:

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


FS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Tatum Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DWIGHT TATUM, JR. v. FS HOLDINGS, LLC dba ImageFirst
Healthcare Laundry Specialists and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 19STCV45239 (Cal. Super., Dec. 16, 2019), alleges that
ImageFirst committed various violations of the California Labor
Code with respect to its employment of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated aggrieved employees.

The lawsuit is brought for damages resulting from the Defendants'
failure to compensate for all hours worked; to pay minimum wages;
to pay overtime; to provide accurate itemized wage statements; to
pay wages owed every pay period; to maintain accurate records; to
give rest breaks; to give meal breaks; to reimburse business
expenses; and to pay wages when employment ends.

The Plaintiff started working for ImageFirst as a delivery driver
on March 9, 2019. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly,
non-exempt employee and was paid on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff's
employment with ImageFirst ended on May 7, 2019.

The Plaintiff contends that ImageFirst did not provide him and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages
to which they were entitled for work performed "off the clock" and
as such did compensate them for all hours worked, pursuant to
California Labor Code. This is so because they would consistently
work through their meal periods and would not actually receive a
thirty-minute uninterrupted meal period where they were relieved of
all work duties, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff also alleges that ImageFirst failed to pay him and
others overtime wages, even though they worked more than 8 hours
per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. He
asserts that their actual work hours entitled them to overtime
compensation and to the correct amount of overtime compensation
under the law.

Image First offers linen rental and healthcare laundry services to
hospitals and outpatient facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G&K HERSHCO: Faces Stringer Suit in Calif. Over Employment Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G&K Hershco Inc. The
case is captioned as Britani Stringer, on behalf of all Other
Similarly Situated v. G&K Hershco Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2019-00271845-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 20, 2019).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

G&K Hershco, founded in 1997, is engaged in corporate management,
scientific and technical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Daniel Weaver, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES APC
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: aweaver@scalaw.com


GEICO GENERAL: Subbaiah Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Poonam Subbaiah, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Geico
General Insurance Company, Defendant, and Martisha Ann Munoz and
Cindy Ventrice-Pearson, the Movants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06717-AB-MRW,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 16, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-08164-SK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

The suit alleges violation of Insurance related laws.

GEICO is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in
Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Joshua Adam Fields, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jf@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

               - and -

          Connor M. Karen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: cmk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ian Scott Shelton, Esq.
          Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 844-2965
          Facsimile: (916) 241-0501
          E-mail: IanShelton@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Joseph R Ashby, Esq.
          SERGENIAN ASHBY LLP
          1055 West Seventh Street 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 318-7771
          Facsimile: (323) 248-8989
          E-mail: joseph@sergenianashby.com

The Movants are represented by:

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
                  jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Ryan Michael Vincent Stewart, Esq.
          MONEYMAKER AND STEWART LLP
          14201 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 14201
          Dana Point, CA 92629
          Telephone: (949) 668-0611
          Facsimile: (949) 396-2841
          E-mail: rstewart@moneymakerlaw.net


GENERAL MOTORS: CP4 Pump Suit Moved to E.D. Mich. to Join Chapman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar grants the parties' joint stipulation
transferring their consolidated lawsuit styled as In re: General
Motors LLC CP4 Fuel Pump Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-07054-JST,
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

The Michigan District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-10109-JEL-DRG to the proceeding.  The Parties agreed to
transfer this case to Michigan for coordination or consolidation
with a parallel case pending in that court (Chapman v. General
Motors LLC, 2:19-cv-12333-TGB).

On November 20, 2018, this putative class action was filed alleging
a defect in certain model year 2011-2016 GMC and Chevrolet trucks,
and model year 2010-2011 GMC and Chevrolet vans, equipped with 6.6L
Duramax diesel engines containing CP4 fuel pumps ("Class
Vehicles").

This case was filed as Moonan v. General Motors, LLC,
3:18-cv-07054-JST (N.D. Cal.), but was styled In re: General Motors
LLC CP4 Fuel Pump Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07054-JST (N.D.
Cal.), after consolidation with a subsequently filed case, Smith v.
General Motors Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-00021-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Within weeks, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed two other putative
class actions alleging identical fuel pump defects, one on behalf
of all Florida purchasers of the Class Vehicles in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and another on
behalf of all Texas purchasers of the Class Vehicles in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Plaintiffs in the California, Florida, and Texas actions allege
claims for: (i) fraud, (ii) violations of their respective state
consumer protection statutes, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability, and (v) breach of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).

On August 6, 2019, eight plaintiffs filed a putative class action
in the Eastern District of Michigan, Chapman v. General Motors LLC,
2:19-cv-12333-TGB (E.D. Mich.). The Michigan plaintiffs allege
identical fuel pump defects and assert claims on behalf of
statewide classes of Class Vehicle purchasers under the laws of 47
states and the District of Columbia for (i) fraud, (ii) violations
of state consumer protection statutes, (iii) unjust enrichment, and
(iv) breach of implied warranty.  The Michigan plaintiffs also
allege violations of the MMWA on behalf of a nationwide class.

On September 26, 2019, this case was stayed after the Plaintiffs in
this action, together with the Texas, Florida, and Michigan
plaintiffs, filed a motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The
Plaintiffs asked the JPML to centralize 10 putative class actions
involving CP4 fuel pumps brought separately against GM, Ford, and
FCA in either the Northern District of California or the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On December 18, 2019, the JPML denied the motion to transfer,
citing numerous automaker-specific and plaintiff-specific factors
that it believed made the cases unsuitable for MDL treatment.  To
conserve the resources of the Court and the Parties, the Parties
agree to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordination or consolidation with the parallel Chapman case
pending in that court.

The Parties agree that neither side is prejudiced by the agreements
set forth in the Stipulation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          Rudy Gonzales, Jr., Esq.
          Lauren Akers, Esq.
          Bradford P. Klager, Esq.
          HILLIARD, MARTINEZ, GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          Email: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
                 rudy@hmglawfirm.com
                 lakers@hmglawfirm.com
                 brad@hmglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 244-3204
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3334
          Email: Andrew@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          Steven Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathaniel P. Bualat, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 986-2800
          Fax: (415) 986-2827
          Email: nbualat@crowell.com

               - and –

          Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-624-2600
          Fax: 202-628-5116
          Email: ksooy@crowell.com
                 aross@crowell.com


GLOBAL CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GLOBAL CAPITAL TRADING LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:20-cv-00350
(N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in contacting
the Plaintiff on  its cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading its privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.

The Plaintiff, a corporation of the state of California, contends
that the Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable
practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone
solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under
TCPA.

Global Capital Trading LLC is a business loan 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


GLOBAL PREMIER: Perez Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL PREMIER BENEFITS, LLC, a Maryland Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-20219-CMA (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17,
2020), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for its
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a health insurance brokerage with clients and
agents in more than 16 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over Location Tracking Survives
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Cushing, writing for Tech Dirt, reports that a 2018 lawsuit
[PDF] against Google over location tracking survives, but only
just.  The lawsuit -- filed after a report showed Google was still
collecting location data even after users shut off location
services on Android phones -- alleges Google violated California
laws and privacy protections by tracking users (including children)
after it had been told not to.

The lawsuit has been dismissed, but the court is giving the
plaintiffs a chance to amend the lawsuit and suggesting there are
issues the court alone can't decide.

The plaintiffs allege they were led to believe Google would no
longer collect and store location data when "Location History" was
shut off.  They cite Google's own support page, which (formerly)
stated "With Location History off, the places you go are no longer
stored."  The court says this language could have misled users, no
matter what Google's Privacy Policies and Terms of Services
actually said about location data:

   Drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, a reasonable
   user could believe that disabling Location History prevented
   Defendant from collecting and storing geolocation data. This
   conclusion is bolstered by the fact that many people were
   mislead by the effect of disabling Location History. Moreover,
   the support page Defendant points the Court to was created
   after this litigation had already commenced. At the time
   Plaintiffs' original complaints were filed, the page described
   Web & App Activity as merely a means to "[s]ave your search
   activity on apps and in browsers to make searches faster."
   Id., Ex. 28. The page did not expressly state that geolocation
   data may be collected.

Google argues that users consent to sending location info to Google
when using some of its services. That may be, but the court points
out people agreeing to send some data to Google when using products
like Google Maps is not the same thing as granting Google
permission to store that data indefinitely. No good, says the
court.

   The Court thus rejects Defendant's contention that by
   consenting to transitory use, Plaintiffs consented to
   geolocation collection. To the contrary, it is plausible that
   Plaintiffs gave a narrow consent to geolocation tracking,
   exclusive of data storage.

Either way, it's probably not going to be settled at this stage of
litigation, which is already in its sixteenth month.

   It is plausible that Plaintiffs only consented to transitory
   use tracking and revoked any consent to the storage of their
   geolocation history. It is also plausible that they did not
   revoke such consent. The Court cannot conclude either way -
   factual disputes remain. "This is an issue for the jury."
   Opperman, 205 F. Supp.3d at 1073 (holding that the plaintiffs
   produced sufficient evidence showing they did not consent
   to the defendants' actions). For these reasons, the Court
   holds Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts to show they did
   not consent to the storage of their geolocation information.

The court does dismiss the plaintiffs' CIPA (California Invasion of
Privacy Act) claims. By conceding, they gave Google permission to
collect location data when using Maps or checking "showtimes for
movies playing nearby," the litigants have undercut this claim.

   Hence, Plaintiffs issue is not with Defendant tracking them
   during application use, rather their issue is with the storage
   of that data. See Opp. at 3-4 ("[I]n accepting the transitory
   use of location information for an immediate, discrete purpose,
   Plaintiffs in no way consented to indefinite storage of their
   daily locations and movements . . . ."). For this reason,
   Plaintiffs' CIPA claim fails as a matter of law because CIPA,
   by its plain terms, is not concerned with data storage but
   focuses on unconsented data tracking, which is not at issue.

That claim is dismissed with prejudice as the court sees no way the
plaintiffs can amend this particular claim to make it actionable.

The California-based invasion of privacy claim fails as well, but
not as badly. Invasion of privacy claims are Fourth
Amendment-related, but the court sees nothing in Google's actions
that could possibly be a Fourth Amendment issue, even with recent
Supreme Court decisions expanding citizens' expectations of
privacy.

   Plaintiffs contend that Defendant's surreptitious collection
   and storage of comprehensive and highly sensitive location
   data violates their information privacy rights. Opp. at 15.
   Even if the collection of granular and specific location data
   establishes an information privacy interest, Plaintiffs'
   theory is undercut by the admission that Defendant only
   tracked and collected data during use of Google services.
   Accordingly, Defendant's "profile" of a user is only as
   specific as their use of Google services. Carpenter v.
   United States and United States v. Jones do not undercut
   this conclusion.

What Google collected was far less than what the plaintiffs'
cellphone providers collected, and yet, the lawsuit only alleges a
violation by Google.

   First, there was no claim that MetroPCS and Sprint, the phone
   companies holding the cell-site location information, violated
   the plaintiff's right of privacy by having such robust
   geolocation records. Id. at 2212. The case thus does not stand
   for the proposition that geolocation collection violates the
   right of privacy.

   Second, the cell-site location information discussed in
   Carpenter was comprehensive—the cell-site location
information
   provided cellular companies with a rough "map" of a customer's
   fluid movements. Id. at 2211. Such comprehensive data
   collection is not at issue here; Plaintiffs' geolocation
   information depends on how often they use Google's services.
   Defendant's collection of geolocation data is not automatic;
   it does not happen by the routine "pinging" of a cell-phone
   tower.

   [...]

   Here, unlike the continual GPS tracking in Jones, not all
   of Plaintiffs movements were being collected, only specific
   movements or locations. Such "bits and pieces" do not meet
   the standard of privacy established in Carpenter or Jones.

This allegation is being allowed to move forward, though. But it
probably won't live on for long if the plaintiffs can't find
something more specific to allege than a theoretical "mosaic" of
the plaintiffs' movements, which possibly included visits to
"sensitive or confidential locations."

It's not that Google is in the right if it misled phone users into
thinking they weren't being tracked when they were being tracked.
It's also not right just because cellphone service providers track
location almost continuously. But if the claim is that Google
collected users' location data when users utilized services they
knew would send that data to Google, then the lawsuit should fail.
[GN]

The case is In Re Google Location History Litigation, Case No.
5:18-cv-05062-EJD (N.D. Cal.).


GORANT CHOCOLATIER: Hamlin Challenges Violations of FLSA & OMFWSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Hamlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GORANT CHOCOLATIER, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00117-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, Jan. 17, 2020), challenges policies and practices of
the Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, as full-time employee,
regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek in the three years
preceding the filing of this Action, including donning and doffing
time and associated travel. The Plaintiff and others were not paid
for all of the time spent donning and doffing their sanitary
clothing, washing their hands, or for associated travel.

The Plaintiff also alleges that she and others were not paid
overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of
40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt production
employee.

The Defendant is a manufacturer of chocolate candies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


GREYSTONE PARK: Faces Class Action Over Hospital Assaults
---------------------------------------------------------
Russ Crespolini, writing for Patch, reports that a 28-year-old
patient at the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital was found
wandering the halls on New Year's Eve with blood on his hand and
was subsequently arrested and charged with murdering someone in his
room at the facility, according to the Morris County Prosecutor's
Office.

