/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200128.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 20

                            Headlines

1616 SECOND AVENUE: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
AP & SS RESTAURANT: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
ARIZONA: Heffington Files Civil Rights Suit v. DOC
BAC SERVICES: Silberman Files Suit under FDCPA in New Jersey
BANNER HEALTH: Advisor That Ducked Class Action Settles for $500K

BATTERY BBQ: Bishop Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BEXAR COUNTY: Class Certification Sought in Williams Suit
CANADA: Clyde & Co Attorney Discusses Queensland Flood Case Ruling
CANADA: Manitoba First Nation Mulls Boil Water Advisories Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Jay Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price

CAVIAR INC: Faces Tiffin Cherry Suit Over Breach of Contract
CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Sabatini Challenges Proposed Sale to PPF Group
CHARLOTTE'S WEB: To Face Class Action Over Mislabeled CBD Product
CLARITY LAB: Morgan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CONCORD SERVICING: Adams Files Suit under FDCPA in South Carolina

COOPERVISION INC: Claims Filing Deadline on Jan. 31
CRABBY PATTY BROOKLYN: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
DIAMOND RESORTS: UNITE HERE 5 Invites Inquiries from Stockholders
DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Suit Deal Actually Worth $700MM, Workers Say

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: N.S. Files Class Action U.S. Marshal
EMEDPRACTICE LLC: Sandusky Wellness Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Espinal Suit Seeks to Certify Class
EXELON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
FEDEX GROUND: Perea Sues Over Unpaid and Improperly Paid Wages

FIAT CHRYSLER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Bicknell Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Class Action

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Files Class Action
FULTON FINANCIAL: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA in Pa.
GEO GROUP: Court Allows Former Detainees' Class Action to Proceed
GLATFELTER AGENCY: Mahoney Files Class Suit under ADA
GREEN DOT: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 17 Deadline

GREEN GROWTH: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
HANESBRANDS INC: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Emergency Room Surcharge Fees
HIGH MOUNTAIN FUNDING: Jimenez Files Suit Under FCPA in New York
HOTEL 35: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act

IQ FORMULATIONS: Keller and Heckman Discusses FDA Case Ruling
JENKINS WAGNON & YOUNG: Jaston Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
JONATHAN CONSTRUCTION: Navarro Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
JUPITER DISCO: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
KELOWNA: GoFundMe Page for Homeless Class Action Dropped

MAISON PREMIERE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
MANDARICH LAW: Faces Padwa Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
MDL 1913: $14M Attorneys Fees Awarded in Air Transpo Antitrust Suit
MERITOR INC: Beattey et al. Sue over Unpaid Pension Benefits
METRO-GOLDWYN MAYER: James Bond Case Atty.'s Fee Reduction Upheld

MICHEALS ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over Mold Exposure
MIDLAND CREDIT: Anday Files Suit Under FDCPA in Pennsylvania
MUDLIC PROPERTIES: Steven Files Suit in Illinois
NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NES GLOBAL: Richardson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

NIGHT MOVES BAR: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
NUWAVE LLC: Horn Files Suit in Illinois
NYLABONE CORP: Scandore Files Suit in New York
OLME.US LLC: Rozier Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
PATIENT FIRST CORP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA in New York

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adeshigbin Claims
PINGER INC: Regan Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes
PINNACLE RECOVERY: Adams Files Suit Under FDCPA in South Carolina
PJ'S STAGECOACH INN: Owners Face Class Action Lawsuit
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Wants to Narrow Antitrust Class Action

ROBERT SALNA: Canadian Ct. Dismisses Copyright Reverse Class Action
RODAN & FIELDS: Falsely Markets SPF 30 Sunscreen, Platonova Says
SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
SOHO HOTEL: Swartz Seeks Relief and Costs Over Violation of ADA
STERLING JEWELERS: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA

SYNDICATED BAR: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
T-MOBILE USA: $8M Deal in Salgado Labor Suit Has Prelim. Approval
T-MOBILE USA: Finalized Class Notice in Salgado Labor Suit Approved
TEXAS MEDGROUP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
TIK TOK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Harvesting

TRADER JOE'S: Figueroa Sues Over Misleading Labels of Cereal
TRULIA: Faces Class Action Over Premier Agent Advertising Program
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Trial Begins in Migrant Children Detention Case
UNITI GROUP: Faces Avery Suit over Drop in Share Price

VERICITY INC: Faces Rokowsky Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Largest-Ever Class Action in United Kingdom
WASTE PRO USA: Underpays Drivers, Blandon Suit Alleges
WAWA INC: First Choice Federal Files Suit in Pennsylvania
WEBANCO BANK: Mahoney Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act


                            *********

1616 SECOND AVENUE: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
1616 Second Avenue Restaurant LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1616 Second Avenue
Restaurant LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00404 (S.D. N.Y., Jan.
15, 2020).

1616 Second Avenue Restaurant LLC is a restaurant and bar featuring
American tavern food, beers, and cocktails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




AP & SS RESTAURANT: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
AP & SS Restaurant Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AP & SS Restaurant Group LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00401 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

AP & SS Restaurant Group LLC is a seafire grill restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIZONA: Heffington Files Civil Rights Suit v. DOC
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Department of
Corrections. The case is styled as Jason Heffington, a married man,
on behalf of himself and similarly-situated Arizona Department of
Correction, Plaintiff v. Arizona Department of Corrections, David
Shinn, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, in his
official capacity, Charles L Ryan, former Director of the Arizona
Department of Corrections, in his official capacity and personally,
John Hall, in his official capacity and personally, Gerald
Thompson, in his official capacity and personally and Wendy Eckles,
in her official capacity and personally, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00107-DJH (D., Ariz., Jan. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed under
Civil Rights.

The Arizona Department of Corrections is responsible for the
incarceration of inmates in 10 prisons in the U.S. state of
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Megan Nicole Weides, Esq.
   Foster Group
   518 E Willetta St.
   Phoenix, AZ 85004
   Tel: (260) 241-0410
   Email: mweides@gmail.com


BAC SERVICES: Silberman Files Suit under FDCPA in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bac Services, LLC.
The case is styled as Samson Silberman, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bac Services, LLC doing
business as: Bureau Of Accounts Control and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00472-MAS-LHG (D., N.J., Jan. 14,
2020).

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

Bureau of Accounts Control (BAC) is a debt collection agency
located in Howell, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
   Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
   375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
   Fairfield, NJ 07004
   Tel: (973) 227-5900
   Fax: (973) 244-0019
   Email: jkj@legaljones.com




BANNER HEALTH: Advisor That Ducked Class Action Settles for $500K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, JD, writing for NAPA, reports that less than a week
before their scheduled trial date, the plaintiffs in an excessive
fee suit have cut a deal with the plan's advisor.

It's yet another case where the plaintiffs are represented by
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP. In April 2019, Judge William J.
Martinez in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
ruled on a motion for summary judgment (basically a judgment
without an actual trial) in a suit brought by plaintiff Lorraine
Ramos and six others against "Banner Health and certain current and
former employees," as well as advisor Jeffrey Slocum & Associates,
Inc., alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA.

Previously, the plaintiffs had moved for class certification, which
was granted as to the Banner plan fiduciaries but denied with
regard to the plan's investment advisor, Slocum & Associates --
which, among other things, had been alleged to have breached its
fiduciary duty with regard to the selection of target-date funds
for the 33,000-participant Banner 401(k) plan.

But as the clock ticked down in 2019, the parties filed papers
(Ramos v. Banner Health, D. Colo., No. 1:15-cv-0256, motion for
partial settlement approval 12/31/19) seeking court approval of a
tentative settlement reached between the plaintiffs and Slocum.

Why Settle?

In presenting the settlement, the plaintiffs explain that it comes
after "extensive litigation, lengthy discovery, and protracted
arm's-length negotiations with the assistance of a national
mediator" (Hunter Hughes), and claims that the agreement "provides
meaningful relief to a class of all current Plan participants and
beneficiaries." Relief, they maintain, that is "rendered all the
more meaningful given the chance that most members of the
Settlement Class would have to continue protracted litigation,
including certain appellate work, in order to obtain any recovery
at all from Slocum."

Indeed, the earlier determination by the court certifying the class
action against Banner but denying that status for their claims
against the advisor reduced Slocum's potential liability from an
alleged $40 million to only $22,000 -- the damages allegedly
associated with the seven individual plaintiffs.

That said, two claims remained against Slocum -- that the firm
breached its duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. §1104(a) by allowing
the plan: (1) to pay unreasonable fees to its recordkeeper,
Fidelity (Count I); and (2) to maintain underperforming investment
options, namely, the Fidelity Freedom Funds, and the plan's Level 3
designated investment options referred to internally by the
defendants as the "Mutual Fund Window" (Count II).

The Process Thus Far

The filing explains that Slocum alone produced over 25,000 pages of
documents, in addition to the almost 100,000 pages the Banner
Defendants produced, and that the parties also took more than 20
depositions. It notes that "Slocum -- which ceased operations
effective October 24, 2016 – secured the cooperation of two
former employees, plus Mr. Jeffrey Slocum, to sit for depositions,"
and that the parties also engaged in "extensive expert discovery."

As for the terms -- well, "given that Plaintiffs and Slocum only
reached agreement on settlement yesterday, they have not yet
executed a settlement agreement," the filing explains, going on to
state, however, that " . . . in light of upcoming trial and to
preserve resources, they have agreed on all material terms" (and
they note that they plan to submit an executed settlement agreement
within 30 days following completion of the trial set for Jan. 6,
2020).

The Settlement

In exchange for a release of all ERISA claims against Slocum, its
former owners, employers, directors and other associated parties,
Slocum will deposit $500,000 in an interest-bearing settlement
account that will "be used to defray only the Plan's recordkeeping
expenses that are deemed to be reasonable." It will also be used to
pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, Administrative
Expenses of the Settlement, and the Class Representatives'
Compensation.

As for the breakdown of those items:

$5,000 (estimated) for the settlement administrator
$10,000 (estimated) for an Independent Fiduciary to oversee the
fund/process
$2,500 for each named plaintiff (while smaller than the awards
requested in other cases, the settlement not only acknowledges
that, but goes on to note that "these small awards do not affect
their continued adequacy to represent the class for the claims
against Banner Defendants")

Oh, and as for the plaintiffs' counsel, they will request "an
amount not more than one-third of the Settlement Fund, or
$166,666.67, as well as reimbursement for costs incurred of no more
than $56,562.40." They state that they will "not seek attorneys'
fees (1) from the interest earned on the Gross Settlement Amount;
(2) for time associated with administering the settlement; and (3)
for work required to enforce the proposed Settlement, if
necessary," and that they will submit a formal application for
attorneys' fees and costs and for the Class Representatives'
incentive awards at least 30 days prior to the deadline for Class
Members to file objections to the proposed Settlement.

Uphill Battle

In justifying the settlement as opposed to going to trial, the
filing explains that "plaintiffs face an uphill battle and the risk
of no recovery for the Plan at all against Slocum, as illustrated
by the judgement recently entered in favor of defendants in another
401(k) class action," that being Wildman v. Am. Cent. Servs., LLC,
2017 WL 6045487 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2017).

"This action has already been pending for over four years," they
conclude, " . . . for the Settlement Class to recover anything at
all from Slocum, Plaintiffs would need to appeal the Court's class
certification ruling, prevail on appeal, and then relitigate the
matter as to Slocum—all of which would take a number of years. "

In contrast, they explain that "the Settlement also provides a
guaranteed source of payment from Slocum, while such guarantee
still exists: Slocum ceased to exist in 2016, and Slocum's
attorneys' have alerted Plaintiffs' attorneys that Slocum is
operating on a limited insurance policy. Further litigation is
almost sure to deplete these funds. Thus, this factor also weighs
in favor of granting approval."