Hospital staff found the victim in the room of Rashid Davis lying
on the floor in a pool of blood, authorities said. The cause of
death was determined to be multiple stab wounds to the neck area
and manner of death is homicide, authorities said.

The investigation remains ongoing and the identity of the deceased
individual, and whether they were a patient or a staff member, will
not be released at this time, authorities said.

Davis has been charged by warrant-complaint with first degree
Murder, third degree Possession of a Weapon for Unlawful Purposes,
and fourth degree Unlawful Possession of a Weapon in connection to
the incident, authorities said.

He remains in custody pending a first appearance before a judge of
the superior court, authorities said.

History Of Violence

This is not the first incident of violence reported at the
institution. A lawsuit filed last year said an "atmosphere of
terror and retaliation" has led to serious assaults and several
deaths at Greystone Psychiatric Park in recent years.

Almost every single doctor at the facility has been assaulted,
including several who required ambulance rides, hospitalizations,
surgeries, or extended time off of work, the suit alleges. That
constant threat of violence has led to a "mass exodus" and a
critical shortage of doctors that has prevented patients from
getting the psychiatric and medical care they require -- the crux
of the civil rights lawsuit.

The lawsuit named Gov. Phil Murphy, Health Commissioner Shereef
Elnahal, Human Services Commissioner Carole Johnson and Attorney
General Gurbir Grewal, as well as past and present Greystone
leaders and members of former Gov. Chris Christie's
administration.

The original Greystone first opened on the site in 1876 and by the
1950s housed over 6,500 patients. The hospital was plagued by
problems and scandals and in the mid-1970s, a grand jury
investigation into Greystone led to a large class-action lawsuit,
the indictment of five people and the creation of a court-appointed
oversight committee.

The oversight committee issued several critical reports about
conditions in the hospital, including one in 2000 that caused
then-Gov. Christine Whitman to call for the closure of the old
hospital. A brand-new hospital on the site opened in 2008, and the
oversight committee disbanded shortly after.

Despite these efforts, serious and violent problems persisted, the
lawsuit alleged.

The new hospital was designed to house 510 patients, a number that
was quickly surpassed, the lawsuit says. Overcrowding was only made
worse by the closure of Hagedorn Psychiatric Hospital, which was
home to geriatric patients, and two homes for those with
developmental disabilities, North Jersey Developmental Center and
Woodbridge Developmental Center.

Overcrowding, paired with a lack of medical professionals, created
a dangerous staff shortage that put patients at risk and led to
several deaths, the lawsuit says. Just six psychiatrists are
employed full-time at the hospital, but the lawsuit says 29 are
required to adequately care for patients.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four patients, only one of whom
has been discharged from the hospital. They are seeking class
action status to include former and current patients of the
hospital.

The violent assaults were a daily occurrence, with about five
reported every day, according to the lawsuit. In 2016 alone, 1,816
assaults -- 654 of them resulting in injuries -- were reported. The
data for 2017 was on track to become the most violent year on
record, the lawsuit alleges, but multiple sets of records were
maintained to lower the number of assaults in public reports.

The 60-page lawsuit outlines some of the assaults, many in graphic
detail.

Most patients at the hospital have been committed there by a judge.
[GN]


GRUMA CORP: Olivares Seeks Penalties for Improperly Paid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
YAZMIN OLIVARES, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 19STCV45168 (Cal. Super., Dec. 16,
2019), seeks to recover civil penalties for improperly paid wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' facilities operate 24
hours per day, 7 days per week, and while the Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees were typically scheduled to work an eight-hour
shift that began and ended at the same time each day, they were
occasionally required to work hours beyond and outside of their
scheduled shifts.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants paid the employees at
various rates of pay, depending on the shift that was worked.
However, the Plaintiffs asserts, when calculating the wages to
them, the Defendants used a weighted average, which systematically
resulted in being paid less than all wages they were owed for the
work they performed, including all required minimum wages and
regular (agreed-rate) wages.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from February 2015 until August 2019.

The Defendants own and operate the popular brand Mission Foods
Corporation, which manufactures tortillas, tortilla chips, and taco
shells, in addition to other food items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Jamin Xu, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  jxu@haineslawgroup.com


HAPPY RESTAURANT: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dianfeng Tang, Xiu Ling Pan, Guan Qu Li, Xiao Li Lu, Wen Zhu Chen,
Qiu Yan Guo (a/k/a Cai Yun Meng), Ji Chao Zheng, Ai Yu Shen, Li
Xian Jiang, Ping Li, Xiao Lan Zhang, Qiao Ying Zou, Shuang Feng Lu,
Xiu Qin Huang, Jian Xiu Tang, Shan Qin Chen, Fu Ping Chen, Yong
Fang Chen, Jing Wang, Kang Rui Wang, Mei Xiu Wu, Mei Yu Ren, Bo Zhi
Situ, Xiuying Ou, Ya Jun You, Yuan Gan Ling, Yan Hong Yu (a/k/a Ruo
Kun Yu), Hong Juan Wang, Fei Ge Shang (a/k/a Julie Shang), Xiaoming
Chen (a/k/a Steven), Yuan Guan Zou, Jian Hua Chen, Su Xian Deng and
Hui Zhen Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Happy Restaurant Inc., 7 Express Restaurant
Corp., 7 Express Inc., Guowei Xiao, Taiviem Ma, Zhongyan He, J.Y.
He, Tianming Zheng, Lin Li and "John Doe," Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07304, (E.D. N.Y., December 31, 2019), seeks to recover
minimum wages for each hour worked and overtime compensation for
all hours worked over forty each workweek, liquidated damages,
reimbursement out of pocket expenses for delivery on the road,
prejudgment and post-judgement interest and/or attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
labor laws.

Defendants operate as "Happy Restaurant," "Happy Food Court" and
"Happy Rest," with various locations in New York where Plaintiffs
worked as restaurant staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com



HORMEL FOODS: Chong Hits Fat/Sodium Mislabeling in Spam Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Chong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hormel Foods Corp. and Does 1 through 10.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10944 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2019),
seeks punitive damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and expert fees, interest and any additional relief resulting from
unjust enrichment/breach of quasi contract and violation of
California's Business and Professions Code and Civil Code and
Unfair Competition Law.

"SPAM" is a canned meat and poultry line that Hormel Foods
manufactures, markets and sells. Chong alleges that Hormel's "Spam
25% Less Sodium" and "Spam Lite" misrepresented their products are
healthy despite the fact that their labels' nutrient facts indicate
16g of total fat and 580mg of sodium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan Hong, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP.
      4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Phone: (949) 509-6505
      Fax: (949) 335-6647
      Email: jhong48@gmail.com


ICAPITAL FUNDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ICAPITAL FUNDING, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00486 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020),
seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff and
others on their cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services,
according to the complaint. The Defendant's calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular
telephone. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant failed to
establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to
effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the
regulations prescribed under TCPA.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los
Angeles County, California.

ICAPITAL FUNDING is a business finance 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


INN OF THE SEVENTH RAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosado Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ROSADO v. INN OF THE SEVENTH RAY and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV45238 (Cal. Super., Dec. 16, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants committed numerous Labor Code
violations against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees.

The lawsuit is brought for damages resulting from the Defendants'
failure to compensate for all hours worked; to pay minimum wages;
to pay overtime; to provide accurate itemized wage statements; to
pay wages owed every pay period; to maintain accurate records; to
give rest breaks; to give meal breaks; to reimburse business
expenses; and to pay wages when employment ends.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants at some point in
2019 as a server. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly,
non-exempt employee and earned $ 14/hour. The Plaintiff's
employment ended on September 20, 2019.

Inn of the Seventh Ray is a full service restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IOC-CAPE GIRARDEAU: Smith Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Maria L. Smith and Casandra J. Henderson, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
IOC-Cape Girardeau LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00055 (E.D. Mo.,
May 6, 2019), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on December 30, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-04228.

Dunlap seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

IOC-Cape Girardeau LLC operates as Isle Casino Cape Girardeau where
Plaintiffs worked as table games dealers. They claim that IOC
utilizes a time-keeping system that which rounds to the closest
15-minute interval, thus failing to capture the actual work
rendered based on her time-in and time-out. As tipped employees,
they claim that the Defendant took out an unauthorized tip credit
from tips. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Tel: (816) 781-0002
      Fax: (816) 781-1984
      E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com

IOC-Cape Girardeau is represented by:

      Amanda Colvin, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP - STL
      211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
      Tel: (314) 259-2199
      Fax: (314) 552-8199
      Email: amanda.colvin@bryancave.com


IOC-CARUTHERSVILLE: Dunlap Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Pamela G. Dunlap, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IOC-Caruthersville, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00055 (E.D. Mo., April 8, 2019), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the  Western District of
Missouri (Jefferson City) on December 30, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-04226.

Dunlap seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

IOC-Caruthersville operates as "Lady Luck Casino Caruthersville,"
in Caruthersville, Missouri where Dunlap worked as a table games
dealer. She claims that IOC-Caruthersville utilizes a time-keeping
system which rounds to the closest 15-minute interval, thus failing
to capture the actual work rendered based on her time-in and
time-out. As a tipped employee, she claims that they took out an
unauthorized tip credit from her tips. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Tel: (816) 781-0002
      Fax: (816) 781-1984
      E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com

IOC-Caruthersville, LLC is represented by:

      Amanda Colvin, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP - STL
      211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
      Tel: (314) 259-2199
      Fax: (314) 552-8199
      Email: amanda.colvin@bryancave.com

             - and -

      Charles A. Weiss, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LLP
      211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
      Saint Louis, MO 63102-2750
      Tel: (314) 259-2000
      Fax: (314) 259-2020
      Email: caweiss@bryancavellp.com


ISOLVED HCM: Villagomez Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Sergio Villagomez individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iSolved HCM, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2019-CH-12932, was
removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Dec. 16, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08205 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

The suit demands $75,000 in damages.

iSolved HCM designs and develops enterprise software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          John C. Kunze, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq.
          Mara Ann Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Eli Wade Scott, Esq.
          Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 242-0859
          E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
                  sufkes@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harry John Secaras, Esq.
          Richard Lee Samson, Esq.
          Christopher Michael Cascino, Esq.
          Michael Vincent Furlong, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 558-1254
          E-mail: harry.secaras@ogletreedeakins.com
                  richard.samson@odnss.com
                  chris.cascino@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.furlong@ogletree.com


JAY PEAK: October 2020 Trial Set in EB-5 Scandal Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway and Alan J. Keays, writing for VTDigger, report that
the ongoing saga of the EB-5 scandal at Jay Peak Resort is long
from over, but 2019 marked a turning point in the story, which
stretches back to 2006 and has involved leaders at every level of
state government.

The most dramatic development was the indictment in May of four men
in an alleged fraudulent scheme to bring a proposed biomedical
facility to Newport from South Korea. The U.S. Attorney's Office in
Burlington charged three of the men with wire fraud, and a fourth,
Ariel Quiros, the former owner of the Jay Peak Resort, with money
laundering.

The year closed out with the criminal charges pending, Jay Peak on
the market, the first civil litigation case tied to the scandal set
for trial, and the state facing the possibility of hundreds of
millions of dollars in claims from bilked investors thanks to a
Vermont Supreme Court ruling.

The federal prosecutor's indictments in the spring were issued
three years after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
brought 52 counts of civil securities fraud against Quiros and
former Jay Peak CEO Bill Stenger and accused the two men with
misusing $200 million in investor monies for more than a decade.
Both men did not contest the allegations against them and settled
with federal regulators. The federal counts in April 2016 came
nearly two years after VTDigger began reporting on allegations of
financial improprieties at the resort.

AnC Bio Vermont was the Jay Peak developers' "crown jewel." It was
also a scam from the start, prosecutors say. Quiros' business
associate Alex Choi had been prosecuted by the South Korean
government for ripping off foreign investors in Pyeongtaek before
he brought the $110 million proposed stem cell research and
biomedical manufacturing facility to Vermont.

Stenger sold the proposed biomedical facility to 169 foreign
investors who put up a total of $80 million. Quiros' business
adviser Bill Kelly allegedly made $7 million on AnC Bio Vermont for
"construction supervision services" that were never delivered.

Quiros, Stenger and Kelly have all pleaded not guilty, and a trial
is set for October 2020. Choi is at-large and has not responded to
the U.S. attorney's charges.

The indictments set the stage for a battle over the state's role in
the fraud. Quiros' attorney Seth Levine is seeking to move the case
to the 2nd Circuit Court in New York because he says his client
can't get a fair trial in Vermont as a result of the U.S. attorney
publicizing the case in a press conference. In addition, Levine
cites ongoing media coverage.

In a court appearance, Levine alleged that the U.S. Attorney's
Office was tainted by political connections involving the former
top prosecutor and the state's leading politicians, including U.S.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch and former Gov. Peter
Shumlin.

U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford's ruling on the change of
venue motion from defense attorneys is expected before February.

Meanwhile, the pending criminal case is delaying Vermont Auditor
Douglas Hoffer's probe into who knew what when in state government
related to the EB-5 scandal in the Northeast Kingdom.

The Vermont Attorney General's Office has called on the auditor's
office to wait until the criminal cases have concluded before
interviewing former state EB-5 officials.

Investor lawsuit against the state moves forward

The Vermont Supreme Court issued a ruling in October that will
allow EB-5 investors to pursue claims regarding lax oversight of
the state-run regional center and projects headed by the Jay Peak
developers.