Will the court agree? We shall see. Don't forget that the case
against the plan involved here [was] slated to go to trial on Jan.
6. [GN]

BATTERY BBQ: Bishop Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Battery BBQ LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Battery BBQ LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00335 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

Battery Bbq Llc is a Domestic Limited Liability Company from New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEXAR COUNTY: Class Certification Sought in Williams Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Jemajari Chinua Williams, the
Plaintiff vs. BEXAR COUNTY SHERRIFF OFFICE, ET AL., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-01235-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order to certify class.

The lawsuit alleges violation of prisoner civil rights.

Bexar County is a county of the U.S. state of Texas.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



CANADA: Clyde & Co Attorney Discusses Queensland Flood Case Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristyn Glanville, Esq. -- kristyn.glanville@clydeco.com -- of
Clyde & Co LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a class
action representing 6,800 group members has been successful in its
claim against the Queensland Government, Seqwater, and Sunwater,
relating to their management of floodwaters from the 2011
Queensland Floods.

The lead plaintiff is a sporting goods store that was flooded when
the shopping centre it was located in became inundated with
floodwaters from the Brisbane River.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' engineers had
negligently managed the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams during an
extended period of heavy rainfall, as dam engineers prioritised
keeping downstream bridges rather than avoiding urban flooding, and
had failed to factor in extraordinary rainfall forecasts in
deciding how to respond to the flood event. The Court ultimately
found that the defendants had breached their duty of care, causing
the plaintiff to incur losses.

Some scientists believe the heavy rainfall was exacerbated by a
combination of the 'La Nina' weather system and climate change
(read more about this here).

As climate change modelling predicts increased likelihood of
extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, this provides a
timely reminder to insurers, businesses, and government of the
necessity to consider the potential impacts of climate change on
their operational decisions and risk management. For example,
infrastructure operators and businesses should ensure their plans
of management include appropriate contingencies to manage the
modelled extreme weather events, particularly if global temperature
rises exceed 1.5oC.

Likewise, insurers can expect not only first party claims for
property damage and business interruption during extreme weather,
but also professional indemnity and third party claims relating to
mismanagement of extreme weather risks or inadequately engineered
infrastructure.

Almost 7,000 Queenslanders have won a class action over the state's
devastating 2011 floods, with a judge finding they were victims of
negligence.

About 23,000 homes and businesses went under in Brisbane and
Ipswich when authorities released huge amounts of water to protect
the dams' structural integrity.

Beech-Jones agreed with victims' claims that engineers negligently
managed the dams and that they did not factor in extraordinary
rainfall forecasts in deciding how best to respond to the flood
event. [GN]


CANADA: Manitoba First Nation Mulls Boil Water Advisories Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Geraldine Malone, writing for The Canadian Press, reports
that a chief of a Manitoba First Nation is proposing a class-action
lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of her community
and other reserves that have experienced long-term boil water
advisories.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation Chief Doreen Spence said in a statement of
claim filed in November that people are unable to practise their
traditions, have become very ill and have moved away because of
issues with drinking water.

The government was aware that treatment plants and funding were
inadequate, the suit alleges, but did not adequately respond.

"Although Canada was advised of the devastating human consequences
of these failures, its response to this human catastrophe was --
and continues to be -- a toxic mixture of inertia and
incompetence," the lawsuit said.

The suit is seeking damages and a court order forcing the
government to construct or approve as well as fund appropriate
water systems. It is not yet certified.

The allegations have not been proven in court and a statement of
defence has not been filed.

Indigenous Services Canada spokeswoman Rola Tfaili said the
department is seeking legal advice. The federal government has
committed more than $2 billion toward water and wastewater
infrastructure since 2016, she added.

"In large measure this is about Canada's obligation to provide
adequate access to clean water for communities on reserves and it's
about a sustained failure to discharge that obligation," said
Michael Rosenberg, one of the lawyers representing Tataskweyak,
from Toronto.

The Tataskweyak Cree Nation's traditional territory was vast,
following caribou herds in northern Manitoba. But its reserve was
created in 1908 about 48 kilometres northeast of Thompson on the
shore of Split Lake.

Much of southern Manitoba's water drains to Hudson Bay through the
Nelson and Burntwood rivers, which converge in the lake. The court
action alleges that as upstream land use and hydroelectric
development increased, water quality in the lake significantly
declined and the community suffered.

Tataskweyak's first treatment plant was built in 1959 and community
members had to get water by filling pails. A larger plant was built
in 1987 and remains operational today.

The lawsuit says the plant has been plagued by problems due to its
original construction. It also cannot not deal with water quality
in the lake, which has significantly worsened in recent years by
increasing populations downstream and recent floods.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation has been under an official longer-term boil
water advisory since 2017.

People are advised to avoid swimming in the water, children get
rashes after bathing in tap water and most pay out of pocket for
bottled water.

"Traditionally, water is a powerful medicine for the Cree people,
but the members of Tataskweyak Cree Nation now consider their water
to be poison."

The lawsuit says the federal government has refused to find an
alternative source for drinking water, despite the community
recommending a nearby lake.

During the 2015 federal election campaign, Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau promised to eliminate all long-term water advisories on
First Nations by March 2021. Since that time, 87 long-term
advisories have been lifted.

However, 57 advisories remain.

Four Alberta First Nations -- Tsuut'ina Nation, Sucker Creek First
Nation, Ermineskin Cree Nation and the Blood Tribe -- filed a
lawsuit in 2014 and the Okanagan Indian Band in British Columbia
followed suit this summer. Those lawsuits have not been settled.

"It's a health and equality issue -- one that the federal
government can't ignore any longer," Okanagan Chief Byron Louis
said in a news release in August.

If certified, Tataskweyak's class action would be open to people on
First Nations who experienced water advisories for more than a year
since November 1995.

"The conditions in which . . . members live would shock Canadians
who have never visited the affected communities," Tataskweyak's
lawsuit said.

"These conditions constitute nothing less than a national
embarrassment." [GN]


CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Jay Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Jay, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, BRUCE LINTON, MARK ZEKULIN,
MIKE LEE, and TIM SAUNDERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00485 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
17, 2020), is brought behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of the
securities of Canopy Growth Corporation between September 8, 2017
and November 13, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jonathan Jay, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, BRUCE LINTON, MARK ZEKULIN,
MIKE LEE, and TIM SAUNDERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00485 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
17, 2020), is brought behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of the
securities of Canopy Growth Corporation between September 8, 2017,
and November 13, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants published a series of
materially false and misleading statements. The Plaintiff asserts
that the statements were each materially false and misleading when
made because, among others: the Company materially exaggerated
and/or overestimated the potential market for its products; the
Company's stated growth plans were incongruous with the revenue and
demand it was realizing and would reasonably produce; and the
Company failed to properly account for inventory and demand for its
products, which ultimately resulted in massive write-offs and
restructuring charges.

As a result of the adverse conditions, which the Defendants failed
to disclose, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants lacked any
reasonable basis to claim that CGC was operating according to plan,
or that CGC could achieve the guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by
Defendants, the Plaintiff contends.

On July 3, 2019, the Company issued a press release announcing a
"leadership transition," wherein the Company and Defendant Linton
jointly "announced" that Defendant Linton would "step down" as
co-CEO and Defendant Zekulin would become the sole CEO of the
Company and would work "to identify a new leader to guide the
Company in its next phase of growth."  However, despite this gauze
of normalcy and amicability, later in the day on July 3, 2019,
Rolling Stone published an article, entitled "Co-CEO of Canadian
Weed Giant Canopy Growth Says He Was Fired," in which it reported
that Defendant Linton "said he was fired" and quoted Defendant
Linton as saying: "I think stepping down might not be the right
phrase.  I was terminated."

On November 14, 2019, the other shoe finally dropped when the
Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for
the Second Quarter of fiscal year 2020, which ended on September
30, 2019.  Therein, the Company reported revenue that fell below
analysts' estimates and an EBITDA loss of C$155.7 million.  The
Company further announced that quarterly revenue was up 6%, but
that net of the portfolio restructuring costs, revenue was C$76.6
million, a decrease of 15% over Q1 2020.  Also on November 14, the
Company hosted an earnings call to discuss the Company's results
for the Second Quarter of fiscal year 2020.  Therein, Defendant
Zekulin blamed the disappointing financial results on the Canadian
government and the lack of licensed retail outlets.

On this news, CGC's share price fell $2.66 per share, or 14.38%,
from its closing price of $18.50 per share the prior day, to close
at $15.84 per share on November 14, 2019, and continued to decline
to a closing price of $14.22 per share on November 18, 2019.

As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and
misleading information and failure to disclose material facts the
market price of CGC securities was artificially inflated during the
Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their respective purchases and sales of the Company's securities
during the Class Period, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the securities of CGC at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

CGC operates through two segments: Cannabis Operations and Canopy
Rivers. The Company's product offering includes dried flowers, oils
and concentrates, softgel capsules, and hemps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: 504-455-1400
          Facsimile: 504-455-1498
          Email: Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com
                 Melinda.Nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
                 Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 696-3730
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com


CAVIAR INC: Faces Tiffin Cherry Suit Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Cherry Hill LLC and Tiffin Mount Airy, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CAVIAR, INC., d/b/a
TRY CAVIAR, Case No. 3:20-cv-00403 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for breach of contract; conversion;
and violations of the unfair, fraudulent and unlawful prongs of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs own and operate a restaurant, Tiffin Indian Cuisine,
in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

When a customer places an order through Caviar's platform, the
customer pays Caviar. Caviar possesses and controls all money paid
by a customer for his or her order until Caviar transfers the
remainder to the Restaurant.

The Plaintiffs allege that Caviar has taken advantage of the tens
of thousands of restaurants using its services by wrongfully
withholding money paid to it by customers that should have been
paid to those restaurants under the terms of the restaurants'
contracts with Caviar. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms
and prevent their future occurrence, on behalf of themselves and
other restaurants.

Caviar is a technology-based company that offers a "premium" online
ordering platform to connect restaurants, customers, and
food-delivery drivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Phone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Sabatini Challenges Proposed Sale to PPF Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sabatini, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CENTRAL EUROPEAN MEDIA ENTERPRISES LTD., JOHN K.
BILLOCK, ALFRED W. LANGER, PARM SANDHU, KELLI TURNER, PETER KNAG,
and TREY TURNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00087-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 21,
2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Central
European Media will be acquired by affiliates of PPF Group N.V.

On October 27, 2019, Central European Media's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with TV Bidco B.V. and TV Bermuda Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Central European Media's stockholders will
receive $4.58 in cash for each share of Central European Media
common stock they own.

On January 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote
on the Proposed Transaction for February 27, 2020. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections, and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Allen & Company LLC, among other things.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff avers.  The Plaintiff adds that a
reasonable investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as
significantly altering the total mix of information made available
in the Proxy Statement and in other information reasonably
available to stockholders. Because of the false and misleading
statements in the Proxy Statement, Plaintiff and the Class are
threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Central European Media common stock.