That decision could potentially put the state on the hook for
hundreds of millions of dollars due to allegations of
misrepresentation and negligence and by the investors.

In addition, the high court's ruling allows the investors to move
forward on negligence claims against Brent Raymond and James
Candido, the two former directors of the state-run EB-5 program.

It's a legal fight attorney Russell Barr of the Barr Law Group in
Stowe has been waging for years.

In 2017, Barr, on the behalf of several investors, sued the state
and commerce agency officials, contending that the state and those
officials allowed the 10-year fraud to occur through, at best,
negligence, or at worst, were complicit in carrying it out.

The Supreme Court decision reversed a lower court ruling dismissing
the negligence and misrepresentation claims against the state. The
high court ruling also reinstated other claims including breach of
contract, and breach of good faith, against the state commerce
agency regarding its oversight of Jay Peak Resort projects through
the state EB-5 regional center.

Only a handful of the over 800 EB-5 investors who put money into
the developments headed by Stenger and Quiros are plaintiffs in the
legal action, though Barr is seeking to make the lawsuit a
class-action to bring even more into it.

Every EB-5 investor in one of the many projects put in $500,000,
plus fees of as much as $50,000. In exchange, if that $500,000 led
to the creation of a 10 American jobs, the investor would become
eligible for a green card and permanent U.S. residency.

The ruling sent the case back to Lamoille County Superior civil
court in Hyde Park, where it remains pending.

"We're going to move forward on our case to find out the exact
details of what happened and what went on, that's my charge right
now," Barr said after the high court ruling was issued.

In a separate ruling that came out the same day, the Vermont
Supreme Court shot down a request by Barr, on behalf of a group of
EB-5 investors, to intervene in a lawsuit brought by state
regulators against Quiros and Stenger more than three years.

In that case, the state reached a $2.1 million total settlement
with the two developers. That agreement called for Quiros to turn
over and estimated $2 million in property to the state, with
Stenger paying $100,000.

Barr contended that he, rather than the state, was in a better
position to represent the interest of investors in the case.
Justice Karen Carroll, writing in a unanimous decision, stated that
Barr waited too long to seek status in the case.

Federal case in kickback scheme

Barr is also suing an immigration attorney who allegedly took $1.25
million in kickbacks from Stenger to promote the Jay Peak projects
to investors. Jianming Shen, a New York lawyer, had hung his
defense on the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center's knowledge of his
activities.

Shen says he translated for state politicians who promoted the
projects overseas and that commerce agency officials knew about the
so-called "referral fees."

Over the past year and a half, Judge Christina Reiss has barred
depositions of key witnesses, including Vermont EB-5 Regional
Center officials; sided with a former Jay Peak business partner's
attorney who insisted that Barr pay exorbitant security fees for
her client; and thwarted Barr's bid to expand the case as a class
action lawsuit.  

In December, Reiss ruled that the case can go to trial in April
2020.

Canadian firm in the fray

Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed receiver now overseeing the
properties at the center of the fraud case, including Jay Peak and
Burke Mountain ski resorts, is pushing ahead in a lawsuit against
the Canadian company that formerly owned Jay Peak.

Goldberg is seeking more than $80 million in his lawsuit brought
against Mont Saint-Sauveur International Inc., now known as
Saint-Sauveur Valley Resorts.

The lawsuit alleges the Canadian company fraudulently accepted $18
million in EB-5 immigrant investor funds, which were supposed to be
kept in escrow accounts for construction projects at the resort,
from Quiros as part of his payment for the Jay Peak ski area in
2008.

Attorneys for Saint-Sauveur have denied the allegations.

The year ended with a request pending before Judge Reiss in Vermont
seeking approval to move forward with the depositions of two
Montreal lawyers who represented the Canadian company during the
sale process to Quiros.

USCIS slams state

The state is awaiting word on its longshot bid to reverse a
decision by a federal agency to shutter the scandal-plagued Vermont
EB-5 Regional Center.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a notice of
termination for the state-run regional center in July 2018, citing
the state's "lax oversight" that "allowed the fraud to occur in the
first place."

The state contested that USCIS decision. That state had sought the
ability to "wind down" the operations of the regional center to
allow investors in EB-5 projects in Vermont to continue to move
forward in seeking permanent U.S. residency.

In September, USCIS rejected that request by the state, raising
many of the same points outlined in its earlier notice of
termination.

Now, the state is calling on USCIS, the same agency that blasted
the state, to reconsider its decision and allow for the continued
operation of the regional center. Outside of the Jay Peak projects,
there is currently one other business in the program, the von Trapp
Brewery in Stowe.

Michael Pieciak, commissioner of the state Department of Financial
Regulation, has estimated that as many as 150 EB-5 investors from
across all the projects in the state may be at risk of not
obtaining their green cards if the center were to close now.

Goldberg, Jay Peak's receiver, is engaged in his own battle with
USCIS.

In November, Goldberg filed a lawsuit against USCIS, alleging the
federal agency is delaying the process for EB-5 investors in the
projects led by Stenger and Quiros to become permanent U.S.
residents.

Goldberg wants a judge to order the USCIS, which has left some of
the those investors waiting up to five years for a decision, to
issue rulings within 90 days.

No rulings in that case had been made by year's end.

EB-5 records missing

In August, VTDigger reported the state cannot find about four
months worth of emails from James Candido, the former head of the
state-run EB-5 center from May to October 2010, as well as other
records.

News of the missing communications was revealed in a settlement in
a public records lawsuit brought by the media organization against
the state over EB-5 documents.

As part of that settlement, the Vermont Attorney General's Office
revealed that email records may have been deleted as part of a
purge when state servers were overloaded.

According to the attorney general's office, the email
communications may have been deemed "non-substantive."

Records VTDigger did receive as part of the lawsuit settlement did
reveal that before the state's EB-5 program became ensnared in
fraud allegations, Sen. Patrick Leahy wanted people to associate
him as the leading backer of the immigrant investor initiative in
the state.

Leahy's staff in 2011 pushed then-incoming Gov. Peter Shumlin to
laud the senator during his inaugural address for playing a primary
role in supporting the state's EB-5 program, while also offering
plaudits to members of the state's congressional delegation on
other topics.

"Recognize them and their good work – on EB5 you need to
recognize Leahy and only Leahy," Chuck Ross, then a member of
Leahy's staff, wrote to Bill Lofy, Shumlin's incoming chief of
staff, on Jan. 3, 2011, three days before the new governor's
inaugural address.

Jay Peak hits the market

Jay Peak ski resort may be in the hands of new owners in the new
year.

Golberg, Jay Peak's receiver, said late this year he is "hopeful" a
buyer will be found by summer 2020.  

And, based on what he knows, Goldberg has said he's "fairly
certain" that many of the EB-5 investors will "incur a significant
loss of their principal investment."

The resort is not expected to sell anywhere near the roughly $250
million needed to make the investors whole.

The resort is assessed by the town of Jay on its grand list at $124
million. The SEC, during a court hearing, valued Jay Peak at $42
million, basing that figure on average profits.

In an interview, attorney Jeffrey Schneider, who is representing
Goldberg in legal actions, said the receivership is estimating the
value of Jay Peak at around $90 million to $100 million.

Details of entities interested in buying Jay Peak have been scarce,
though it was revealed in September that Alterra Mountain Company,
based in Denver, had expressed interest in purchasing Jay Peak.

Alterra, which also owns Tremblant ski resort in Quebec and
Stratton in Vermont, announced in November it was purchasing a
different ski resort in the state, Sugarbush in Warren.

The fate of Burke Mountain ski area, the other northern Vermont ski
area tied to the EB-5 scandal, remains unclear. The sale of that
resort remains on hold. Golberg said he is working to boost job
creation at the resort to aid investors as they try to meet green
card requirements through their investments.

Criminal probe continues

The criminal case has led federal prosecutors to seek a stay in a
civil lawsuit brought by Goldberg against the former legal team for
Quiros, contending that allowing the civil case to proceed would
hurt an ongoing criminal investigation.

Goldberg, in that civil lawsuit, has claimed that lawyer David
Gordon of New York City and the firm where he works, Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP, failed to take steps to stop the alleged
investor fraud, though they deny wrongdoing.

Federal prosecutors say allowing the civil case to move forward
before the conclusion of the criminal case could impede their
ongoing grand jury probe that has already led to indictments
against Quiros, Stenger, and two of their associates.

The year ended with federal Judge Marcia Cooke granting that
request from prosecutors.

"This matter is stayed until November 13, 2020, or until the
resolution of the criminal prosecution," the judge wrote, adding,
"whichever is sooner." [GN]


JOE'S PUBLIC THEATER: Sued Over Blind-inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Yovanny Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Joe's Public LLC and Public Theater Productions, Inc., jointly and
severally, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11941 (S.D. N.Y., December 31,
2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendants operate a theater and restaurant located at 12 East 94th
St., New York with an online site,
https://publictheater.org/programs/joes-pub. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Chase Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Chase, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01655, (W.D. Pa., December 20, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages, billed, unpaid and
unreimbursed expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as
the litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA., a national banking and financial services
company, maintains its corporate headquarters in New York and
operates offices in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state of
Ohio and the other 48 states.

Barbara Chase worked as a Relationship Banker for JPMorgan at their
Pittsburgh Branch from August 2019 to November 1, 2019. She
regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweeks but was not paid
overtime, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
     First & Market Building, Suite 650
     100 First Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 227-0763
     Fax: (412) 774-1994
     Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


JUICY CRAB INC: Hall Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA & FMWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petra Hall and Sean Trussell, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. JUICY CRAB INC., SEA CRAB INC., THE
BOIL JAX INC., and THE JUICY CRAB JAX LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00017-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees as a result of the Defendants' willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were subject to the Defendants'
unlawful policy of claiming a "tip credit" and paying hourly rates
below the standard minimum wage, despite failing to comply with the
requirements for claiming a tip credit under the FLSA and FMWA.
They add that the Defendants violated the FLSA's overtime
requirements by calculating their overtime rate of pay by
multiplying their reduced tip-credit rates by 1.5, whereas the
proper approach is to multiply the full minimum wage by 1.5 and
then subtract the tip credit.

The Plaintiffs were servers and bartenders of the Defendants.

The Defendants jointly operate seafood restaurants named "Juicy
Crab," and/or "J&C Crab".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


KEVIN ISON: Final Approval of Simon Case Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON SIMON, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN J. ISON DMD PSC, d/b/a ORTHODONTIC
SPECIALISTS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00458-DRC-KLL
(S.D. Ohio), the Parties jointly move the Court for entry of an
Order:

   1. granting final approval to the $110,000 settlement set forth
      in the Settlement Agreement;

   2. approving class representative payments to Plaintiffs
      Brandon Simon and Lainey Hollingsworth in the amount of
      $3,500 each in recognition of their services to the class;

   3. approving the payment of $55,000 in attorneys' fees and
      expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel;

   4. dismissing the action with prejudice; and

   5. retaining jurisdiction over the matter for six months for
      the limited purpose of enforcing the Agreement.

According to the complaint, the settlement resolves claims that
Defendants failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to
certain non-exempt, hourly employees who worked more than 40 hours
per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky's
wage and hour laws. The settlement was reached as a result of
several months of exhaustive, arms'-length negotiations between the
Parties.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM
          4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-5678

               - and -

          Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
          Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
          MEIZLISH & GRAYSON - 1
          830 Main Street, Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-4700

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Katherine B. Capito, Esq.
          HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
          707 Virginia Street East, Suite 260
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (681) 265-3802

KINETICO INC: Fails to Properly Overtime Wages, Fletcher Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Fletcher, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. KINETICO INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00105-JG (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 16,
2020), challenges the Defendant's policies and practices that
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio overtime
compensation statute.

The Plaintiff says she was routinely required to work in excess of
40 hours per workweek. She notes that the Defendant required her
and others to arrive before their scheduled shift no less than ten
minutes early to perform unpaid work prior to shift start time. She
contends that those who are subject to this policy were not paid
any amount for their pre-shift work, and such time was not counted
as hours worked for purposes of computing overtime. She argues that
the Defendant's failure to pay them for pre-shift work resulted in
unpaid overtime, in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a press operator
from 2016 through October 2019.

The Defendant is a for profit corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Delaware and registered to do business in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Brandy Gomes.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee Brandy Gomes in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

The Company was served with this complaint on June 28, 2019.

The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible
losses associated with this proceeding.

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

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience". The company is based in Irvine,
California.


LABORATORY CORP: Heller Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Heller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA d/b/a LCA
COLLECTIONS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00482 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020),
arises from the false, deceptive, and unfair debt-collection
practices promulgated nationwide by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges that in its collection letter campaigns, the
Defendant misrepresents consumer and debtor rights, in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant attempted to collect
debts from the Plaintiff and other consumers and debtors by
systematically sending them mail based collection correspondence
that overshadow the disclosure requirements under federal and state
statutes and making material misrepresentations that are
inconsistent with the disclosure requirements of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Ventura County,
California, who is allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

The Defendant is a company that uses any instrumentality of
interstate commerce or the mails in its business, the principal
purpose of which is the collection of any debts.[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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Akerman Suit over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS AKERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LADENBURG THALMANN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.;
HENRY C. BEINSTEIN; GLENN C. DAVIS; BRIAN S. GENSON; RICHARD M.
KRASNO; RICHARD J. LAMPEN; MICHAEL S. LIEBOWITZ; HOWARD M. LORBER;
JACQUELINE M. SIMKIN; MARK ZEITCHICK; ADAM MALAMED; ADVISOR GROUP
HOLDINGS, INC.; and HARVEST MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07151 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2019) is an action arising from a
proposed transaction announced on November 11, 2019, pursuant to
which Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. will be acquired
by Advisor Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Harvest Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 11, 2019, Ladenburg Thalmann's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Advisor Group. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Ladenburg Thalmann's stockholders will receive $3.50 in cash for
each share of Ladenburg Thalmann common stock they own.