Central European Media is a media and entertainment company
operating leading businesses in five Central and Eastern European
markets with an aggregate population of approximately 45 million
people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CHARLOTTE'S WEB: To Face Class Action Over Mislabeled CBD Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1st, Charlotte's Web Holdings, Inc. ("Charlotte's Web",
or the "Company") (TSX:CWEB,OTCQX:CWBHF), the market leader in
hemp-derived CBD products, became aware of a yet-to-be served
class-action suit having been filed in the Northern District of
California that alleges that the Company's products are mislabeled
as dietary supplements. The Company believes that its products are
accurately labeled and that the claims are without merit. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any such
suits.

              About Charlotte's Web Holdings, Inc.

Charlotte's Web Holdings, Inc. is the market leader in the
production and distribution of innovative hemp-derived cannabidiol
("CBD") wellness products. Founded by the Stanley Brothers, the
Company's premium quality products start with proprietary hemp
genetics that are responsibly manufactured into hemp-derived CBD
extracts naturally containing a full spectrum of phytocannabinoids,
including CBD, terpenes, flavonoids and other beneficial hemp
compounds. Industrial hemp products are non-intoxicating.
Charlotte's Web product categories include CBD oil tinctures
(liquid products), CBD capsules, CBD topicals, as well as CBD pet
products. Charlotte's Web hemp-derived CBD extracts are sold
through select distributors, brick and mortar retailers, and online
through the Company's website at www.CharlottesWeb.com. The rate
the Company pays for agricultural products reflects a fair and
sustainable rate driving higher quality yield, encouraging good
farming practices, and supporting U.S. farming communities.

Charlotte's Web is a socially conscious company and is committed to
using business as a force for good and a catalyst for innovation.
The Company weighs sound business decisions with consideration for
how its efforts affect its employees, customers, the environment,
and the communities where its employees live and where it does
business, while maximizing profits and strengthening its brands.
The Company's management believes that socially oriented actions
have a positive impact on the Company, its employees and its
shareholders. Charlotte's Web donates a portion of its pre-tax
earnings to charitable organizations.

Shares of Charlotte's web trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX)
under the symbol "CWEB" and are quoted in U.S. Dollars in the
United States on the OTCQX under the symbol "CWBHF". As of November
22, 2019, Charlotte's Web had 58,572,809 Common Shares outstanding
and 100,520.8075 Proportional Voting Shares convertible at 400:1
into Common Shares, for an effective equivalent of 98,781,132
Common Shares outstanding. [GN]


CLARITY LAB: Morgan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. Zane Morgan, and all others similarly situated v. CLARITY LAB
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited liability company, and DANIEL
LEGER, an individual, Case No. 0:20-cv-60126-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan.
21, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have employed numerous other employees, similarly
situated to the Plaintiff, who have not been paid overtime for work
done in excess of 40 hours, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff
adds that the Defendant knew of the overtime requirements of the
Act and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to
investigate proper payroll practices as they relate to the law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sales person for the Defendants.

CLARITY LAB SOLUTIONS, LLC was and is a Florida corporation located
within Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (954) 745-0588


CONCORD SERVICING: Adams Files Suit under FDCPA in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Servicing
Operation. The case is styled as Pearl Adams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concord
Servicing Operation, doing business as: Blackwell Recovery and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00147-BHH (D.S.C., Jan. 14,
2020).

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

Concord Servicing Operation offers loan servicing and collection of
installment receivable contracts and other obligations for clients
in multiple sectors, including timeshare, campground memberships,
land holdings, home improvement, and energy efficiency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law LTD Co
   218 Trade Street, Suite D
   Greer, SC 29651
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 670-5009
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


COOPERVISION INC: Claims Filing Deadline on Jan. 31
---------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this notice is to provide information concerning
Settlements in a class action lawsuit with CooperVision, Inc.
("CVI") and Bausch & Lomb Inc. ("B&L"), and to also notify you of
an order certifying Litigation Classes asserting claims against
Alcon Vision, LLC ("Alcon"), Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
("JJVC"), and ABB Concise Optical Group, LLC ("ABB"). The lawsuit
alleges illegal minimum retail pricing policies adopted by contact
lens manufacturers starting in June 2013 with regard to the
distribution and sale of certain disposable contact lenses. The
safety and effectiveness of contact lenses manufactured by the
Defendants are not at issue in this lawsuit. For comprehensive
information about the claims, rulings, and events in the case,
visit the website below. CVI and B&L deny that they did anything
wrong and the other Defendants also deny they did anything wrong
and continue to defend the claims in the lawsuit. The Court has not
decided who is right.

Who Is Included?

The CVI Settlement Class includes purchasers of certain contact
lenses manufactured by Alcon, B&L, CVI, or JJVC in the United
States for your personal use between June 1, 2013 and the present.
The B&L Settlement Class and the Litigation Classes include
purchasers of certain contact lenses manufactured by Alcon, B&L, or
JJVC in the United States for your personal use between June 1,
2013 and December 4, 2018.  Please visit
www.ContactLensSettlement.com to see a list of the disposable
contact lenses with corresponding dates of purchase that are
included in the Settlement and Litigation Classes.

How can I get a payment?

The Settlements with CVI and B&L establish two Settlement Funds ($3
million for CVI and $10 million for B&L). You can file an easy
online claim now at www.ContactLensSettlement.com.  The deadline to
file your claim is January 31, 2020. In order to maximize
efficiency, the CVI and B&L settlement funds will be distributed to
claimants at a later stage of the case.  Please be patient and
check the website for updates.

Your other options.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the CVI or B&L
Settlements, and/or if you do not want to be included in the
Litigation Classes, you must exclude yourself by January 31, 2020.
If you do not exclude yourself, you will release any claims you may
have, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement,
available at the settlement website.  You may object to the CVI
and/or B&L Settlements by January 31, 2020.  The Detailed Notice
available on the website listed below explains how to exclude
yourself or object.  The Court will hold a Hearing on February 25,
2020, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and requests
for attorneys' fees of up to one-third (33.3%) of the Settlement
Funds, expenses, and service awards to each of the Class
Representatives.  You may appear at the hearing, either yourself or
through an attorney hired by you, but you don't have to.  For more
information, call 1-877-253-3649 or visit
www.ContactLensSettlement.com. [GN]


CRABBY PATTY BROOKLYN: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Crabby Patty Brooklyn LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crabby Patty Brooklyn LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00375 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Crabby Patty Brooklyn LLC (doing business as SKINNY DENNIS) is
licensed liquor authority in the county of KINGS, licensed by New
York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Cyclebar Franchising, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cyclebar Franchising, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00273-JDW (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

CycleBar Franchising, LLC is a Premium Indoor Cycling company based
at 3400 Columbia Pike Suite A, Costa Mesa, California 22204, US
founded in 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



DIAMOND RESORTS: UNITE HERE 5 Invites Inquiries from Stockholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITE HERE Local 5 is accepting inquiries from stockholders
affected by the proposed settlement of the shareholder class action
lawsuit against Diamond Resorts International board members and
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (Appel v. Berkman, No. 12844-VCMR).
The suit was filed after the Apollo Global Management affiliate
acquired Diamond Resorts International in 2016.

UNITE HERE Local 5 has posted certain court filings for review at
www.DiamondResortsWatch.org/court-documents. UNITE HERE Local 5 has
updated its site with settlement documents that were filed on
November 1, 2019. The "Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release" proposed a settlement of $25.5 million and
from that award proposed an aggregate amount up to 25% towards
attorneys' fees plus reimbursement of attorney expenses. The
settlement would include a broad release of claims applicable to
all class members.

UNITE HERE Local 5 research shows Diamond Resorts' August 2016
Amended 10-K filing stated 69,705,619 shares of common stock were
outstanding as of Feb 5, 2016. Diamond Resorts' management, board
of directors and related entities together held 25.5% of the
outstanding common stock. The proposed settlement award, less legal
fees and expenses, would be distributed to only a certain number of
stockholders who qualify as eligible class members (generally
defined as stockholders who sold Diamond stock between June 29,
2016 through September 2, 2016), excluding defendant directors.

UNITE HERE Local 5 invites Diamond Resorts stockholders who are
eligible class members and object to the terms of the proposed
settlement to contact UNITE HERE Local 5 to discuss possible
options.

Contacts:

Ivan Hou
UNITE HERE Local 5
1516 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96826
Tel: 808-941-2141 ext. 267
Email: ihou@5.unitehere.org
[GN]


DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Suit Deal Actually Worth $700MM, Workers Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
California federal judge refused to approve a deal in October
requiring Dignity Health to pay more than $100 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit accusing the San Francisco-based health system
of using a religious Employee Income Retirement Security Act
exemption it wasn't entitled to. Current and former Dignity workers
argue the deal is actually worth more than $700 million in court
documents filed Nov. 25, according to Law360.

Dignity Health allegedly used the religious exemption to underfund
its pension plan by $1.5 billion. On Oct. 29, a federal judge in
the Northern District of California refused to sign off on a
proposed settlement because it contained a "kicker" clause. The
clause would allow Dignity to keep the difference between the
amount of attorneys' fees awarded by the court and the more than $6
million in fees authorized by the settlement.

"Although the fact is not explicitly stated in the Settlement, if
the Court awards less than $6.15 million in fees, Defendants keep
the amount of the difference and those funds are not distributed to
the class," Judge Jon S. Tigar said, according to Bloomberg Law.
"The Court concludes that this arrangement, which potentially
denies the class money that Defendants were willing to pay in
settlement -- with no apparent countervailing benefit to the class
-- renders the Settlement unreasonable."

Though the judge refused to sign off on the deal, he gave the
parties an opportunity to revise the agreement and resubmit it for
approval. Workers tweaked the proposed deal in a renewed motion for
settlement filed Nov. 25.

According to the motion, the parties have agreed to eliminate the
kicker clause.

"As provided in the new settlement, class counsel will apply to the
court for approval of a total award of $6.15 million, for attorney
fees, expenses and incentive awards," the motion states. "If the
court awards less than the requested amount, Dignity Health has
agreed to pay the balance into the plan's trust."

The workers also argue that the attorney fee award is reasonable
given the value of the settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, Dignity would add $50 million in
retirement plan funding in 2020 and 2021.The settlement also
requires Dignity to fund the pension plan until 2024 and prohibits
the health system from reducing accrued benefits because of a plan
merger or amendment for 10 years. For 2022 through 2024, Dignity
Health's cash contributions to the plan will be at least the
"minimum contribution recommendation," an amount calculated each
year by independent actuaries.

"Under this settlement, Dignity Health will make substantial
contributions to the plan for five years, in an amount we estimate
to exceed $700 million," the motion states.

The court previously noted that plaintiffs did not identify any
settlement provisions governing how Dignity Health's actuaries
calculate the minimum contribution recommendation. The plaintiff's
actuary provided more information on the calculation in a
supplemental declaration submitted
Nov. 25.

The workers are seeking preliminary approval of the new settlement.
[GN]


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: N.S. Files Class Action U.S. Marshal
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael A. Hughes.
The case is styled as N.S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael A. Hughes United
States Marshal, District of Columbia (Superior Court), in his
official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-RCL (D.D.C.,
Jan. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Administrative Procedure Act.

Michael A. Hughes is a United States Marshal for the District of
Columbia (Superior Court).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Steven D. Marcus, Esq.
   633 Indiana Avenue, NW
   Washington, DC 20004
   Tel: (202) 824-2524
   Fax: (202) 824-2525
   Email: smarcus@pdsdc.org


EMEDPRACTICE LLC: Sandusky Wellness Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. EMEDPRACTICE LLC, a Florida limited
company, Case No. 9:20-cv-80073-KAM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2020),
challenges the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

The Defendant has sent a fax and other facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and the Class in
violation of the TCPA, according to the complaint. The Fax
describes the commercial availability or quality of the Defendant's
property, goods or services, namely, Defendant's All-In-One
Complete Integrated Medical Software system.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class, which were sent the Fax and
other unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent without prior
express invitation or permission and without compliant opt-out
language. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages for each
violation of the TCPA and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, is an Ohio limited
liability company.

EMEDPRACTICE LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: 847-368-1500
          Fax: 847-368-1501


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Espinal Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GLADYS ESPINAL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-5641-JMV-SCM (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order granting her motion for class certification.

Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and
reporting services.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated are:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. HERSH
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michael R. Glanzman, Esq.
          Scott Gallagher, Esq.
          Richard Rivera, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10019

EXELON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that  a class action lawsuit was
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Exelon
Corporation (EXC). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court.
Further details about the case can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Exelon Corporation (EXC)

EXC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2019
- November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/exelon-corporation-loss-form?prid=5144&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Exelon
Corporation made materially 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)
Exelon subsidiary Commonwealth Edison's revenues were in part the
product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]




FEDEX GROUND: Perea Sues Over Unpaid and Improperly Paid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Perea, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00003354-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Jan. 21,
2020), is brought for unpaid compensation, including reporting time
pay; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and
failure to pay all wages due during and upon termination of
employment

The Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of failing to
pay the Plaintiff all wages due, including reporting time pay for
shifts where the Plaintiff and proposed Class Members were directed
to leave the premises for lack of work, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide accurate wage
statements to non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, which did
not include, among other things, the accurate total hours and pay
for reporting time, and all rates of pay, or deductions made, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants in San Diego
County as a non-exempt warehouse package sorter and handler.

Fedex Ground is a Delaware corporation engaged in business
throughout California and in San Diego County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 595-3001
          Fax: (619) 595-3000
          Email: msinger@ckslaw.com
                 jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSION LAW CORPORATION
          5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Ste. 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (818) 875-2008
          Fax: (818) 722-3974
          Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCAU).  Shareholders interested in
serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to
petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at
the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCAU)

FCAU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2016 - November 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 31, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v-loss-form?prid=5144&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company employed
a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective
bargaining agreement with United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America; (2) high-ranking Fiat
officials were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Fiat's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Bicknell Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lora Bicknell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Financial Business and
Consumer Solutions, Inc., d/b/a FBCS, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02417-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.,
Filed July 19, 2019), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

     "all persons similarly situated in the State of Kansas from
whom Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted, time-barred
consumer debt, allegedly owed for a Citibank account (i.e., where
the date of last payment/statement is more than 7 years from the
date of the letter), via the same form collection letter that
Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of this
Complaint to the present."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' form debt collection letter
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it failed
to identify effectively the current creditor to whom the debt was
owed and by attempting to collect a time-barred debt.

FBCS is a debt collection agency.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
          James R. Crump, Esq.
          CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 West Gregory, Suite 210
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 822-4041
          E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
                  james@callahanlawkc.com

               - and -

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors that purchased Forescout
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) securities between February 7,
2019 and October 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
March 2, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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 complaint, filed on January 2, 2020, 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.

If you purchased Forescout securities during the Class Period, are
a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648,
or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200103005282/en/

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com
[GN]




FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against ForeScout Technologies, Inc (NASDAQ: FSCT) in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of those persons who purchased or acquired the
securities of ForeScout Technologies between February 7, 2019 and
October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for ForeScout Technologies investors under the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that, in February 2019, ForeScout issued a
press release that provided fiscal full year 2019 ("FY19") revenue
guidance of $363.1 million to $373.1 million, representing
year-over-year growth of 24%. Then, the Complaint further alleges
that in May 2019, ForeScout raised its FY19 revenue guidance to
$365.3 million to $375.3 million. When asked about "deal slippage"
the Company was facing, ForeScout assured analysts that "every one
of those deals is still in pipeline… [ForeScout] [has] a high
degree of confidence [the deals] close for the year…they've just
slipped a little bit" and ended by stating "there's still plenty of
pipeline to deliver upon the guidance [ForeScout has] given you for
the full year."

The Complaint alleges that contrary to these assurances, on October
10, 2019, ForeScout announced disappointing third quarter 2019
financial results that lowered the quarter's revenue guidance to
$90.6 million to $91.6 million from $98.8 million to $101.8
million, revealing that the Company was experiencing a material
impact from the significant volatility it was facing in closing its
large deals.

On this news, ForeScout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
more than 37%, to close at $24.57 per share.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March 2, 2020
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]




FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) between
February 7, 2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Forescout
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Forescout class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1751.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 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; (2) the foregoing was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 2,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1751.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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



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

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
7, 2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 2, 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. Forescout suffered from significant
volatility related to large customer orders and poor execution on
deals in the pipeline, especially in EMEA. These problems were
likely to have a material impact on the Company's financial
results. 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 Forescout, 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.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200103005327/en/

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
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



FULTON FINANCIAL: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Financial Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fulton Financial Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00243-JLS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Fulton Financial Corporation is a U.S. regional financial services
holding company, headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



GEO GROUP: Court Allows Former Detainees' Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Urevich, writing for Capital & Main, reports that U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees who allege they were
required to work for $1 a day and, in many cases, for no pay at
all, are one step closer to their day in court. The undocumented
immigrants were all incarcerated at the Adelanto Detention Facility
and the other detention centers operated by the GEO Group. GEO is
the nation's largest private prison company and currently holds
more than 10,000 ICE detainees.

On November 26, U.S. District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal announced
his decision to allow hundreds of thousands of former detainees to
join together to pursue back pay and damages when he granted class
action status in Raul Novoa v. the GEO Group, dealing a defeat to
the private prison firm.

The plaintiffs allege that a so-called voluntary work program in
which detainees are paid $1 a day to do janitorial work, prepare
meals and do laundry isn't voluntary at all. Instead, they argue
GEO requires detainees to work under the threat of solitary
confinement or even criminal prosecution, saving the company
millions of dollars in wages it would otherwise have to pay
non-detainee workers. They further contend that GEO has a corporate
policy of drafting detainees to do additional janitorial work for
free, and that the company requires would-be dollar-a-day workers
to also work without compensation until they are officially hired
into the paid positions.

Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for
Justice and the author of Inside Private Prisons: An American
Dilemma in the Age of Mass Incarceration, believes that the
lawsuits could have implications beyond immigration detention
centers.

"If the detainees prevail in their lawsuits," she says, "this body
of litigation may also shape future litigation of convicted
individuals in jails and prisons who argue that they are not being
paid fair wages for their work behind bars."

Three similar cases are pending against the GEO Group -- two in
Washington state and one in Colorado -- where class-action status
has already been granted. Five lawsuits challenging detainee labor
practices at facilities operated by CoreCivic, a slightly smaller
private prison firm, are also making their way through the courts.
[GN]


GLATFELTER AGENCY: Mahoney Files Class Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
The Glatfelter Agency, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Glatfelter Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00268-AB (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

The Glatfelter Agency is a full service insurance agency providing
personal, business and commercial insurance to clients for over 65
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



GREEN DOT: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 17, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Green Dot Corporation (NYSE:
GDOT) investors who purchased securities between May 9, 2018 and
November 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On February 20, 2019, Green Dot CEO Steven W. Streit revealed
during the FY 2018 conference call that the Company's strategy of
attracting "high-value" long-term customers at the expense of "one
and done" customers was self-sabotaging, stating, "…that we are
somewhat a victim of our own success in converting more and more of
our quarterly active accounts to direct deposit active accounts."
These "one and done" customers represented a significant source of
revenue in the Company's legacy segment.

On this news, Green Dot's share price fell $7.47 per share, or
nearly 10%, to close at $67.20 per share on February 21, 2019,
thereby injuring investors.

Then, on May 8, 2019, the Company disclosed a large "investment in
growth for the purpose of aggressively marketing new products."

On this news, Green Dot's share price fell $16.71 per share, or
nearly 26%, to close at $46.56 per share on May 9, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

Then, on August 7, 2019, Green Dot reported an "accelerated loss of
unit sales in [its] prepaid product lines, resulting in lower
active accounts from both non-reloading customers and cash
reloading customers."

On this news, Green Dot's share price fell $19.84 per share, or
nearly 41%, to close at $27.42 per share on August 8, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

Finally, on November 7, 2019, the Company revealed a decline of
620,000 accounts in its active consumer business, mostly "one-time
use accounts."

On this news, Green Dot's share price fell $5.41 per share, or
nearly 18%, to close at $24.54 per share on November 8, 2019,
thereby injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value"
long-term customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers;
(2) that Green Dot's "one and done" customers represented a
significant source of revenues in its legacy segment; (3) that,
consequently, Green Dot's strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
its business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

If you purchased Green Dot securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than February 17, 2020 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]



GREEN GROWTH: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Green Growth Brands LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Green Growth Brands LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00274-ER (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Green Growth Brands operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company develops and retails a variety of cannabis and CBD-infused
personal-care product. Green Growth Brands serves customers in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


HANESBRANDS INC: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hanesbrands Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00242-AB
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Hanesbrands Inc. is an American clothing company based in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It employs 65,300 people
internationally. On September 6, 2000, the company was spun off by
the Sara Lee Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Emergency Room Surcharge Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Miami Herald, reports that one of the
largest for-profit hospital chains in Florida is accused of
charging patients who received care in its affiliated emergency
rooms undisclosed "surcharge" fees that can total thousands of
dollars, according to a lawsuit claiming the billing practice is
"unfair, deceptive and unlawful."

The lawsuit was filed earlier this year in the Southern District of
Florida against HCA Healthcare Inc., which does business as HCA
Florida in hospitals across the state. It names three HCA Florida
affiliate hospitals -- Poinciana Medical Center, Fort Walton Beach
Medical Center and Palms West Hospital -- as defendants, and lists
three lead plaintiffs who say they received emergency treatment at
the hospitals, only to be surprised with the surcharge fees after
they were discharged.

The proposed class action seeks to represent anyone financially
responsible for patients who received emergency room fees at all
HCA-affiliated emergency rooms in Florida in the last four years.
The suit did not name HCA affiliates in Miami-Dade County, such as
Mercy Hospital, Kendall Regional Medical Center and Aventura
Hospital and Medical Center.

One of the plaintiffs is Nathan Haviland, a Missouri resident who
went to the emergency room in October 2016 at Poinciana Medical
Center in Kissimmee and was later billed for $23,865, which
included a surcharge of nearly $4,000, according to the lawsuit.
Haviland and the other two plaintiffs claim the surcharges were not
noted in the admission contracts, nor were they posted on signs
near the emergency room or verbally communicated to the patients.

The surcharges are billed to patients "simply for presenting and
being seen at one of defendants' emergency rooms," the lawsuit
claims.

"The high cost of medical services is a matter of great public
concern, and emergency care patients have a right to be informed of
a surcharge before it is incurred," the lawsuit said.

A spokeswoman for HCA Healthcare said the plaintiffs filed similar
claims in the Middle District of Florida that were dismissed.

"We believe we have appropriately disclosed our charges and
complied with the law," the spokeswoman said.

In its motion to dismiss filed in June, HCA Healthcare argued that
the lawsuit "improperly lumps together" the individual hospitals
accused of deceptive billing practices with its regional divisions
in eastern and northern Florida.

"There is simply no allegation that the divisions did anything,
other than perhaps being affiliates of HCA Healthcare," the motion
to dismiss said, adding that HCA was not a party to the contracts
for admission at the emergency rooms.