On December 6, 2019, the defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a financial
services company based in Miami, Florida. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, provides independent broker-dealer, asset management,
wholesale insurance brokerage, investment, and trust services.
Ladenburg is committed to the growth of its subsidiaries while
maintaining their individual identities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Slyne, Esq.
          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          STULL STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: pkslyne@ssbny.com
                  abrody@ssbny.com


LIFELABS: Collette Parsons Corrin Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Weichel, writing for CTV News, reports that another class
action lawsuit has been filed over the massive cyberattack that
targeted the laboratory testing company LifeLabs, this time in B.C.
Supreme Court.

The proposed class action was filed by Collette Parsons Corrin LLP
on behalf of Anna Belle Tharani, a B.C. care aide who was among the
millions of Canadians whose personal information was potentially
compromised in the data breach.

Tharani's lawsuit argues that LifeLabs lacked "adequate security"
and "adequate training for employees" ahead of the attack, and that
the company should have notified customers sooner after it
happened.

LifeLabs notified B.C.'s Information and Privacy Commissioner about
the breach on Nov. 1, but the public was not made aware until
mid-December.

That delay potentially exposed customers to "additional,
unnecessary risks of harm," according to the claim.

LifeLabs has not filed a statement of defence in the case, and has
not responded to a request for comment from CTV News. None of the
claims in Tharani's lawsuit have been proven.

B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix previously said the company
requested some time before making the breach public because it
wanted to first ensure its systems were secure and not vulnerable
to secondary attacks.

"There was a delay to ensure that information that hadn't been
compromised wouldn't be compromised and information that could be
protected was protected," Dix told reporters.

The cyberattack affected systems containing information on about 15
million customers across Canada, including up to five million in
B.C. The criminals responsible demanded a ransom, which the company
paid in the hopes of retrieving the data.

LifeLabs CEO Charles Brown offered an apology to customers in the
wake of the attack, and said the company brought in cybersecurity
experts to investigate what happened and help restore security.

"I want to emphasize that at this time, our cyber security firms
have advised that the risk to our customers in connection with this
cyber-attack is low and that they have not seen any public
disclosure of customer data as part of their investigations,
including monitoring of the dark web and other online locations,"
Brown said in a statement.

At least one other class action lawsuit has been proposed against
LifeLabs in Ontario Superior Court. [GN]


LUCKY 99 CENT: Faces Gomez Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Italubi Sanchez Gomez and Rodolfo Almazo-Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCKY 99 CENT
SHOP INC., and XIAN CE ZHOU, as an individual, Case No.
1:20-cv-00425 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants to recover damages for their egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws.

Although the Plaintiffs worked for 55-69 or more hours per week
during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a cashier and a
stocker.

LUCKY 99 CENT SHOP INC. is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York with a principal executive office in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Hestrup Seeks Damages in Opioid Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hestrup individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC,
Mallinckrodt Enterprises, LLC, Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis plc, Actavis, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc., McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen
Corporation with Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt
Enterprises, LLC, and Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08453, (N.D. Ill., December 27, 2019),
seeks compensatory and treble damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as and such further and additional relief resulting
from nuisance, negligence and for violation of various state's
consumer protection laws and the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that are into developing,
marketing, advertising promoting and selling prescription
pharmaceuticals that allegedly contain opioids which have narcotic
effects and may cause addiction.

Hestrup purchases health insurance for himself and his family
through a group health plan offered by his employer, from Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Illinois.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Consovoy, Esq.
      J. Michael Connolly, Esq.
      CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
      1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
      Arlington, VA 22209
      Tel: (703) 243-9423
      Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com
             mike@consovoymccarthy.com

             - and -

      James Young, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: 904.398.2722
      Email: jyoung@ForThePeople.com

             - and -

      Ashley Keller, Esq.
      Travis Lenkner, Esq.
      Seth Meyer, Esq.
      KELLER LENKNER LLC
      150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 741-5220
      Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
             tdl@kellerlenkner.com
             sam@kellerlenkner.com

             - and -

      Juan Martinez, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Email: jmartinez@ForThePeople.com


MATADOR RESOURCES: Martin Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATADOR RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00054-GJF-KRS (D.N.M., Jan. 17, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.

The Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required
by the FLSA and the NMMWA, according to the complaint. Instead of
paying overtime as required by state and federal law, the Defendant
paid each of these workers a flat amount for each day worked and
failed to pay them overtime for all hours that they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in accordance with the FLSA and
the NMMWA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Martin worked for the Defendant as a Drilling
Superintendent from June 2016 through February 2018.

Matador is an independent energy company engaged in the
exploration, development, production and acquisition of oil and
natural gas resources in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Foamix Merger-Related Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 15, 2020, that
the company, together with Foamix, is facing several class action
suits.

On December 11, 2019 and December 18, 2019, purported shareholders
of Foamix filed putative class action lawsuits against the members
of Foamix's board of directors, Foamix, Menlo and Merger Sub in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware and in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
respectively, and on December 12, 2019, December 17, 2019 and
December 20, 2019, purported shareholders of Foamix filed
individual lawsuits against the members of the Foamix Board and
Foamix in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York and the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, respectively.

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Whittington FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as TIFFANY WHITTINGTON,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
CONSUMERS v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-06042-MMB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Galea Hits Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------
Shauna Galea, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John
Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01093, (W.D. Mich., December
27, 2019), requests statutory damages, actual damages and
attorney's fees and costs of suit along with injunctive relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On September 14, 2018, Midland sent Galea a letter in an attempt to
collect a personal loan to GE Capital Retail Bank 'R Us. Said
letter was marked "Time Sensitive Document." Galea claims that this
created a false sense of urgency.

Midland Credit is a debt collection agency based in 3111 Camino Del
Rio North Ste. 103, San Diego. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
     SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
     2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Tel: (630) 581-5456
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MILAN HOTELS: Website Not Accessible, Laufer Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH LAUFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILAN HOTELS, LLC; and CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-1504 (N.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 4, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites,
https://www.choicehotels.com/new-york/albany/econo-lodge-hotels/ny340?source=gyxt,
https://www.booking.com/hotel/us/hotel-central-avenue-albany.en-gb.html,
https://www.expedia.com/Albany-Hotels-Econo-Lodge-Colonie-Center-Mall.h40792.Hotel-Information,
to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to the websites,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Milan Hotels, LLC is engaged in the hotel business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Sverd, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          225 Broadway, Suite 613
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 751-8743
          E-mail: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: George Lehman Class Suit v. Ohr Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that briefing on
plaintiffs' appeal from the order of dismissal in a class action
suit is currently scheduled for the first half of 2020.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an
action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Ohr") and several current and former
officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal
securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the
class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and
other related orders by the Court. Briefing on the appeal is
currently scheduled for the first half of 2020.

NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which
could harm our business and the value of our common stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc. continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Ohr") and its board of
directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp., captioned
Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary
joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the SEC on March
8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted
material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the
individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements
and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The
action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award
of damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses.

The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action.

NeuBase said, "Management believes that the likelihood of an
adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely;
however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a
diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm
our business and the value of our common stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.


NICK'S GYRO'S: Djareche Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAIL A. DJARECHE, And all others similarly situated v. NICK'S
GYRO'S & SUBS, INC., Case No. 100694264 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough
Cty., Dec. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Instead of paying overtime wages, the Defendant
circumvented the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff wages, though
the Plaintiff habitually worked up to and beyond 40 hours hours a
week or more during his employment with the Defendant prior to the
institution of the action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant would artificially reduce the
recorded hours the Plaintiff worked and pay only "straight time"
wages to avoid paying the Plaintiff for all hours worked at the
correct and lawful rate of pay.

Nick's is engaged in restaurant and bar business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF W.JOHN GADD
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343‐2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Sued by Pichardo for Mislabeling OWYN Drinks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Pichardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Only What You Need, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00493
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on the
packaging of its non-dairy plant protein beverage product, which
are purported to be flavored only with vanilla.

The relevant front label representations include the brand name,
"OWYN" and "Only What You Need," "20g Protein," "plant-based
drink," "Smooth Vanilla" and a vignette of the vanilla flower and
vanilla beans. The Product is misleading because it does not
contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component
of the total flavor ingredients that is required and consistent
with consumer expectations, the Plaintiff alleges. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it, according to the
complaint.

The Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading branding and
packaging of the Products has enabled the Defendant to sell more of
the Products and at higher prices per unit, than it would have in
the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at
the expense of consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff adds
that the Product contains other representations which are
misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $3.99 per 11 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption.

Only What You Need, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells non-dairy plant protein beverages purporting to be
flavored only with vanilla under their OWYN brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


PLATINUM BLACK: Underpays Salon Assistants, Sadoyan et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE SADOYAN; and SIMONE BAYFIELD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLATINUM BLACK, INC.;
MICHAEL HAASE; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV43793 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 4, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as salon
assistants.

Platinum Black, Inc. a California corporation providing salon and
spa services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
          Lisa Noveck, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
          65 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 260
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (310) 853-3461
          Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
          E-mail: jonathanl@perrelacour.com
                  lisan@pierrelacour.com


PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hayden Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hayden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SCOTT GARLAND, and MARDI
C. DIER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00367 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), is
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Portola securities between November 5, 2019, and
January 9, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Portola's internal
control over financial reporting regarding reserve for product
returns was not effective; (2) that Portola was shipping
longer-dated product with 36 month shelf life; (3) that Portola had
not established adequate reserve for returns of prior shipments of
short-dated product; (4) that, as a result, Portola was reasonably
likely to need to "catch up" on accounting for return reserves; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of
only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019. Portola attributed
the result to a $5 million reserve adjustment for short dated
product, and flat quarter-over-quarter demand.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.98, or
approximately 40%, to close at $14.76 per share on January 10,
2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Portola securities during the Class
Period.

Portola is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes treatments for thrombosis and other hematologic
diseases. The Defendants' lead product is Andexxa, marketed as
Ondexxya in Europe. Andexxa is for patients treated with
rivaroxaban or apixaban, when anticoagulation needs to be reversed
due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          Email: info@glancylaw.com


PRO/DATA PAYROLL: HBS Sues Over Unremitted Gov't. Dues
------------------------------------------------------
HBS Management Corp., on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pro/Data Payroll Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH15066, (Ill. Cir., December 30, 2019), seeks to
recover the amount debited from bank accounts that was not remitted
to appropriate government authorities; attorney's fees pursuant to
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act;
litigation costs and expenses, punitive damages; and such other and
further relief.

Pro/Data Payroll Services operates as Pro/Data Workforce Solutions.
It provides payroll services for HBS.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnold H. Landis, Esq.
      Law Offices of Arnold H. Landis
      77 W. Washington, Ste. 702
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-6268


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Did Not Pay Insurance Sales Tax, Suit Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCHELL DAVIS; and BRANDY GRESS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED
INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-057726-PD (E.D. Pa., Dec. 4, 2019), is
an action against the defendants for failure to provide full
payment for the ACV Sales Tax and ACV Regulatory Fees which
constitutes a material breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a Policy issued for
private passenger auto physical damage, including comprehensive and
collision coverage. The Defendants' Policy promises payment of
"Actual Cash Value" ("ACV") in the event of a total loss of an
insured vehicle.

Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, ACV includes State sales tax
and State-mandated regulatory fees. However, in violation of its
Policy, the Defendant refuses to pay mandatory regulatory fees and
sales tax when it purports to pay ACV to insured who have suffered
a total loss of their insured vehicle.

Progressive Advanced Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm. The Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.
Progressive Advanced Insurance serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

              - and –

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

               - and –

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com


               - and –

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: efiling@shamisgentile.com

               - and –

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          3165 MCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Ed@NormandPLLC.com
                  Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com


PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Prinkey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PURPLE LAND MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Case No.
2:20-cv-00081-MPK (W.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff states that she and the other workers like her
regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week
but they never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA, the Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no
overtime pay and improperly classified them as independent
contractors, she alleges.

The Plaintiff worked with numerous individuals, who performed
similar job duties and were subjected to the same illegal
compensation practices, which denied the Plaintiff overtime as
required by the FLSA, Ohio Wage Acts and PMWA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Prinkey worked exclusively for the Defendant as a
Landman.

Purple Land Management is a full-service land management firm that
handles title and leasing, due diligence and opinion certification
to right-of-way acquisition, surveying and surface operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


QUAPAW BATHS LLC: Masseuses Sue Over Illegally Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Daniels and Marcella Nathaniel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Quapaw Baths, LLC, Anthony
Taylor and Robert Kempkes, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06149 (W.D.
Ark., December 30, 2019), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of illegally withholding
tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and operate a bathhouse and spa in Hot Springs where
Daniels and Nathaniel were employed as an hourly-paid massage
therapists. They claim that Quapaw illegally withheld portions of
the tips that they get from patrons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Blake Hoyt, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             blake@sanfordlawfirm.com


RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Contreras Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GISELLE CONTRERAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 19STCV46030 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 20, 2019), alleges that Ralphs Grocery violated
the California Labor Code by failing to pay wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, to the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
aggrieved employees.