The motion to dismiss is pending a hearing, currently scheduled for
this month in Fort Lauderdale.

Jared Lee of Jackson Lee PA, a consumer protection law firm based
out of Seminole County, is representing the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. Lee declined to comment.

The proposed class action claims that HCA Florida uses a formula or
algorithm to determine the level of surcharge fee on a scale of one
to five, "with the level of the charge being based on an internally
developed, undisclosed formula known exclusively to the
defendants."

In addition to Haviland, the lawsuit lists two other plaintiffs:
Timothy Shaw of Palm Beach County and Keith Oleary of Okaloosa
County.

Shaw claims he received a surcharge of $1,642 on a $5,437 bill
after receiving treatment at the emergency department of Palms West
Hospital in Loxahatchee in January of this year, while Olearly
claims he received an unspecified surcharge on a $6,617 bill for
his minor dependent, who received emergency treatment at the Fort
Walton Beach Medical Center in December 2017.

The lawsuit does not detail what type of medical treatment the
plaintiffs received, but argues that patients would choose to seek
less costly treatment at other hospitals if they had been made
aware of surcharge fees before they were billed.

"The failure to disclose the surcharge is particularly egregious in
light of the fact that defendants represent themselves as providing
care and help to patients in the community," the lawsuit said.
[GN]


HIGH MOUNTAIN FUNDING: Jimenez Files Suit Under FCPA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Mountain Funding
Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Jimenez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. High Mountain
Funding Inc. d/b/a High Mountain Collections LLC, Palisades Funding
Corp. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00353 (S.D.,
N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

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

High Mountain Funding Inc. is a Consultant in North Haledon, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Uri Horowitz, Esq.
   Horowitz Law PLLC
   14441 70th Road
   Flushing, NY 11367
   Tel: (718) 705-8706
   Fax: (718) 705-8705
   Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


HOTEL 35: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Hotel 35, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hotel 35, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00339 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

Hotel 35, LLC is a 3 star hotel located in 42 W 35th St, New York,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IQ FORMULATIONS: Keller and Heckman Discusses FDA Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP previously reported on a flurry of FDA
enforcement actions in 2015 based on adulteration per se, which
followed years of relative inaction in the dietary supplement
marketing arena outside of enforcement against products with
specific health or safety concerns.  FDA's enforcement actions
included warning letters to 14 companies regarding the marketing of
products that identify the presence of 1,3-dimethylbutylamine or
"DMBA" on the product label.  Dietary supplements containing DMBA
are presumed by law to be unsafe (adulterated per se) because DMBA
does not satisfy either of two statutory exceptions for
automatically classifying a product containing a new dietary
ingredient (NDI) as adulterated.  Specifically, DMBA has not "been
present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in
which the food has not been chemically altered," and no
manufacturer or distributor has notified FDA of the basis on which
such NDI will reasonably be expected to be safe when used as
recommended or suggested by its labeling.  Such notification
(called a NDI Notification or NDIN) must be submitted to FDA at
least 75 days before marketing.

In addition to a risk of FDA enforcement action, products
containing a NDI that is not the subject of a NDIN may now also be
susceptible to consumer protection class action lawsuits after the
11th Circuit concluded in a November 14, 2019 opinion that the
plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they suffered an economic loss
when they purchased dietary supplements containing DMBA that were
"worthless" because the law prohibits sale of the supplements.  The
Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the DMBA lawsuit by the
district court which found the plaintiffs did not suffer economic
loss because they received the benefit of their bargain where there
was no allegation that the supplements failed to perform as
advertised, that the supplements caused any adverse health effects,
or that the plaintiffs paid a premium for the supplements.  The
plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to have their arguments
considered by the district court.

Dietary supplements that contain other impermissible NDIs besides
DMBA could also be susceptible to lawsuits based on an identical
theory of economic loss.  For example, products containing CBD
could be at a heightened risk of consumer class action lawsuits
under this theory because, as we have reported, FDA has recently
taken enforcement action against numerous CBD-containing products.
FDA's current position is that CBD is not a permitted ingredient in
conventional foods or dietary supplements, although there is
significant pressure on the Agency to develop a regulatory
framework that would allow such products to contain CBD.

The case was filed against IQ Formulations, LLC and Europa Sports
Products Inc.

A copy of the Opinion is available at https://is.gd/w68cXp [GN]


JENKINS WAGNON & YOUNG: Jaston Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jenkins, Wagnon &
Young, P.C. The case is styled as Jaston, f/k/a Jasmine Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Jenkins, Wagnon & Young, P.C., Cavalry SPV I LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00085-G (N.D., Tex.,
Jan. 14, 2020).

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

Jenkins Wagnon & Young P.C. is a collection law firm based in
Lubbock, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


JONATHAN CONSTRUCTION: Navarro Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JONATHAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00575 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant negligently contacted
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not have an
established business relationship with the Defendant during the
time of the solicitation calls from the Defendant. The Plaintiff
did not give the Defendant prior express written consent for the
Defendant to call the Plaintiff's cellular telephone for marketing
or solicitation purposes.

The Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable
practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone
solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under the
TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in West Covina,
California.

Jonathan Construction is a home renovation and construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com


JUPITER DISCO: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jupiter Disco LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jupiter Disco LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00343 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

Jupiter Disco LLC is a Hip, sci-fi themed nightspot with a retro
feel & neon-lit decor serving creative cocktails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELOWNA: GoFundMe Page for Homeless Class Action Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------
Black Press Media reports that a GoFundMe looking to raise money to
take the City of Kelowna to court over two homeless camps has
disappeared.

The GoFundMe page was appealing to the "Citizens of Kelowna" to
raise $50,000 to organize a class-action lawsuit against the city.

"No more open drug use. No more property crime, no more needles, no
more intimidation, and no more empty words from impotent and
ineffective officials," read the GoFundMe page.

The page is no longer available on GoFundMe and the campaign for a
class action law suit has apparently been dropped.

Originally the page was created following outrage after the city
decided to move the tent city on Leon Avenue to two parks on the
north side of downtown, including a site on a baseball diamond on
Recreation Avenue next to the Kelowna Curling Club and another site
at the base of Knox Mountain.

Local residents, business owners and the very people living in the
tents have all voiced concerns about the city's unilateral
decision.

Then residents gathered in the Kelowna Innovation Centre to discuss
and share their confusion over the city's decision.

While various speakers acknowledged the difficulty when it comes to
homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness, a petition was
started to lobby the city to find a better place for people
experiencing homelessness to live.

Downtown Knox Mountain Association said that Knox is a welcoming
place but the city's ill-conceived decision needs to be addressed
and that both the city and the province of B.C. need to find better
options to help the homeless population and keep the nearby
communities safe.

"It's not an 'us versus them' problem. It's a city problem," said
one concerned speaker. [GN]


MAISON PREMIERE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maison Premiere Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maison Premiere Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00337 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

Maison Premiere is a restaurant offering oysters, cocktails & small
plates in a New Orleans-styled setting with an atmospheric
garden.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANDARICH LAW: Faces Padwa Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hinda Padwa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Cavalry SPV I LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-00530 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Some time prior to July 24, 2019, an obligation was allegedly
incurred by the Plaintiff to creditor Citibank, N.A. The Citibank,
N.A obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property,
insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction,
are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Citibank,
N.A sold the alleged debt to Defendant Cavalry who contracted with
the Defendant Mandarich to collect the alleged debt.

On July 24, 2019, Defendant Mandarich sent the Plaintiff an initial
collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Citibank N.A.
The Letter indicates that the balance is $7,412.73 due to the July
10, 2014 payment. The Plaintiff requested verification of debt per
her rights under the FDCPA.

In response to her request for verification, Defendant Mandarich
provided verification, including a breakdown of the balance due.
The verification provided indicated that the payment made on July
10, 2014 was $145.25 and not $119.04 as described in initial
collection letter. The information provided in the verification
contradicts the Collection Letter sent by the Defendant Mandarich.

According to the information provided in the verification
documents, the balance would be $7,386.52, due to payment of
$145.25, which shows that the collection letter sent contained a
false and misleading balance, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff contends that she incurred an informational injury as
she could not ascertain from the deceptive and misleading Letter
the amount she presently owed on the debt. She adds that the
Defendant's Letter is a false representation of the amount of the
debt.

As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the
complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.

Mandarich is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is
to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


MDL 1913: $14M Attorneys Fees Awarded in Air Transpo Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Chares R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses filed in connection with its
third and final settlement in IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR
TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Document relates to: ALL
ACTIONS, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB, MDL No. 1913 (N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted preliminary approval of a third and final
settlement between the Plaintiffs and All Nippon Airways (ANA), the
last remaining Defendant in the 12-year litigation, in May 2019.
Final approval of the settlement was entered in November 2019.

The Court has already granted two rounds of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the final settlement rounds preceding the third motion
for fees.  In connection with the first settlement, the Plaintiffs'
counsel sought $13,154,166, but the Court awarded $9 million based
on a net settlement fund of $31,181,800.27 (a 28.9% award).  In
connection with the second settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel
sought $14,416,664.31, but the Court awarded $11,038.071.51, based
on a net settlement fund of $48,970,485.79 (a 22.5% award).
Together, these approved settlements constitute 25% of the then-net
settlement fund of $80,152,286.06.

In its third fees motion, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks
$18,647,081.15, representing 33% of the net settlement fund of
$56,506,306.52 that it achieved pursuant to a settlement with
Defendant ANA; they also seek reimbursement of litigation expenses
totaling $157,898.48.  Their gross settlement with ANA, $58
million, is reduced by $935,795 in notice expenses, $400,000 in
claims administration expenses, $1,357,098.64 in unreimbursed
litigation fund expenses, and $50,799.84 in unreimbursed fund
expenses, but is supplemented by a $1.25 million litigation vendor
settlement.  If the Court granted the third fee request as written,
the total fee award (across all three rounds of settlement) would
equal $38,685,152.66, or 28.31% of a total net settlement fund of
$136,658,592.58.

Judge Breyer grants a reduced fee of $14,126,576.64, which equals
25% of the round three net settlement fund and yields total fees to
Plaintiffs of $34,164,648.15 -- it represents 25% of the net award
across all three settlements.  The reduced award results in an
overall (cumulative) lodestar ratio of 0.76.  The amount reflects
the Vizcaino factors and the Ninth Circuit's benchmark, strikes a
balance among competing empirical data, and reflects the value of
the Plaintiffs' work across 12 years of complex and challenging
antitrust litigation.

As for expenses, overall, the Plaintiffs seek $157,898.48 in
unreimbursed expenses.  Judge Breyer holds that the Plaintiffs
properly filed categorized and itemized lists of litigation fund
expenses and out-of-pocket individual firm expenses.  However, it
is unclear whether, in their litigation fund expenses, the
Plaintiffs include a Feb. 27, 2015 invoice from Nathan Associates,
Inc., which the Court has twice rejected, since the summary of
expenses is cumulative from March 28, 2008 to July 31, 2019.

Regarding individual firms' out-of-pocket costs covering May 17,
2018 to July 31, 2019 for Cotchett and Hausfeld: the expense
categories are reasonable, but travel comprises the vast majority
of expenses incurred for each firm and may be excessive as to
Hausfeld -- Cotchett's travel expenses totaled $2,760.87 (airfare
and ground travel) and $2,229.04 (meals and lodging) while
Hausfeld's cost $11,746.00 (airfare and ground travel) and
$17,309.31 (meals and lodging).  The Hausfeld travel expenses might
indeed be reasonable, but the expense lists do not take a
sufficiently detailed approach for the Court to know.  The Judge
requires further itemization of the Hausfeld travel expenses to
ensure that these expenses are not excessive.