The Plaintiff and other non-exempt aggrieved employees of Ralphs
Grocery seek award for civil penalties and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the California  Labor Code.

Ralphs is an American supermarket chain in Southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


REX MOORE GROUP: Faces Xiong Labor Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Rex Moore Group, Inc. The case is captioned as TONG XIONG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REX MOORE GROUP, INC.; and DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00270480-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
4, 2019).

Rex Moore Group, Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes providing electrical work and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: 213-335-2402
     Fax: 213-381-9989
     Email: info@wilshirelawfirm.com

ROBERT GRONLUND: Class Action Over WARA Violation Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Item reports that 4 The Valley will be watching
Wood-Mode's progression under new management throughout 2020 as
well as lawsuits filed against the former owners.

The 77-year-old custom-cabinet maker was reborn in August after
Snyder County businessman Bill French purchased the assets from
former owners Robert and Brooks Gronlund. French made the purchase
after the plant was abruptly shut down in May, putting 938 workers
out of a job.

The abrupt closure of one of the Valley's largest employers came
after owners Robert and Brooks Gronlund failed to find a new buyer
or secure a loan to keep the plant operating after years of
financial struggles.

Under French and manufacturing manager Bob Gessner, Wood-Mode LLC
-- a change from Wood-Mode Inc. -- has brought back about 250
employees, who have produced more than 7,000 cabinets since
production started back up in August.

"We are changing the philosophy of how we do business. The old
company wanted to be everything to everybody. From now on it's
best-business practices all the way," said Gessner. "The brand is
tarnished in the industry, but it's still strong."

So strong, that most of the dealers who worked with the company
under previous ownership have gotten back on board.

Only four of the former company's 600 dealers have declined to do
business with Wood-Mode LLC and most of the representatives are
also back on board, said Hunter.

Three lawsuits filed against the Gronlunds alleging they violated
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act by failing to provide
employees 60 days notice of the company closure are ongoing. They
have been merged and certified as a class action suit in federal
court. [GN]


ROLLINS INC: Fleming Suit Challenges Excessive Fees in Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA G. FLEMING, individually, as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Rollins, Inc. 401(k) Savings
Plan and Western Industries Retirement Savings Plan v. ROLLINS,
INC., AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ROLLINS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN;
WESTERN INDUSTRIES-NORTH, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WESTERN
INDUSTRIES RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE ROLLINS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE WESTERN INDUSTRIES RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE ROLLINS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN; THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WESTERN INDUSTRIES RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:19-cv-05732-WMR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 20,
2019), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to
the Plans.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and all participants in the 401(k)
Savings Plan and Western Industries Retirement Savings Plan
suffered financial harm as a result of the imprudent, arbitrary and
excessive fee structures in the Plans because the Defendants'
inclusion of those options deprived participants of the opportunity
to grow their retirement savings by investing in prudent options
with reasonable fees, which would have been available in the Plans
if the Defendants had satisfied their fiduciary obligations.

Instead of leveraging the Plans' bargaining power to benefit
participants, the Defendants allowed conflicted third parties to
dictate Plan decisions, hiring imprudent vendors to assist with the
Plan's investments, allowing them to put improper investment funds
in the Plans, and allowing them and other vendors to collect
unreasonable and excessive fees, all at the expense of
participants' retirement savings, the Plaintiff contends.

To remedy these fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiff brings the action
for herself and on behalf of the Plans to enforce the Defendants'
personal liability and to make good to the Plans all losses
resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the
Plans any profits made through the Defendants' use of Plan assets.

401(k) Plan is a retirement savings account that allows an employee
to divert a portion of his or her salary into long-term
investments. Western Industries Retirement Savings Plan is a
defined contribution plan with a profit-sharing component and 401k
feature.

Ms. Fleming, as an eligible employee of Rollins, was a participant
in the Rollins Plan under as she and her beneficiaries are or may
become eligible to receive benefits under the Plan.

Rollins is a North American consumer and commercial services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242-5297
          Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


SECOND STREET PROMENADE: Underpays Line Cooks, Duran Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECOND STREET PROMENADE, LLC; and DOES 1
through 20, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV43696 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 4, 2019) is and action against the defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest
period compensation and failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Labor Code.

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

Second Street Promenade, LLC is a California limited liability
company engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
          Lisa Noveck, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
          65 N. Raymond Ave., Ste 260
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (310) 853-3461
          Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
          E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
                  lisan@pierrelacour.com


SELECT COMFORT: Mitchell Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Dywuan Mitchell and Nada Yousif, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SELECT COMFORT
RETAIL CORPORATION d/b/a SLEEP NUMBER, Case No. 19-CV-3783-D, was
removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, County of
Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Jan. 17, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10110 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs, commissioned retail sales personnel, allege that
the Defendant failed to pay them premium pay when they worked on
Sundays and holidays. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs ask for
damages for unpaid premium wages, statutory trebling, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Email: steve@fairworklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew M. MacDonald, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 444-7174
          Fax: (215) 299-2150
          Email: amacdonald@foxrothschild.com


SPRINT CORPORATION: Faces Guzman Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprint Corporation.
The case is captioned as IVETTE GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SPRINT CORPORATION, A KANSAS
CORPORATION, SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A KANSAS
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC19581709 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 20, 2019).

Sprint is an American telecommunications company that provides
wireless services and is an internet service provider, based in
Overland Park, Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S Beverly Dr., Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-4309
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


STANDDESK INC: Robinson Hits Unpaid Commissions, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Standdesk Inc., Steven Yu and DOES 1-25.,
Defendant, Case No. 19STOV4659S (Cal. Super., December 27, 2019),
seeks damages for employment discrimination, unpaid wages, breach
of contract, wrongful termination, civil penalties and additional
claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and California
labor codes.

Stand Desk hired Plaintiff as a remote contractor in February of
2016. She claims to be illegally dismissed for complaining about
her unpaid commissions and bonuses, sexual harassment and hostile
work environment in the workplace. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Fonda, Esq.
      FONDA LAW
      1050 Lakes Dr. Suite 250
      West Covina, CA 91723
      Tel. (323) 580-0850
      Email: dfonda@fonda.law


SUGAR STEEL: Illegally Collects Employees' Biometrics, James Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUGAR STEEL CORPORATION, Case No. 2020CH00604 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendant
for its violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act relating
to its collection and use of its employees' biometric data.

While there are benefits to using biometric time clocks in the
workplace, there are also risks. Unlike key fobs or identification
cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--handprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers
associated with the employee. This exposes employees to privacy
risks. In response to these concerns, Illinois enacted the
Biometric Information Privacy Act, to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, including
handprints.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violates the provisions of
the BIPA and continues to collect, store, and use the biometric
data of its employees' and temporary workers. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendant failed and continues to fail to inform its
workers that it discloses workers' handprint data to at least one
known third-party vendor the manufacturer of the hand print time
clock; fails to inform its workers that it discloses their
biometric identifiers and biometric information to other, currently
unknown, third parties, which hosted the biometric data in their
data centers; fails to inform its workers of the purposes and
duration for which it collects their sensitive biometric data; and
fails to obtain written releases from its workers before collecting
their handprints.

The Defendant failed to provide workers with a written, publicly
available policy identifying their retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying employees' handprints when
the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their handprints is
no longer relevant, as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jeffery James is a resident of Chicago Heights, Illinois,
and performed work for the Defendant.

Sugar Steel is an Illinois corporation and has been in business
since 1966 as a steel distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Friedman, Esq.
          Arijana Keserovic, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 357-1431


TELHIO CREDIT: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of Bryant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Telhio Credit Union, Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant/Appellee, v. Kristin J. Bryant, Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff/Appellant, Case No. 19AP-17 (Ohio App.), Judge Lisa L.
Sadler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth District,
Franklin County, reversed the Dec. 14, 2018 judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting Telhio's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In May 2009, Appellant Kristin Bryant purchased a vehicle from a
local dealership financed through Appellee Telhio Credit Union, and
the Appellee took a security interest in the vehicle.  In 2011, the
Appellee repossessed the vehicle and sold it at an auction.  The
next year, it filed a complaint in the Franklin County Municipal
Court contending the Appellant defaulted under the terms of the
promissory note for purchase of the vehicle and seeking a judgment
of $3,292.67, representing the loan balance less the proceeds of
the sale of the vehicle, plus interest.

The Appellant filed an answer and counterclaim against appellee,
then later filed an amended class action counterclaim asserting
claims for: (1) violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"); (2)
violations of R.C. 1309.613 and 1309.614 regarding a deficient
notice of sale; (3) violation of R.C. 1309.616 regarding an
incorrect notice of deficiency; (4) breach of contract; (5) unjust
enrichment; (6) negligence; and (7) individual claim for harm to
credit reputation.  The municipal court transferred the case to the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in 2013.

Once in common pleas court, the Appellee filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), asking the
trial court to dismiss the Appellant's counterclaim in its
entirety.  The Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the
Appellee's motion to dismiss combined with an alternative motion
for leave to amend her counterclaim.  On Oct. 15, 2013, prior to
issuing a decision on the Civ.R. 12(C) motion, the trial court
ordered discovery to be held in abeyance and granted the Appellant
leave to file a second amended counterclaim.

On Oct. 18, 2013, the Appellant filed her second amended class
action counterclaim, narrowing the claims down to: (1) violation of
TILA; (2) violations of R.C. 1309.613 and 1309.614; (3) violation
of R.C. 1309.616; and (4) breach of contract. The counterclaim
states appellant brings the action on behalf of herself and four
classes corresponding to each claim: the TILA class; the "Notice of
Sale" class; the "Deficiency" class; and the "Breach of Contract"
class.

Regarding both the notice of sale violation claim and the
deficiency violation claim, the Appellant contended she and the
members of the proposed class suffered economic loss in an amount
to be determined at trial and indicated statutory damages, pursuant
to R.C. 1309.625(C)(2), were also available for such violations.
The Appellee filed a reply in support of its motion for judgment on
the pleadings specific to the remaining four counterclaims.

On June 23, 2014, the trial court granted in part and denied in
part the Appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The
trial court noted the Appellant consented to the dismissal of her
unjust enrichment, negligence, and harm to credit reputation
claims.  It then found two of the Appellant's remaining
counterclaims survived the Appellee's Civ.R. 12(C) motion for
judgment on the pleadings: the Appellant's claim that appellee
violated R.C. 1309.613 and 1309.614 by providing the Appellant with
an incorrect notice of public sale of collateral, and the
Appellant's claim that appellee violated R.C. 1309.616 by providing
her with an incorrect notice of deficiency.

On Sept. 5, 2014, the Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the
Appellant's remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(B)(1).  It argued that no live controversy existed before
the trial court because appellee dismissed its original action
against appellant and offered appellant more money than she could
recover on her counterclaims.  The Appellant filed a memorandum in
opposition asking the trial court to deny the Appellee's motion to
dismiss and attempt to buy off her and negate her standing to sue
as a class representative.

The Appellee filed a reply stating, in part, that the Appellant
represented to the trial court at a June 24, 2014 status conference
that the only relief she sought in respect to the Uniform
Commercial Code ("UCC") claims are statutory damages, the check
tendered to appellant covered that full amount, and appellee
dismissed its claims against appellant with prejudice.  Therefore,
according to appellee, since the Appellant's claims are moot, the
putative class action is moot as well.

On Oct. 8, 2014, the Appellant filed a motion to compel discovery
requesting an order from the court compelling the Appellee to
comply with her first set of discovery requests, which she served
it with in June 2013.  By order dated Oct. 30, 2014, the trial
court held the Appellant's motion to compel discovery in abeyance
pending its decision on the Appellee's motion to dismiss.

The trial court, on Jan. 22, 2016, "authorized" the Appellee to
deposit with the clerk of courts the sum of $15,000 to be held for
the benefit of the Appellant pending a decision on the Appellee's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  It further stated any
deposited funds would be released and distributed only upon further
order of distribution by the trial court.  Four days later, the
Appellee filed a notice of deposit of $15,000 with the clerk of
courts.

On Dec. 14, 2018, the trial court granted the Appellee's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  No further trial court order
disposes of the $15,000 on hold with the clerk of court.  The
Appellant filed a timely appeal of the trial court decision.  After
a discussion at oral argument regarding the effect of teh Appellant
rejecting the check sent by the Appellee and whether the recent
Tenth District case Ettayem v. State Auto Ins. Cos., had bearing on
the issue, the Appellant filed a memorandum in regard to the
Ettayem case and appellee filed a response.

The Appellant assigns the following as trial court error: (i) the
Trial Court erred in holding that Telhio's unaccepted offer of
judgment mooted Ms. Bryant's claims and deprived the court of
jurisdiction; (ii) the Trial Court erred in denying Ms. Bryant a
Fair Opportunity to Show That Class Certification is Warranted; and
(iii) the court erred in Finding that Telhio had tendered total
relief to Ms. Bryant.

Having reviewed the complaint, R.C. 1309.625, and the remedies
listed, Judge Sadler finds on the facts of the case that the trial
court erred in finding that the Appellant received "full relief."
The trial court thereby erred in determining the case is moot and
granting the Appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
the Appellate Court opines.  Considering all these, the Appellate
Court finds that an actual, genuine controversy, the decision of
which can definitely affect existing legal relations, exists in the
case.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court sustains the Appellant's
third assignment of error.

The Appellant's first and second assignments of error generally
assert her status as a class representative as an independent
reason to deny the Appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.  In the third assignment of error, the Appellate
Court determined the trial court erred in finding appellant
received full relief for her remaining counterclaims and,
therefore, should not have determined the action to be moot.  The
Appellate Court's decision in this regard renders the Appellant's
first and second assignments of error moot.

Accordingly, having sustained the Appellant's third assignment of
error and determined the Appellant's first and second assignments
of error are moot, Judge Sadler reversed the judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remanded the cause for
further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with her
decision.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Decision is
available at https://is.gd/nQJRXf from Leagle.com.

On brief: Bricker & Eckler LLP, and Daniel C. Gibson --
dgibson@bricker.com -- for appellee. Argued: Daniel C. Gibson.

On brief: Frederick & Berler LLC, Ronald I. Frederick, Michael L.
Berler, and Michael L. Fine; Gregory Reichenbach, for appellant.
Argued: Ronald I. Frederick.


TENG DRAGON: Cao Claims, Overtime, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hajiun Cao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Teng Dragon of NY LLC, Zhi J. Zhao, Jackie
Zhao And "John" Zhao, Defendants, Case No. 657787/2019, (N.Y. Sup.,
December 31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York labor laws.

Defendants operate as "Teng Dragon," a Chinese food delivery
service. Cao, a delivery personnel, claims to be denied lawful
overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek and full
and accurate records of hours and wages. He also says that his
employers took out a tip credit and shortchanged him for his
vehicle expenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
      Leanghour Lim, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com


TENNESSEE: Harris, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICKY HARRIS, et al., the
PLAINTIFFS, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
3:19-CV -00174 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter
an order determining that the action may be maintained as a class
action.

This civil rights case was filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by state
prisoners and asserts claims for unconstitutional life sentence
statues and sentencing calculations of all sentences. The
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief from
unconstitutional statues relating to life sentences and sentencing
calculations of all sentences.

Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South.[CC]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


TRANSUNION RENTAL: Faces Lewis Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Reid Lewis, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00531 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2020),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely reported to the
Plaintiff's potential landlord that he had been charged and
convicted of four criminal offenses. In fact, the convictions the
Defendant reported belonged to individual(s) with a similar name to
the Plaintiff but none of the reported convictions belonged to
him.

The Defendant's reporting costs the Plaintiff his chance to rent
the property of his choice, cause him serious distress and
embarrassment, and cause him financial loss, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Reid Lewis is a resident of San Pedro,
California.

The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (619) 489-0300
          Email: bgaldston@bm.net


TROPIC OIL CO: Diaz Suit Asserts Ilegal Termination
---------------------------------------------------
Sergio Diaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Tropic Oil Company, Highlands Oil Company, Inc.,
Parkland Fuel Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-25302, (S.D.
Fla., December 27, 2019), seeks redress for failure to pay overtime
wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act including back pay, employment benefits and other
compensation including bonuses, compensatory damages for emotional
distress, equitable relief, including, but not limited to,
reinstatement or front pay, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
such other and further relief for violations of Florida's
Whistleblower Act.

Defendants transport, distribute and market fuels, lubricants and
equipment to the marine, automotive, trucking and aviation
industries. They jointly employed Diaz as a truck driver from April
2018 to April 2019. Diaz suffered a workplace injury to his right
shoulder in May 2019 so he was assigned in a light duty position at
Defendants' warehouse as a "safety monitor." He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
and worked through his meals breaks.

Diaz filed a complaint for unlawful harassment and threatening
behavior against his supervisor, David Gurney. Diaz claims to be
fired to retaliation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Dec. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of  Trulieve Cannabis Corp. ("Trulieve" or the
"Company") (OTCQX: TCNNF) between September 25, 2018 and December
17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Trulieve
overstated its mark-up on its biological assets; (2) therefore,
Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3) Trulieve engaged
in an undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant
Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research
published a report explaining that Trulieve had failed to disclose:
(i) real estate transactions with insiders; (ii) that, rather than
high-quality indoor production, the vast majority of the Company's
marijuana was produced in low quality "hoop houses"; and (iii) that
the Company's markup on biological assets was excessive and
unreasonable.

On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share or over 12.6%
to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging
investors.

If you purchased Trulieve securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/trulievecannabiscorp-tcnnf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-236/apply/
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 28, 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 Information

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


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Trulieve
Cannabis Corp. (OTC: TCNNF) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
25, 2018 and December 17, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''),
are encouraged to contact the firm before February 28, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Trulieve inflated the mark-up on its
biological assets. This resulted in the Company overstating its
gross profits. The Company participated in undisclosed
related-party real estate transactions. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Trulieve, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Baley Water Rights Subordinate to Tribe Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a
Decision affirming a trial court judgment granting Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned LONNY E. BALEY,
ET AL., JOHN ANDERSON FARMS, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. UNITED STATES, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 2018-1323, 2018-1325.
(Fed. Cir.).

The case arises out of the Klamath River Basin reclamation project,
which supplies water to hundreds of farms, comprising approximately
200,000 acres of agricultural land.  The Project is managed and
operated by the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau
of Reclamation.  The Bureau of Reclamation also manages the Klamath
Project to protect the tribal trust resources of several Native
American Tribes.

In 2001, the Bureau temporarily halted water deliveries to farmers
and irrigation districts served by the Project.

By October 2001, about 14 irrigation organizations and 13
individual farmers filed suit in the United States Court of Federal
Claims in Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, No.
1:01-cv-00591.  Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that the
Bureau of Reclamation's action in temporarily halting their water
deliveries in 2001 constituted a taking of their water rights
without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.  

Through 2008, U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("trial court") issued
several orders in the case, including granting summary judgment in
favor of the government.  There also were some Appellate Court
action.  The trial court also entered several orders relevant to a
related case filed by individual water user plaintiffs, John
Anderson Farms, et al. v. United States, No. 1:07-cv-00194.

In particular, in January 2016, the trial court issued an order
consolidating the Klamath Irrigation District and John Anderson
Farms cases.  By January 10, 2017, the trial court granted a motion
for class certification.  The certified class included, as opt-in
plaintiffs, all persons who owned or leased land within, or who
received water from, the 14 plaintiff irrigation organizations and
who claimed an appurtenant right to Project water and alleged a
Fifth Amendment taking and an impairment of their rights under the
Klamath River Basin Compact.

By late January 2017, the trial court granted the move of all
irrigation organization plaintiffs for the voluntary dismissal of
their claims, which left as plaintiffs the surviving individual
farmers and the class action opt-in plaintiffs.  This resulted in
the recaptioning of the consolidated case to Lonny Baley, et al. v.
United States.  

Thereafter, on September 29, 2017, the trial court issued its final
decision in the case. Baley v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619
(2017) ("Baley").  In its decision, the trial court held that
Klamath Project operations in 2001 did not result in takings or
violate the plaintiffs' rights under the Compact because the waters
retained in Upper Klamath Lake and the waters in the Klamath River
were within the scope of federal reserved water rights for tribal
fishing that were senior in priority to the plaintiffs' water
rights.

Following the entry of judgment in favor of the government on
October 24, 2017, the plaintiffs timely appealed.  

Overall Contentions of the Parties

On appeal, appellants argue that the Court of Federal Claims (trial
court) erred in holding that their taking claims were barred by the
prior reserved water rights of the Tribes.  Appellants also
challenge the trial court's determinations that appellants who
receive water under National Wildlife Refuge leases and that
appellants who receive water under Warren Act contracts that limit
the government's liability for other cause are barred from seeking
compensation.  In addition, appellants challenge the trial court's
dismissal of the claims of farmers whose water rights are derived
from the Van Brimmer Ditch Company.  

The government and the Federation (appellees) respond that the
trial court did not err in ruling that superior tribal rights
defeated appellants' claims.  They also contend that the trial
court did not err in its rulings with respect to claims arising
from National Wildlife Refuge leases, claims arising from Warren
Act contracts containing limiting language, and claims of farmers
deriving their water rights from the Van Brimmer Ditch Company.  

In addition, appellees argue that should the Appellate Court
determine that the trial court erred in its tribal rights ruling,
the Appellate Court should vacate the trial court decision and
remand with the instruction that the trial court analyze
appellants' claims as asserting regulatory, as opposed to physical,
takings.  

Contentions Regarding Tribal Rights

Appellants make three main arguments relating to tribal rights:

First, appellants argue that it was error for the trial court to
hold that, in 2001, the Tribes held rights to an amount of water
that was at least equal to what was needed to satisfy the Bureau of
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations.  The ESA
requires that the Bureau not jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered and threatened fish.  

Second, appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding
that the Tribes have senior rights in Klamath Project water.
Appellants argue that the Tribes' water rights were created before
the Klamath Project and therefore do not include a right to the
then non-existent stored water produced by the Klamath Project.
Appellants maintain there is no evidence showing that water in
Upper Klamath Lake flows upstream into these rivers.  On these
grounds, appellants assert that the Klamath Tribes do not have
implied rights to the water stored in Upper Klamath Lake for
purposes of the Klamath Project.

Third, appellants argue that the trial court erred in several
respects regarding the exercise of the Tribes'  rights.
Specifically, according to appellants, the Bureau of Reclamation
should not have taken unilateral action in response to the FWS and
NMFS Biological Opinions, but instead should have sought a judicial
determination regarding the existence, location, quantity, source,
and lawful purposes of the water rights at issue, which had not
occurred by 2001.

In response to appellants' first argument, appellees contend that
the minimum lake and flow levels the Bureau of Reclamation imposed
in the Plan were critical to the survival of the relevant fish, and
therefore within the Tribes' federal reserved rights.  Indeed,
appellees argue, avoiding jeopardy under the ESA is a lower
threshold than the reasonable livelihood or moderate living,
standard for tribal trust resources.  

Second, appellees respond that the trial court correctly found that
the retained waters of Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River are
within the scope of federal reserved rights of the Tribes.
According to appellees, the 1864 Klamath Treaty reserved rights in
water necessary to fulfill the fishing-related purposes of the
Klamath Tribes' reservation, and this reservation of rights extends
to water in Upper Klamath Lake.  

Third, appellees contend that the Tribes' federal reserved rights
need not be quantified or adjudicated to be enforced.  This
requirement, appellees contend, pertains to state rights, not
federal reserved rights.  Appellees argue that state adjudications
are limited to waters within a state and cannot encompass water
rights to bodies of water that run through other states.  

Analysis

The Appellate Court is not persuaded by appellants' argument that
the Tribes' entitlement to a reasonable livelihood or moderate
living did not require that the Bureau halt water deliveries to the
extent required to comply with the ESA.

Given that the standard of the ESA is to avoid jeopardizing the
existence of the endangered suckerfish, the Appellate Court do not
see how, in this case, the reasonable livelihood or moderate living
standard constitutes a standard lower than the requirement that the
very existence of this important tribal resource not be placed in
jeopardy.

The Appellate Court also reviewed the appellants' second main
argument: that there are geographic limitations on the Tribes'
rights that exclude Upper Klamath Lake, and accordingly Klamath
Project water, from the reach of those rights.

The Klamath Tribes have an implied right to water to the extent
necessary for them to accomplish hunting, fishing, and gathering on
the former reservation, a primary purpose of the Klamath
reservation.  This entitlement includes the right to prevent
appropriators from utilizing water in a way that depletes adjoined
water sources below a level that damages the habitat of the fish
they have a right to take.  While the Klamath Project did not exist
at the time of the creation of the Klamath Tribes' reservation,
Upper Klamath Lake undisputedly did exist at that time, as it was
the boundary of the reservation as it was created.

Thus, given the facts of record, the trial court did not err in
finding that the Klamath Tribes' implied water rights include Upper
Klamath Lake, the Appellate Court finds.  The Appellate Court thus
concludes that the trial court did not err when it determined that
the Tribes' reserved water rights encompass the Klamath Project
water.

Ruling

In sum, the Appellate Court agrees with trial court that
appellants' water rights were subordinate to the Tribes' federal
reserved water rights.  The Appellate Court therefore sees no error
in the trial court's holding that the Bureau of Reclamation's
action in temporarily halting deliveries of Klamath Project water
in 2001 did not constitute a taking of appellants' property.
Because the parties agree this ruling is dispositive of the case,
the Appellate need not reach appellants' remaining arguments on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's November 14, 2019
Decision is available at  https://tinyurl.com/vc44v7t from
Leagle.com

ROGER J. MARZULLA , Marzulla Law, LLC, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036, argued for plaintiffs-appellants
Lonny E. Baley, Mark R. Trotman, Baley Trotman Farms, James L.
Moore, Cheryl L. Moore, Daniel G. Chin, Deloris D. Chin, Wong
Potatoes, Inc., Michael J. Byrne, Byrne Brothers, John Anderson
Farms, Inc., Buckingham Family Trust, Eileen Buckingham, Keith
Buckingham, Shelly Buckingham, Constance Frank, John Frank, Hill
Land and Cattle Co., Inc., Jeff Hunter, Sandra Hunter, McVay Farms,
Inc., Barbara McVay, Matthew K. McVay, Michael McVay, Ronald McVay,
Suzan McVay, Tatiana V. McVay, Henry O'Keeffe, Patricia O'Keeffe,
Shasta View Produce, Inc., Edwin Stastny, Jr., All Plaintiffs. Also
represented by NANCIE GAIL MARZULLA, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Plaintiffs-appellants John
Anderson Farms, Inc., Buckingham Family Trust, Eileen Buckingham,
Keith Buckingham, Shelly Buckingham, Constance Frank, John Frank,
Hill Land and Cattle Co., Inc., Jeff Hunter, Sandra Hunter, McVay
Farms, Inc., Barbara McVay, Matthew K. McVay, Michael McVay, Ronald
McVay, Suzan McVay, Tatiana V. McVay, Henry O'Keeffe, Patricia
O'Keeffe, Shasta View Produce, Inc., Edwin Stastny, Jr. also
represented by ALAN IRVING SALTMAN  -aisaltman@smithcurrie.com -
Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, Washington, DC.