In sum, Judge Breyer granted the attorney's fees in the reduced
amount of $14,126,576.635 (25% of the round three net settlement
fund), and granted the requested expenses, pending provision of the
following information: (1) what the noted litigation vendor dispute
and settlement was for, and its effect on the litigation fund; (2)
whether the Plaintiff's list of litigation fund expenses (in
Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiffs' Joint Declaration) include a
previously-rejected Feb. 27, 2015 invoice from Nathan Associates,
Inc.; and (3) a detailed itemization to travel expenses from
Hausfeld.

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

Donald Wortman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett
Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niall
Padraic McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Aaron M.
Sheanin, Robins Kaplan, Adam J. Zapala -- azapala@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Aron K. Liang, Minami Tamaki LLP,
Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP,
Douglas Yongwoon Park, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth
Lane Crooke, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Nanci Eiko Nishimura,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Neil Swartzberg, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Richard Pollard Kinnan, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack &
Walter John Lack, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.

William Adams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Margaret Garcia, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Aron K. Liang, Minami
Tamaki LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Douglas Yongwoon
Park, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Lane Crooke,
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Nanci Eiko Nishimura, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Neil Swartzberg, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Richard Pollard Kinnan, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack & Walter John
Lack, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.

Brenden G. Maloof, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP & Derek G. Howard, Derek G. Howard Law Firm,
Inc.

Robert Casteel, III, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Reginald Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group
& Sharron Williams Gelobter, Attorney at Law Gibbs & Oliphant.

Micah Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Heather T. Rankie,
Zelle LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Jiangxiao
Athena Hou, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP.

Martin Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP &
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Rachel Diller, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L. Himes, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Seth R. Gassman -- sgassman@hausfeldllp.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Brian P. Murray, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Dana Marie Andreoli, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel Cohen, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Kimberly Ann Kralowec, Kralowec
Law, P.C., Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael D.
Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul
Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michelle
Akerman, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Susan
Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Swathi Bojedla, Hausfeld
LLP & William Henry London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, pro
hac vice.

All Nippon Airways, Defendant, represented by Harrison J. McAvoy --
hmcavoy@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon LLP, Alysia
Solow -- asolow@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon LLP,
Ankur Kapoor -- akapoor@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon
LLP, Douglas E. Rosenthal -- drosenthal@constantinecannon.com --
Constantine Cannon LLP, Gary J. Malone --
gmalone@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon, LLP & Jesse
William Markham -- Jmarkhamlaw@gmail.com.

United Airlines, Defendant, represented by Jung-Ying Joann Liao,
Mayer Brown LLP & Mitchell D. Raup, Mayer Brown LLP.

KLM Royal Dutch Airline, Defendant, represented by Gary A.
MacDonald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, James Robert
Warnot, Jr., Linklaters LLP, Brenda DiLuigi, Linklaters LLP &
Thomas A. McGrath, Linklaters LLP.

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Jeffrey
Michael Smith, U.S. Dep't of Justice.

Amy Yang, Objector, represented by Aaron M. Dawson, Dawson &
Rosenthal, Anna St. John, Competitive Enterprise Institute Center
for Class Action Fairness & Theodore Harold Frank, Hamilton Lincoln
Law Institute.


MERITOR INC: Beattey et al. Sue over Unpaid Pension Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BEATTEY; STEVEN MEADOWS; INTERNATIONAL UNION; UNITED
AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTWORKERS OF AMERICA
(UAW), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MERITOR, INC.; and MERITOR, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13763-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., Dec. 23,
2019) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are eligible for a
certain permanent shutdown pension benefit under the 2012-2015
collective bargaining agreement between the UAW and Meritor, which
CBA provides for the maintenance of such a pension benefit under
the Plan.

The UAW and Meritor negotiated a series of collective bargaining
agreement covering the Newark Plant, including the collective
bargaining agreement dated October 1, 2012 referenced herein as the
"2012-2015 Meritor CBA." The 2012-2015 Meritor CBA contains
provisions in its Appendix B -- entitled "UAW-Meritor Job Security
Program" -- for a certain permanent shutdown pension benefit
designated therein as a "Special Early Retirement Benefit,"

Each of the members of the Class was on the active Meritor payroll
at the Newark Plant on the April 14, 2015 date of notification of
plant closing or had actively worked for Meritor at the Newark Plan
within six (6) months prior to that date.

Meritor has refused to provide this permanent shutdown pension
benefit to the Class Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.
Meritor's refusal and failure to provide this permanent shutdown
pension benefit to the Class Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class is in violation of Appendix B of the 2012-2015 Meritor CBA.
If unremedied, Meritor's violation of its contractual obligations
under Appendix B will cause economic harm to the Class Plaintiffs
and each of the members of the Class.

Meritor, Inc. manufactures automobile components for military
suppliers, trucks, trailers, and specialty vehicles. The Company
also offers related replacement parts in the transportation and
industrial sectors. Meritor provides products including axles,
drivelines, braking systems, and suspension systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nicholson, Esq.
          P.O. Box 7215
          Ann Arbor, MI 48105
          Telephone: (734) 972-9415
          E-mail: mnlawannarbor@gmail.com


METRO-GOLDWYN MAYER: James Bond Case Atty.'s Fee Reduction Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Seattle
federal court properly reduced an attorneys' fees award from
settled claims that Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios and Twentieth
Century Fox advertised a "James Bond" box set deceptively.

The district court reasonably determined that its $184,665 fee
award was more appropriate than the consumer class's $350,000
request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Dec.
2.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
approved the settlement of class action claims that MGM falsely
represented that its box set included "all" Bond films. The set
didn't include two Bond films produced by other companies. [GN]



MICHEALS ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over Mold Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
The national plaintiffs' class action and complex litigation law
firm Berger Montague PC, working together with the Whistleblower
Law Firm, and representing Plaintiffs Joshua Lenz, Traci Lenz,
Jason Norquist, Amie Norquist, Ryan Morgan, Erica Morgan, Gary
Elbon, Kayla Elbon, Jason Genrich, and Jenny Genrich, disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed to recover damages and
obtain injunctive relief relating to mold exposure in military
housing at MacDill Air Force Base. The Defendants are The Michaels
Organization, LLC, Michaels Management Services, Inc., Interstate
Realty Management Company, AMC East Communities, LLC, Clark Capital
Realty LLC, and Harbor Bay at MacDill. The Plaintiffs are pursuing
this case on behalf of all current and former military members and
their families who have resided in Defendants' military housing at
MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. The lawsuit alleges that
Defendants' military housing suffers from construction defects and
deficiencies in its development, operation, maintenance, and
management. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' misconduct has
exposed U.S. military members and their families residing at
MacDill Air Force Base to excessive moisture and mold, endangering
their health, welfare, and safety.

The lawsuit charges Defendants with breach of contract, breach of
the implied warranty of habitability, violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, gross
negligence, and unjust enrichment, in connection with Defendants'
violation of their duties to provide safe and mold-free housing to
U.S. military members and their families. On December 2, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in federal court in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
which is captioned, Lenz, et al. v. The Michaels Organization, LLC,
et al., Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-2950-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.).

MacDill Air Force Base houses the 6th Air Mobility Wing and is part
of the Air Mobility Command for the U.S. Air Force. According to a
contract with the U.S. Air Force under the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants
own and operate military housing in which the military members and
their families stationed at MacDill Air Force Base reside. The
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants' failure to properly build the
military housing, and maintain and repair it, resulted in
widespread and severe moisture and mold problems, requiring
extensive remediation, and the possible need to rebuild the homes.

According to the lawsuit, as a result of the moisture and mold
exposure, U.S. military families, including active duty members,
their spouses, and children residing on MacDill Air Force Base,
have paid excessive amounts for the housing they rented, have
incurred unreimbursed out-of-pocket economic losses, and have
suffered and continue to suffer from severe health issues including
pulmonary and respiratory problems, sinusitis, enlarged lymph
nodes, allergies, headaches, and rashes, among other medical
issues.

In May 2019, the Military Family Advisory Network, a 501(c)(3)
charitable organization connecting military families, issued a
200-page research report on living conditions of families in
privatized military housing. As part of the report, the Military
Family Advisory Network surveyed service members at various
military installations, including MacDill Air Force Base. Based on
the responses of over 100 service members residing on MacDill Air
Force Base, more than 54% had experienced problems with mold.

The lawsuit alleges further that moisture and mold problems at
MacDill have been so extensive that the U.S. Air Force penalized
Defendant Michaels in 2019 by cutting the money it received through
a performance incentive fee. Colonel Stephen Snelson, Commander of
the 6th Air Refueling Wing at MacDill, noted that the U.S. Air
Force's action in cutting these fees was "due to mold remediation
complaints" raised by service members.

The lawsuit alleges that when notified by residents of the moisture
and mold problems, Defendants failed to adequately address the
issues, denied the existence and severity of the problems, delayed
in responding appropriately, refused to share moisture and mold
tests with residents, and engaged in inadequate and shoddy
remediation efforts. One Plaintiff and his family spent 58 days in
temporary housing during a seven-month period in 2019 and another
had mold mushrooms growing out of the floor and carpet in his
residence.

In a November 2019 interview, Ron Hansen, the president of
Defendant Michaels, stated that "[t]he Air Force is not responsible
for any of this. When people are pointing fingers at someone for
maintenance issues, they're pointing at us and they're right."

Berger Montague Managing Shareholder Shanon J. Carson, who is
leading the class action litigation on behalf of the military
families, stated, "The severe toll on U.S. service members and
their families from living in substandard, mold-infested housing
cannot be overstated. These men and women serve our country and
they deserve to live in safe, clean, and uncontaminated housing
that won't make them sick or cause them to incur unnecessary
expense. It makes it more difficult for our service members to
focus on their critical role of keeping our country safe when they
are themselves suffering from preventable housing and health
problems and worried about the safety of their spouses and
children."

Natalie Khawam, the principal of the Whistleblower Law Firm, added,
"These heroic people who serve our nation have unfairly suffered
from moisture and mold in their homes, and we will do everything
possible to hold the Defendants responsible."

Berger Montague and the Whistleblower Law Firm have launched an
investigation into substandard and unsafe housing at MacDill Air
Force Base and other United States military bases around the
country. The law firms have already been contacted by military
members at other bases who are complaining of mold and other
building issues, and the attorneys believe that faulty construction
and other building issues may be systemic in U.S. military housing.
Affected military members and their families, and anyone with
relevant information concerning mold or defective construction or
building issues at U.S. military bases, including but not limited
to MacDill Air Force Base, are encouraged to contact attorney
Shanon J. Carson of Berger Montague at 215-875-4656 or by email at
scarson@bm.net. Berger Montague has assembled a response team of
dedicated attorneys, paralegals, and investigators, and will
respond immediately. Berger Montague is committed to providing
legal representation to all military members and their families who
have been harmed by these practices and assert legal claims.

Interested parties can also visit the Berger Montague website
dedicated to this case, www.bergermontague.com/macdillclassaction,
for more information and to view a copy of the filed Complaint in
the lawsuit and other important case documents. Berger Montague
will keep this website up to date as the lawsuit progresses.

Berger Montague and the Whistleblower Law Firm also plan to host a
meeting in Tampa, Florida on December 11, 2019, and anyone wanting
to attend should call or email attorney Shanon J. Carson at
215-875-4656 or scarson@bm.net to obtain further details regarding
the time and place of the meeting. This meeting is being held for
residents of MacDill Air Force Base so they can obtain additional
information.