JOHN LUTHER SMELTZER , Environment and Natural Resources Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by ELIZABETH ANN
PETERSON , ERIC GRANT , JEFFREY H. WOOD .

TODD D. TRUE  - ttrue@earthjustice.org - Earthjustice, Seattle, WA,
argued for defendant-appellee Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations. Also represented by STEPHANIE KATHLEEN
TSOSIE - stsosie@earthjustice.org -

CHARLES T. DUMARS - ctd@lrpa-usa.com - Law & Resource Planning
Associates, PC, Albuquerque, NM, argued for amicus curiae The
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. Also represented by TANYA
L. SCOTT  - tls@lrpa-usa.com - LORNA M. WIGGINS , Wiggins, Williams
& Wiggins, PC,1803 Rio Grande Boulevard NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87104A.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: To Pay $135,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 17, 2020,
that the Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order directing
the company to make payments to plaintiff's counsel in the amount
of $135,000 in full satisfaction of any claim for attorneys' fees
and expenses, in the class action suit initiated by Ross Sorenson.

The Company agreed to make the payment to plaintiff's counsel
within 60 calendar days of the Court of Chancery's order.

On June 9, 2019, United Technologies Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Light Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of UTC ("Merger Sub"), and Raytheon
Company, a Delaware corporation ("Raytheon"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").

The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things and subject
to the satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Raytheon (the "Merger"), with Raytheon
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of UTC.

On September 12, 2019, Ross Sorenson, a purported shareowner of
United Technologies Corporation  filed a putative class action in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and its Board of
Directors.

The Action generally asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty
challenging the sufficiency of the disclosures made in the Amended
Registration Statement filed in connection with the Merger.

On October 2, 2019, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K that
addressed and therefore mooted the claims in the Action.

On October 18, 2019, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the Action and retaining jurisdiction solely for
purposes of ruling on plaintiff's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

After negotiation, the Company agreed to make a payment to
plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $135,000 within 60 calendar
days of the Court of Chancery entering an order directing the
publication of this notice, in full satisfaction of any claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action. The Court of Chancery
entered such an order on January 15, 2020. The Court of Chancery
has not been asked to review or approve, and will pass no judgment
on, this payment.

United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and
services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.
Its Otis segment designs, manufactures, sells, and installs
passenger and freight elevators, escalators, and moving walkways;
and offers modernization products to upgrade elevators and
escalators, as well as maintenance and repair services. The
company's UTC Climate, Controls & Security segment provides
heating, ventilating, air conditioning, refrigeration, fire,
security, and building automation products, solutions, and services
for residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation
applications. The company is based in Farmington, Connecticut.


WAREHOUSE SERVICES: Montalvo Seeks to Recover Underpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Montalvo, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WAREHOUSE SERVICES, INC., an Oregon
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:20-cv-00144 (Cal.
Super., San Bernardino Cty., Jan. 17, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business &
Professions Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9, in
addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution.

The Defendants utilized a timekeeping system, which resulted in the
Plaintiff not being compensated for all hours actually worked, by
time-shaving, rounding, or otherwise, according to the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants regularly, systematically, and
impermissibly rounded the time worked by the Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees in the Defendants' favor, such that the time
shaving/rounding practice utilizes by the Defendants was not
even-handed over time, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was and is currently employed by the Defendant as a
non-exempt employee.

The Defendants did business providing and operating warehouse space
to customers in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. De La Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                 mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                 bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


WAWA INC: Faces Cohen Suit in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER COHEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06064-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Dec.
20, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act arising from a
data breach announced to the public on December 19, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that Wawa failed to secure and safeguard
personal information and payment card or other financial
information that Wawa collected and maintained. She further alleges
that Wawa failed to provide timely and adequate notice to her and
other Class members with details regarding what Private Information
had been stolen.

The Plaintiff contends that her private information was compromised
in the data breach. Before the announcement of the breach, she was
a regular customer of Wawa for coffee and other products, goes to a
number of Wawa stores in the greater Philadelphia area and had made
purchases there on numerous occasions from March to December of
2019. Like millions of other Wawa customers, she used a payment
card to make purchases at Wawa.

Wawa is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations
located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington,
D.C., and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169


WAWA INC: Faces Nine Data Breach Class Actions in Philadelphia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Hetrick, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that about a month before Wawa disclosed a data breach exposing
customers' credit and debit card numbers, the nation's largest
credit card network warned that hackers were targeting gas stations
to steal payment card information.

Visa reported in November that gas stations emerged as attractive
targets for cybercriminals because many have been slow to adopt
more-secure payment-processing technology. Specifically, Visa said
the attacks could continue as long as gas stations used
magnetic-stripe readers to accept card payments, instead of devices
that take cards equipped with computer chips.

Wawa said that it is implementing chip technology at gas pumps and
expects all pumps to be upgraded in 2020.

An investigation into Wawa's data breach is continuing, and it's
unclear how malicious software got on Wawa's payment-processing
servers. But Visa's warnings shed light on a concerning trend of
hackers targeting vulnerable gas stations with sophisticated
cyberattacks.

Visa said criminals used malware in two data breaches over the
summer at North American gas stations. In the past, criminals had
typically used less sophisticated means, such as hiding
"card-skimming" devices inside fuel pumps to steal data one card at
a time.

"Fuel dispenser merchants should take note of this activity as the
group's operations are significantly more advanced than fuel
dispenser skimming, and these attacks have the potential to
compromise a high volume of payment accounts," Visa's fraud unit
warned. "The deployment of devices that support chip will
significantly lower the likelihood of these attacks."

In a statement, Wawa spokesperson Lori Bruce said the company took
steps to protect payment information provided at gas pumps,
including increasing the physical security of fuel dispensers to
reduce the risk of skimming attacks. She added that Wawa follows
data security standards for organizations that handle payment
cards. Gas stations have until October to move to chip technology
under a deadline set by credit card networks such as Visa and
Mastercard.

"At Wawa, nothing is more important than honoring and protecting
our customers' trust, and we take seriously our commitment to
protect our customers' payment information," Bruce said. "We are
continuing to work with leading forensic experts and law
enforcement to investigate this incident and understand why it went
undetected."

Wawa has said malware was on its store systems starting after March
4, about eight months before Visa warned of the attacks on Nov. 14.
Wawa said it found the malware on Dec. 10 and contained it by Dec.
12, but by then cardholder names, numbers, and expiration dates
used in-store and at gas pumps were compromised. The breach went
undetected for roughly nine months.

Now the popular convenience store chain is facing a wave of
lawsuits accusing the company of failing to protect consumers from
the massive data breach affecting potentially all of its more than
850 stores. At least nine lawsuits seeking class-action status had
been filed in federal court in Philadelphia as of Dec. 31. Some
Wawa customers say that their credit and debit cards were
fraudulently used after the data breach.

"What is most shocking to me, and should be most appalling to
everybody, is how long this went undetected. How did Wawa just find
this recently?" said Ron Schlecht, managing partner at Bala
Cynwyd-based BTB Security. "They were obviously not monitoring at
an appropriate level commensurate with their business volume and
were unable to detect this anomalous activity."

Wawa, which is based in Wawa, Delaware County, has stores in six
states -- including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware -- and
the District of Columbia. The company, which had more than $12
billion in sales in 2018, serves about 700 million customers
annually.

The lawsuits suggest that millions of customers could have been
affected by the breach.

In August and September, Visa investigated two breaches at North
American gas stations in which hackers deployed malware to harvest
payment card data. In one case, someone sent an employee a phishing
email with a malicious link that, when clicked, installed a "Remote
Access Trojan" on the company's network. Hackers eventually reached
the firm's point-of-sale system and scraped payment card data.

In another case, the gas station accepted card chips in-store and
magnetic stripes at fuel pumps. The malware used in that attack
targeted the magnetic-stripe data, meaning payment cards used at
fuel pumps were at risk.

"The Visa reports make clear that it is user gullibility that is
the attack vector," Michael Levy, former chief of computer crimes
at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, wrote in an email. "A network may be hardened against
an outside assault, but if you can get an employee inside the
company to click on a link, and that link causes the employee's
computer to download malware, you have tunneled under the moat and
[fire]wall. It was my guess that the perpetrators accomplished the
Wawa breach in a similar fashion."

Visa said one of the attacks it investigated was likely launched by
a cybercrime group called FIN8, which often targets retail,
restaurant, and hospitality merchants to steal payment account
data. Such groups have "close ties with the cybercrime underground"
and are easily able to sell the account information obtained in the
attacks, according to Visa.

Card chip technology is considered far more secure than magnetic
stripes because it creates a unique, onetime-use code for each
transaction, according to Visa. If that information is stolen and
used to create counterfeit cards, the onetime use code would not
work, preventing counterfeit fraud.

Although other merchants now accept chip cards, many gas stations
are still upgrading. Visa and Mastercard gave gas stations more
time to adopt chip technology at automated fuel pumps, from October
2017 to October 2020, citing "unique challenges" facing the
industry. For example, older pumps may need to be replaced before
adding chip readers, requiring specialized vendors and breaking
into concrete, Visa said in 2016.

Wawa has said it will pay for a year of identity-theft protection
and credit monitoring for affected consumers who visit
experianidworks.com/credit or call 1-844-386-9559 (activation code:
4H2H3T9H6). The company has also told customers to closely review
account statements for unauthorized charges. Under federal law,
customers who notify their card company shortly after discovering
fraudulent charges won't have to pay those charges.

Debit card pin numbers, credit card security codes, and driver's
license information were not affected by malware and the attack
posed no risk to ATMs, according to Wawa.

The convenience store chain is hiring help for its cybersecurity
defenses. Wawa is looking for an "incident response associate" who
will help with the "detection, response and remediation of cyber
related attacks on the Wawa enterprise," according to a job posting
on Wawa's website.

The job opening was published Dec. 3, a week before the company
said it discovered the data breach. [GN]


WAWA INC: Faces Rapak Suit in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS RAPAK, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Dec.
20, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act arising from a
data breach announced to the public on December 19, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that Wawa failed to secure and safeguard
personal information and payment card or other financial
information that Wawa collected and maintained. He further alleges
that Wawa failed to provide timely and adequate notice to him and
other Class members with details regarding what Private Information
had been stolen.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made purchases using
Wawa's in-store payment terminals and/or fuel dispensers at
numerous Wawa locations between March 2019 and December 2019 with
his debit and/or credit card. As such, he asserts that his Personal
Information was stored on Wawa's payment processing servers, and he
was affected by the breach.

Wawa is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations
located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington,
D.C., and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399-4770
          E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  jseredynski@lowey.com


WENIG HOLDINGS: Pet Parade Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Parade, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. WENIG HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a INSURANCESERVICES4U.COM, a
Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-20220-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, despite the TCPA requirements regarding
fax advertisements, the Defendant has sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to the Plaintiff and the class that violate the TCPA
in multiple ways. The Defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements
to the Plaintiff and the class despite the Defendant not having an
established business relationship (EBR) with the Plaintiff and the
Class, in violation of the TCPA. Additionally, the unsolicited fax
advertisements sent to the Plaintiff and the Class lacked the
required opt-out language. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not give
permission to the Defendant to send it fax advertisements in any
respect.

The Defendant's violation of these procedural and substantive
rights, by sending fax advertisements without the mandated opt-out
notice and without having an EBR, is sufficient to satisfy the
injury in fact requirement for Article III standing analysis under
the TCPA, the Plaintiff argues. The Plaintiff adds that it and
members of the proposed class have suffered an invasion of a
legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized.

The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant does business in Florida and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                 mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


WEWORK COMPANIES: Osborne BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
WeWork Companies Inc. removed the case captioned as ELLIOTT
OSBORNE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEWORK COMPANIES INC., WEWORK CONSTRUCTION LLC, WW 210
N GREEN LLC d/b/a WEWORK, 332 S MICHIGAN TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK
GRANT PARK, WW 111 WEST ILLINOIS LLC d/b/a WEWORK RIVER NORTH, 20 W
KINZIE TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK4, 100 S STATE STREET TENANT LLC
d/b/a WEWORK5, 125 S CLARK STREET TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK6, 222 S
RIVERSIDE PLAZA TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK8, 330 NORTH WABASH TENANT
LLC d/b/a WEWORK9, 515 N STATE STREET TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK10, 1
SOUTH DEARBORN STREET TENANT LLC d/b/a WEWORK11, 625 WEST ADAMS
STREET TENANT LLC, Case No. 2019CH12856 (Filed Nov. 5, 2019), from
the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 20, 2019.

Mr. Osborne alleges that WeWork required individuals entering its
locations in Illinois to enroll in a facial recognition database
using a photograph or a scan of facial geometry for tracking
purposes, in a manner that violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

WeWork is a category leader in "co-working," and provides access to
flexible office space and other services to its members around the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, 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
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          Benjamin E. Sedrish, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: masiebert@shb.com
                  mwolfe@shb.com
                  bsedrish@shb.com


WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Harris Hits Product's False Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-02493, (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2019), seeks damages,
equitable relief and attorney's fees and costs as a result of
breach of implied warranty and for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the federal
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Woodbolt Distribution does business in California as "Nutrabolt."
The latter sells "Cavalier Gentlemen's Product," an
over-the-counter aphrodisiac. Harris claims that none of the
ingredients in Cavalier, individually or in combination, can
provide such benefits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
      Email: greg@westonfirm.com


[*] New Law to Outlaw Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kun, Esq. -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein Becker & Green,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that a new California law was
set to go into effect on January 1, 2020 that would outlaw
mandatory arbitration agreements with employees.

The new law, known as AB 51, would also prohibit arbitration
agreements that would require individuals to take affirmative
action to be excluded from arbitration, such as opting out.  The
law would also appear to extend to jury waivers and class action
waivers. And it would include criminal penalties.

An eleventh-hour court order will keep that statute from being
enforced, at least for a few days.

On December 29, 2019, just days before AB 51 was to go into effect,
a federal judge in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of California granted a temporary restraining order
("TRO") to enjoin enforcement of AB 51.

In an action filed by a number of business groups, including the
Chamber of Commerce, challenging the statute as being preempted by
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), Judge Kimberly Mueller
concluded that it would be disruptive if the statute went into
effect for a brief period of time, only to have it later determined
to be preempted.

The TRO will keep the status quo in place until Judge Mueller
conducts a preliminary injunction hearing on January 10, 2020.

It is certainly possible that Judge Mueller will issue a
preliminary injunction and, at a later date, a permanent injunction
to prohibit enforcement of AB 51.

Of course, it is also possible that she will decline to convert the
TRO into a preliminary injunction.

In the meantime, employers who were planning to implement new, AB
51-compliant arbitration agreements in California on January 1,
2020 -- or to forego using arbitration agreements in California
based on the statute -- may want to hold off on doing so until
Judge Mueller conducts that January 10, 2020 hearing. [GN]


[*] Pillsbury Winthrop Attorneys Discuss Significant ERISA Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Hunt, Esq. -- peter.hunt@pillsburylaw.com -- Jessica
Lutrin, Esq. -- jessica.lutrin@pillsburylaw.com -- Jonathan M.
Ocker, Esq. -- jonathan.ocker@pillsburylaw.com -- and Christy
Richardson, Esq. -- crichardson@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, in this article discusses significant
cases that relate to Employee Retirement Income Security Act class
actions and provides recommendations for proactive steps a plan
sponsor should take to mitigate the risk of such litigation.

Defined Contribution Plans

Ninth Circuit Ruling Repaves Intersection of ERISA and Arbitration
Law

There has been a slew of cases where retirement plan participants
have sued their employers for mismanaging their retirement plan
under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA. These claims generally assert
that employers acting as plan administrators engage in self-dealing
and/or other practices that violate ERISA's fiduciary standards,
such as imprudently selecting investment options and administrative
services or funds that earn high fees for the plan sponsor while
performing worse than other competitors.

In combating these claims, employers have attempted to enforce
various arbitration clauses or agreements that plan participants
have executed. In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held in Munro v. University of Southern California1 that
claims of retirement plan mismanagement against the university
could not be arbitrated because such claims fell outside the scope
of arbitration agreements signed by the employees under which they
had consented to arbitrate claims brought on their own behalf.

Because breach of fiduciary claims were brought on the plan's
behalf, the arbitration agreements did not extend to such claims,
even though the losses pertained to each employee's individual
account. The court further held that the benefits from winning the
claim for breach of fiduciary duty would belong to the plan and not
the individual participants.

In August 2019, however, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
in Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corp. ruled that a potential class
action breach of fiduciary claim against Charles Schwab could be
sent to arbitration. In this case, a former employee alleged that
Charles Schwab breached its fiduciary duties by including in the
401(k) plan certain Charles Schwab-affiliated funds that charged
higher fees and performed worse than other investments on the
market, and not examining whether there were other prudent choices
or better options.

Because breach of fiduciary duty claims belonged to the plan and
not the individual, the case hinged on whether the plan agreed to
arbitrate the claims. The court pointed to the 401(k) plan's
language, which included a provision stating that "[a]ny claim,
dispute or breach arising out of or in any way related to the
[p]lan shall be settled by binding arbitration" and required that
the arbitration be on an individual basis, which in essence
prohibited participants from bringing class action proceedings.

The court ruled that, because the breach of fiduciary duty claims
are ERISA claims, they arise out of and relate to the plan, so the
plan's arbitration provision controls, and that the employee could
only recover losses relating to his own account in arbitration.

With this decision, the court overruled Amaro v. Continental Can
Co.,4 a 1984 Ninth Circuit case, which previously held that claims
under ERISA could not be arbitrated, stating that Amaro cannot be
reconciled with the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision in American
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, which held that federal
statutory claims are generally arbitrable.

Plan sponsors who want to individually arbitrate potential ERISA
Section 502(a)(2) breach of fiduciary (and other ERISA) claims may
want to insert a provision in their 401(k) plan documents requiring
arbitration on an individual basis for all or certain types of
claims against or on behalf of the plan. When considering what
types of claims to arbitrate, plan sponsors should note that
individuals may obtain different results in arbitration and that
the government would not generally be bound by the arbitrator's
decision.

Defined Benefit Plans

In contrast to fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and other individual
account plans, fiduciaries of defined benefit pension plans
historically have not had to worry much about participant
litigation. But that may be changing.

Participants' Rights to Bring Action for Investment Losses

When it hears arguments this term in Thole v. U.S. Bank NA6 the
U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether participants have the
right to bring an action under ERISA to recover investment losses
on behalf of the plan, and whether the plan's funded status impacts
participants ability to do so. The plaintiff participants in that
case alleged that imprudent investment decisions resulted in the
plan suffering losses of $1.1 billion.

This caused the plan, which was previously overfunded (i.e., the
value of the plan's assets exceeded the present value of the plan's
liabilities), to become underfunded. After the claim was filed, the
plan sponsor made a $311 million contribution to the plan which was
sufficient to restore the plan's overfunded status.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the
participants in Thole did not have standing to sue under ERISA for
investment losses because the plan was overfunded. The Eighth
Circuit's position differs from that taken in the Second, Third and
Sixth Circuits, which have held that participants need not show
individual financial harm before bringing an action for injunctive
or equitable relief under ERISA.

Many plan sponsors are concerned that a Supreme Court decision in
favor of the Thole participants would greatly encourage class
actions against defined benefit plan fiduciaries on a scale similar
to that currently faced by fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and other
individual account plans.

Actuarial Assumption Class Actions

Beginning in December 2018 and continuing through 2019, at least 10
class action complaints have been filed against defined benefit
plan sponsors and fiduciaries challenging the actuarial factors
used to calculate certain benefits. Many of the plan sponsors are
household names, such as Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
American Airlines Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and U.S. Bancorp.

The class actions focus in particular on the mortality assumptions
used to convert a participant's normal retirement benefit -- i.e.,
the benefit payable to the participant as a single life annuity
beginning at the plan's normal retirement age (typically age 65)
-- into other forms of benefit. Many of the plans use mortality
tables that were created in 1984 or 1971, or in one case 1951.

Since mortality rates have generally been improving over the last
few decades, the plaintiffs argue that the plans' use of outdated
mortality assumptions understates the amount of annuity payments
that would be made over the participant's lifetime as a single life
annuity, and thus understates the benefits that are payable as a
joint and survivor annuity or as an early retirement annuity. The
plaintiffs allege that the plans are violating ERISA by failing to
provide alternative forms of payment that are actuarially
equivalent to the participant's normal retirement benefit, and that
the plan fiduciaries are breaching their ERISA fiduciary duties by
allowing these violations to occur.

While there is authority for the proposition that joint and
survivor annuity benefits and other alternative forms of benefit
should be actuarially equivalent to the participant's normal
retirement annuity, it is far from clear what actuarial assumptions
need to be used for that purpose. Congress and the IRS, while
providing guidance on actuarial assumptions to use for other
purposes, have not provided guidance on the actuarial assumptions
to use for making these types of benefit calculations, or how often
those assumptions need to be updated.

The first two district courts to consider motions to dismiss these
claims -- the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Minnesota and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, respectively -- in Smith v. U.S. Bancorp and Torres v.
American Airlines Inc.8 , ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and
allowed the claims to go forward.

A third district court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in DuBuske v. PepsiCo, ruled in favor of
PepsiCo's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs subsequently decided
to end their class action. The court ruled that the ERISA
anti-forfeiture provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs protect
only normal retirement benefits that have accrued upon the
attainment of normal retirement age, and since none of the
plaintiffs alleged they had attained normal retirement age, their
complaint failed to state a plausible claim.

In this respect, the PepsiCo decision may prove to be an outlier.
Other courts are more likely to adopt a broader interpretation of
ERISA's anti-forfeiture provisions and consider the full range of
actuarial equivalence issues raised in these class actions.

Plan sponsors should consult with their actuaries and counsel as to
whether it would be appropriate to update the mortality table and
other assumptions used to convert normal retirement benefits into
other forms of payment. In light of the new class action
environment, special care should be taken in implementing and
communicating any such updates.

Reducing Exposure to 401(k) Plan Class Actions

There has been a drastic increase in 401(k) class actions since
2016. These lawsuits center on the assertion that plan fiduciaries
made inappropriate investment choices and administrative and
investment fees were too high.

A person becomes an ERISA fiduciary if they are appointed to that
position or are named in the plan document or exercise
discretionary authority or control over the plan's administration
and/or investments. Most plan documents provide -- and conventional
wisdom supports -- that the company (and, therefore, the board) is
the plan's named fiduciary.

However, a company that establishes and maintains the plan, the
plan sponsor or settlor, is not necessarily a fiduciary. ERISA does
not require that the company plan sponsor be a named fiduciary and
allows this function to be outsourced by the company.

While it is not free from doubt that the board can completely
outsource the named fiduciary function by naming someone else as
the named fiduciary, and plaintiffs are likely to include the
company/board as a defendant in a lawsuit, the board should take
steps to mitigate or avoid being named as, or acting as, a
fiduciary.

Optimal Structure for Avoiding ERISA 401(k) Class Actions

The board should limit its role to adopting and amending the 401(k)
plan (or having an authorized officer do so) as plan settlor and
not as fiduciary. If the company (as plan sponsor) decides to amend
its 401(k) plan to designate a benefits committee as the named
fiduciary, the amendment should be adopted by an officer who does
not otherwise act as a fiduciary.

The officer should play a limited role with regard to the 401(k)
plan to hedge against the risk that such an act could be
interpreted to make the officer a fiduciary. Finally, the charter
of the compensation committee should give the committee only
general oversight over all benefits. The committee should not
appoint members of the benefits committee or specifically review
its performance.

The plan document/summary plan description should name a benefits
committee as the named fiduciary responsible for plan
administration and investments and identify committee membership
based on employment positions/titles. The benefits committee should
have a charter with self-perpetuating membership and a specific
list of its responsibilities over administration and investments.

The 401(k) plan is an operational matter and falls most prudently
and organically with employees with expertise in finance, human
resources and legal. We recommend that employees who are not
executive officers and who have sufficient time and expertise
occupy these roles. Board members generally are not 401(k) plan
experts on plan administration and investments.

The benefits committee may want to adopt an investment policy with
the assistance of its investment adviser and maintain adequate
fiduciary insurance. Benefits committee members should also be
indemnified by the company from losses and litigation expenses not
arising from misconduct/fraud.

To avoid claims for administration or investment breaches, we
recommend that the benefits committee assign its fiduciary duties
in writing by appointing (1) a third-party plan administrator to
administer the plan, (2) an investment manager to select the plan's
investments, and (3) an investment adviser to review the
manager-selected investments/expenses against investment policy
benchmarks.

A lawyer who is an ERISA subject matter expert should review all
the service provider contracts, the fiduciary insurance policy and
the indemnification agreements.

All of these selections and appointments should follow a robust
request for proposal with a good record of the selection criteria.
The benefits committee should meet with its advisers on a regular
basis to track investments and expenses and keep minutes of the
meetings. RFPs should be conducted every three to five years.

The foregoing best practices will reduce the risk of 401(k) class
action litigation and board members becoming involved in lawsuits.

Conclusion

Class actions have long been a concern for fiduciaries of 401(k)
plans, and are now threatening defined benefit plan fiduciaries as
well. The steps described above for reducing exposure to 401(k)
plan class actions should also be helpful with respect to defined
benefit plans.

However, sponsors of defined benefit plans should be wary of adding
mandatory arbitration provisions to their plan documents. In the
401(k) plan context, under Dorman, only the individual
participant's plan account would be at issue and, therefore,
limiting class action treatment would necessarily narrow the
exposure in any particular case.

In the defined benefit plan context, however, an individual
participant's arbitration proceeding alleging a fiduciary breach
(such as with respect to investments or actuarial assumptions)
could affect the entire plan even in the absence of a class action
-- fiduciaries would be subject to the mostly unappealable decision
of an arbitrator without the benefit of the more limited exposure
otherwise available with individual arbitration. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***