Berger Montague -- https://bergermontague.com -- is a national
plaintiffs' class action and complex litigation law firm
headquartered in Philadelphia with offices in Minneapolis, San
Diego, and Washington, D.C. Berger Montague litigates complex civil
cases and class actions in federal and state courts throughout the
United States. In its 50 years of operation, the Firm has pioneered
the use of class actions in America and recovered well over $30
billion for its clients and the class members it has represented.

Contact:

Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Natalie Khawam, Esq., MBA, MS
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Whistleblower Law Firm, PA
Glen Abramson, Esq.
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 1015
Lane L. Vines, Esq.
Tampa, FL 33602

Berger Montague PC
Telephone: 813-944-7853
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Email: nataliek@813whistle.com
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-875-4656
Email: scarson@bm.net
       emdrake@bm.net
       gabramson@bm.net
       lvines@bm.net
[GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Anday Files Suit Under FDCPA in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Debbie Anday, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00240-JD (E.D., Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
   Law Offices Of Robert P. Cocco PC
   1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 351-0200
   Fax: (215) 922-3874
   Email: rcocco@rcn.com


MUDLIC PROPERTIES: Steven Files Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mudlic Properties,
LLC. The case is styled as Bald Steven and Tutsock James, others
similarly situated, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Mudlic Properties, LLC, Paper Street
Realty, LLC, Equitybuild Finance, LLC and Unknown Owners &
Nonrecor, Defendants, Case No. 2020-CH-00483 (Ill. Cir, Jan. 14,
2020).

The case is located at Chancery Division, First Municipal/City.

Mudlic Properties, LLC is engaged in real estate business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of common stock of Namaste Technologies Inc.
(OTCMKTS: NXTTF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between
November 29, 2017 and March 6, 2019 inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Namaste Technologies
("Namaste") and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

Please read this notice carefully, your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement 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 an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $2,750,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on March 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Gregory H. Woods at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, to 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 Second Amended Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated October 25, 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 application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at In re Namaste Technologies Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N.
Jackson, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.namastesecuritieslitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no
later than March 20, 2020.  If you are a Settlement 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 Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than February 19, 2020
by the Claims Administrator, Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement 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 Clerk of the
Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such
that they are received no later than February 19, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Namaste, or
its counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
212-661-1100
jalieberman@pomlaw.com

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

In re Namaste Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
866-274-4004
www.namastesecuritieslitigation.com

By Order of the Court
[GN]


NES GLOBAL: Richardson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Richardson, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
NES GLOBAL TALENT US INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00223 (S.D. Tex., Jan.
21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers
like him, overtime as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Richardson has worked for the Defendant as a
Commissioning Subject Matter Expert since April 2019.

NES is a staffing company that provides recruitment services to the
oil and gas industry, among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
                 adunlap@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


NIGHT MOVES BAR: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Night Moves Bar, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Night Moves Bar, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00366 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Night Moves Bar, LLC is a party entertainment service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUWAVE LLC: Horn Files Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NuWave LLC. The case
is styled as Kiana Horn, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NuWave LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00263 (N.D., Ill., Jan. 14, 2020).

The case type is stated as Diversity-Other Contract.

NuWave LLC is a manufacturing company of kitchen appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Warshaw, Esq.
   Pearson, Simon & Warshaw< LLP
   15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
   Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
   Tel: (818) 788-8300
   Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

     - and -

   Joseph Charles Bourne, Esq.
   Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, Llp
   800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2150
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 389-0600
   Email: jbourne@pswlaw.com

     - and -

   Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
   Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.
   One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 525-4100
   Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Patrick E Michela, Esq.
   Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP
   300 South Grand Avenue 37th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147
   Tel: (213) 620-0460
   Fax: (213) 624-4840
   Email: pmichela@hillfarrer.com


NYLABONE CORP: Scandore Files Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nylabone Corp. The
case is styled as Keith Scandore, individually on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nylabone Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-GRB-ARL (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 15,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or filed
pursuant to the Truth-In-Lending Act.

Nylabone manufactures dog chews, bones, treats, & toys designed to
meet the chewing needs of any dog breed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

     - and -

   Jeremy Bradford Francis, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
   Pughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


OLME.US LLC: Rozier Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul A. Rozier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OLME.US, LLC, d/b/a DUTCH EXPRESS, DUTCH EXPRESS, LLC,
d/b/a DUTCH EXPRESS DUTCH EXPRESS II, LLC, d/b/a DUTCH EXPRESS,
MARCUS HOED, ARIELLA AZOGUI, AVIV SISO, JOHN DOE 1-5, and COMPANY
ABC 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-00548 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020), is
brought for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, among other things, the Defendants
failed to pay minimum wage, and illegally withheld wages and tips
earned by the workers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff would
report to work pursuant to the work schedule provided to him ahead
of time. The workers, including the Plaintiff, were required to
punch in when they reported to work, and punch out when they left
for the day. However, pursuant to their company-wide policy, the
Defendants have not paid the workers, including Plaintiff, for
their waiting time.

The price paid by customers through Amazon Prime Now, by default,
includes a tip, the Plaintiff states. However, the Plaintiff
alleges, the Defendants retained the tips, in whole or in part, and
failed to provide to the tips to the workers, including the
Plaintiff. The Defendants exploited the powerless delivery workers,
including many immigrants and homeless people who are afraid of
speaking out, for profits, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff was hired by Dutch Express as a foot messenger on
December 6, 2019, and currently is still being employed by the
latter.

Dutch Express is a contractor of Amazon, which provides courier
services for Amazon Prime Now.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          305 Broadway, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 203-5231
          Fax: (212) 203-5237
          Email: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


PATIENT FIRST CORP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patient First Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Patient First Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00269-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Patient First is a chain of urgent care centers in the United
States. The centers allow patients to walk in and receive diagnosis
and treatments for common symptoms and ailments that can receive
outpatient care without an appointment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adeshigbin Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANE ADESHIGBIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06079 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 23,
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 Adeshigbin was employed by the Defendant as
non-exempt employee.

Philadelphia, known colloquially as Philly, is the largest city in
the U.S. state and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Kang, Esq.
          Michael S. Weinert, Esq.
          KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 525-5850
          Facsimile: (215) 525-5860
          E-mail: ekang@KHFlaw.com


PINGER INC: Regan Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LUCAS REGAN, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. PINGER, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00486 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      No Consent Class

      "all persons in the United States (1) to whose cellular
      telephone number (2) Defendant or anyone acting on its
      behalf placed a non-emergency text message (3) using
      substantially the same system(s) used to text Plaintiff
      (4) within 4 years of the complaint (5) a text promoting
      Defendant's goods or services"; and

      Stop Texting Class

      "all persons in the United States (1) to whose cellular
      telephone number (2) Defendant or anyone acting on its
      behalf placed a non-emergency text message (3) using
      substantially the same system(s) used to text Plaintiff
      (4) within 4 years of the complaint (5) after that
      person had sent a text message requesting such messages
      to stop";

   2. appointing himself as the class representative;

   3. appointing his lawyers as counsel for the classes; and

   4. allowing himself to file a memorandum in support of the
      motion after further class discovery.

The Plaintiff contends that Pinger violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Putative Class are:

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

PINNACLE RECOVERY: Adams Files Suit Under FDCPA in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Recovery
Inc. The case is styled as Pearl Adams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pinnacle Recovery
Inc and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00145-TMC (D.,
S.C., Jan. 14, 2020).

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

Pinnacle Recovery, Inc. is a nationwide full‐service debt
recovery company that specializes in the professional, efficient
and ethical resolution of its clients' delinquent and defaulted
receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law LTD Co
   218 Trade Street, Suite D
   Greer, SC 29651
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 670-5009
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


PJ'S STAGECOACH INN: Owners Face Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Patrick Nelson, writing for KOAA News5, reports that last June,
News5 told you about allegations of tip money being mishandled by
managers at PJ's Stagecoach Inn in Manitou Springs. Now, the
restaurant is reportedly closed as the owners face a class action
lawsuit.

Back in 2015, the historic restaurant was closed until it was
re-opened as PJ's Stagecoach Inn, but it appears the restaurant is
once again closed. In the wake of our investigation into the
payroll practices of the owners they will still have to face former
employees who have filed this 14 page class action lawsuit.

Along Manitou Avenue, the main road through Manitou Springs, you'll
find the Stagecoach Inn, but it appears the iconic restaurant is
once again closed.

"I saved all of my shift reports," former PJ's Stagecoach Inn
waitress Andrea Schaus told News5 Investigates in June of 2019.

Last summer, News5 investigates spoke with Schaus uncovering
allegations that owners of the restaurant were mishandling the tip
money of employees

"And they've been doing this for years for several, several,
several employees. The dollars are enormous," Schaus said.

The report inspired another waiter to come forward, Daniel
Grepitotis.

"What we made in tips should've been ours and it was stolen from us
basically," said Grepiotis.

Both Schaus and Grepiotis won state judgments saying the restaurant
owed them each thousands of dollars in unpaid wages and penalties.

"It was encouraging to know someone is listening to me. I'm not
crazy," said Schaus.

Even though PJ's Stagecoach Inn appears to be closed, Schaus is
moving forward with a class action lawsuit that aims to compensate
all current and former employees who may have suffered from wage
violations.

As of right now, the owners of PJ's Stagecoach Inn are due in
federal court on January 13th for a scheduling conference as part
of the class action lawsuit. We will continue to follow this and
let you know what happens next. [GN]



QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Wants to Narrow Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for Law.com, reports that the chances of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approving a nationwide
class of some 250 million cellphone purchasers against Qualcomm
Inc. sounded close to zero last December.

But a Ninth Circuit panel featuring Judges Jay Bybee and Ryan
Nelson wasn't ruling out a California-only antitrust class, or even
including other states with similar antitrust laws, which could
still be worth billions of dollars.

"It seems like this argument does not undermine a statewide action
in California, and perhaps even a larger class action that included
other states whose law [is] similar," Nelson told Keker, Van Nest &
Peters partner Robert Van Nest, representing Qualcomm.

Van Nest argued that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern
District of California made other errors of law in 2018 when she
certified what Qualcomm calls the largest class in history. But
Nelson and Bybee suggested those arguments involve fact issues that
the Ninth Circuit would have to review with more deference to Koh.

Stromberg v. Qualcomm is a follow-on to Federal Trade Commission v.
Qualcomm, the government's groundbreaking and controversial
antitrust case over Qualcomm's intellectual property licensing
practices. Koh in 2018 certified a class of consumers in the
former, then found antitrust violations following a 2019 bench
trial in the latter. The Ninth Circuit is scheduled to review the
bench trial and her order enjoining Qualcomm's "no license no
chips" policy in February.

The class Koh certified covers 1.2 billion cellphone purchases by
some 250 million individuals and entities all over the country. Koh
found "compelling" evidence that Qualcomm used its control over
modem chip supply to bully smart phone manufacturers into paying
inflated royalties for its standard-essential patents. The
plaintiffs contend those higher royalties were ultimately borne by
consumers.

Qualcomm argues that Koh improperly applied California antitrust
law to a nationwide class contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent,
relied on a "pass-through" theory that other courts have rejected,
and "casually" dismissed due process and manageability concerns
surrounding the massive class.

"The district court chose to federalize California policy and
impose it on all other states," Van Nest told the court. The states
that have rejected California's approach to indirect purchasers,
like cellphone buyers, "have made a choice that they don't want
folks doing business there to face excessive litigation" or double
recovery.

Van Nest got little argument from Nelson. "Isn't it even more
fundamental than that?" he said. "You have multiple state law
issues that make uniformity of the law in one nationwide class
action impracticable."

"That's right, your honor," Van Nest replied.

But even if the class were narrowed to California only, Van Nest
said, that plaintiffs didn't make a sufficient showing of
commonality. Tens of millions of buyers weren't injured, because
they paid nothing for their phones due to discounts and incentive,
Van Nest argued as one example.

Bybee said the cost might still be passed through in the form of
higher monthly fees or reduced feature set, but Van Nest argued
that's only a theory that the plaintiffs never proved. "You can't
certify a class based on a theory," he told the court.

Nelson cut him off. "I appreciate your arguments. I think they're
really strong," he said. "But everything you're arguing [on
commonality], we would have to find that district court abused its
discretion. And I feel like you're re-arguing some of the same
arguments you made below."

Susman Godfrey partner Marc Seltzer argued that a nationwide class
is appropriate, because all of Qualcomm's business dealings with
smartphone makers were based in California. It's "wrongdoing taking
place in California, within California's borders, by a California
company," he said.

Nelson didn't sound convinced. "All states have treated this
differently, and now we have California coming in and saying we're
going to rule the entire United States, literally," said Nelson,
whose chambers are in Idaho. "You understand why those who don't
live in California get a little bit frustrated with that kind of
approach?"

Seltzer argued that there's no evidence that applying California
law would affect competition in other states. "You have to apply it
to the facts of the case," he told the court.

"You're saying stick to the facts—you stick to the facts. You're
overstating your case," Nelson told him. "Stop it."

Though the Dec. 2 arguments were focused on class procedure, they
offered a slight glimpse into how some Ninth Circuit judge might
view the FTC's case.

"If we affirmed the FTC action," Bybee assked, "would that be
collateral estoppel about this question of persuasive evidence"
that liability can be established commonly?

Van Nest said it would not, because Koh held a bench trial on the
FTC case, and Qualcomm has demanded a jury trial in the class
action.

Nelson asked if a decision on the FTC's injunction would control
any injunction that could be ordered in Stromberg. Van Nest said
it's not clear exactly what injunctive relief the consumer class is
seeking.

"Well, that's a question for a later day," Nelson suggested.

"That's a question for a later day," Van Nest agreed.

Mary Helen Wimberly argued briefly for the Justice Department's
Antitrust Division in support of Qualcomm. Judge Eugene Siler Jr.,
visiting from the Sixth Circuit, rounded out the Ninth Circuit
panel. [GN]


ROBERT SALNA: Canadian Ct. Dismisses Copyright Reverse Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cohen, Esq., and Sarah Stothart, Esq., of Goodmans LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, report that the Federal Court of Canada
dismissed an unusual "reverse class action" brought by a group of
film production companies (collectively referred to as "Voltage")
against a potentially indeterminate number of Canadians in respect
of alleged peer-to-peer file sharing of Voltage's copyrighted
films. The decision in Voltage Pictures, LLC et al. v Robert Salna
et al., signals an unwillingness to allow copyright holders to
pursue unnamed individuals for alleged infringement without clear
evidence they are properly named as defendants. The Court declined
to rely on evidence of IP addresses allegedly used to share the
films on the basis that a person holding an address may not be the
one using it for the alleged infringement.

Background
In its application to certify the class action launched in 2016,
Voltage alleged that its copyrights in five films -- including The
Cobbler and American Heist -- had been infringed by the respondent
class members' illegal uploading and downloading of the films using
peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

The road to the Federal Court's decision on certification involved
a number of procedural steps, including a trip to the Supreme
Court. In 2015, Voltage used evidence identifying an IP address
that uploaded the films to a "BitTorrent" sharing network, to
obtain a Norwich order compelling Rogers Communications Inc. to
disclose the internet subscriber's identity using that IP address.
The identified subscriber became the first representative
respondent named in the class action.  He denied having infringed
Voltage's copyrights and could not say whether the IP address in
question had been compromised by other users.

Pursuant to the Copyright Act, copyright can be infringed through
either primary infringement, by making use of a work in a way that
only the owner has the right to, or secondary infringement, by
selling, distributing, or exposing for sale an infringing good that
the secondary infringer knows (or should know) infringes a
copyrighted work.

The proposed class included all natural persons residing in Canada
who were internet account subscribers whose IP addresses were
detected by Voltage's forensic software.  The persons captured
would be either a "direct infringer" (a person who was making the
films available for download over a peer-to-peer network or
advertising that they were available for download) or an
"authorizing infringer" (a person who controlled an internet
account and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the actions
of direct infringers, such as internet service providers (ISPs)).

Voltage alleged infringement of its copyrights by the direct and
authorizing infringers in one of three ways:

   1. offering films for download over peer-to-peer networks;
   2. advertising the film as being available for download; or
   3. failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the first and
second acts of direct infringement did not take place

Voltage faced resistance from the representative respondents and
from the intervening Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest
Clinic, who raised issues with the notion of identifying direct
infringers based on IP addresses, given evidence that an internet
user may not consciously decide to offer a file for download or
advertise that it is available. They also argued the notion that
ISPs and others who "control" internet accounts should be
responsible for infringement by subscribers or those who use their
IP addresses is flawed.

Federal Court's Decision
To have its class action certified, Voltage was required to meet
the five conditions set out by Rule 334.16 of the Federal Court
Rules:

   1. Its pleadings needed to disclose a reasonable cause of
action.
   2.  There had to be an identifiable class of two or more people
against whom the claim was brought
   3. Common questions of law or fact had to exist against those
people.
   4. A class action had to be the preferable procedure to resolve
the common questions in a just and efficient way.
   5. There needed to be a representative party who would fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the class and have a plan
for proceeding on behalf of other class members, among other
things.
The Federal Court found Voltage failed to satisfy any of these
conditions and thus its action could not proceed.

Among the Federal Court's findings were the following:

   * Voltage's argument that a cause of action existed against ISPs
for providing internet access to persons making copyrighted works
available for download was an "overly broad reading" of the Supreme
Court's earlier comments about what it meant to "authorize" an
infringement.

   * Voltage's assertion that it identified thousands of IP
addresses used to allegedly infringe its copyrights was
insufficient to constitute a basis for the existence of an
identifiable class, since the nexus between an IP address and a
person actually infringing copyright while using that IP address
was a highly technical and uncertain determination.

   * A class action was not the preferable procedure because
Voltage's forensic software was only capable of identifying IP
addresses, but the determination of who was using the IP address at
the given time was an individual -- not common -- issue.  Further,
relying on the notice-and-notice regime (designed for ISPs to
notify users to cease infringing activity if detected) to
facilitate a large-scale class proceeding would unfairly overburden
ISPs and result in an unmanageable class procedure.

Future Cases
Despite Voltage's unsuccessful certification attempt, there may be
a place for reverse class actions where the cost of defending
meritorious litigation can be spread across many small defendants.
In the three reported reverse class actions that were successfully
certified, the key feature (and one which distinguishes them from
the Voltage claim) was the limited number of identified defendants
and the existence of a claim against each of them, such that the
claims were more efficiently adjudicated together.  The
disincentive for defendants to participate in the action is the
inherent challenge in deploying the class vehicle in reverse, but
in the proper case that disincentive might be moderated. [GN]


RODAN & FIELDS: Falsely Markets SPF 30 Sunscreen, Platonova Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yulia Platonova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RODAN & FIELDS, LLC, Case No. CGC-20-582325 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 21, 2020), alleging that the
Defendant's product, Rodan + Fields Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Broad
Spectrum SPF 30, is misbranded and falsely advertised in
California, in violation of California laws.

According to the complaint, the product is falsely advertised in
California in that the Defendant states that the product's sun
protection factor is "SPF 30." However, the product is not SPF 30.
The SPF of a sunscreen is required to be clearly stated in the
sunscreen's label.

The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's representations not only
because the product was labeled as an SPF 30 product, but also
because the Defendant prominently and actively promotes itself as a
company founded by world-renowned dermatologists and that their
products are back by "clinical results," according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff has been injured by the Defendant's
pattern and practice of placing into the stream of commerce
sunscreens products containing a false SPF number.

The Plaintiff purchased the Rodan + Fields Soothe Mineral Sunscreen
Broad Spectrum SPF 30 from the Defendant.

The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises,
markets, and sells sunscreen, under the brand name Rodan + Fields
Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 30.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart B. Lewis, Esq.
          Timothy F. Pearce, Esq.
          PEARCE LEWIS LLP
          423 Washington Street, Suite 510
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone (415) 964-5225
          Facsimile (415) 830-9879
          Email: stuart@pearcelewis.com
                 tim@pearcelewis.com

               - and -

          Sophie Zavaglia, Esq.
          SWMW LAW, LLC
          701 Market Street, Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: (314) 480-5180
          Facsimile: (314) 932-1566
          Email: sophie@swmwlaw.com


SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. SENTRY
ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00178-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order on
Jan. 22, 2020, granting Parties' joint motion to conditionally
certify a collective action and approving a collective action
notice on behalf of:

   "all current or former hourly non-exempt employees of Defendant
   who (1) were required to travel to a remote jobsite away from
   their home communities and stay overnight; (2) have not been
   paid for time spent traveling to these remote jobsites; and (3)

   as a result of the travel time to the remote jobsite, worked
   over 40 hours in any workweek beginning January 21, 2017, to
   the present."

Sentry is a Georgia-based company that performs projects across the
entire United States.[CC]

SOHO HOTEL: Swartz Seeks Relief and Costs Over Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Swartz, individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. SOHO HOTEL OWNER LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00531
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020), is brought for injunctive relief,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs arising from the
Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
for damages pursuant to the New York Civil Rights Law.

The Plaintiff was a guest at the Defendant's 11 Howard Hotel from
January 6, 2020, through January 7, 2020, and plans to return to
the property on August 1, 2020, through August 2, 2020, to meet
friends, who are coming in from Glen Cove. The Plaintiff says she
has encountered architectural barriers at the subject property,
which have impaired her use of the facilities and the amenities
offered, and have endangered her safety at the facilities and her
ability to access the facilities' facilities and use the
restrooms.

The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated by denying them access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by
the ADA, says the complaint.

Ms. Swartz is a Florida resident, and has multiple sclerosis and is
mobility impaired, and uses an electric scooter to ambulate.

The Defendant's property, 11 HOWARD HOTEL, is located in the County
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Phone: (305) 891-5199
          Email: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com


STERLING JEWELERS: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00267-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Sterling Jewelers, Inc. is an American specialty jewelry company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by
Henry Shaw (the father of Jerry Shaw, the chairman emeritus of
Sterling today), from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


SYNDICATED BAR: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Syndicated Bar & Theater LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Syndicated Bar & Theater LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00334 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 14, 2020).

Syndicated Bar & Theater LLC is a Movie theater showing recent
classics, plus a restaurant & bar serving American fare &
cocktails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T-MOBILE USA: $8M Deal in Salgado Labor Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EMMANUEL SALGADO, GAEL GROB, DAVID GARCIA,
and ANDRE WONG behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-0339-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement.

Salgado, Grob, Garcia, and Wong assert T-Mobile USA is liable for
violations of wage and hour laws and seek to prosecute the action
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees
of T-Mobile.  According to the Plaintiffs, the putative class
members were the Defendants' control and required to perform tasks
without pay.

On Aug. 22, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation with Jeff
Krivis.  Although they did not reach a settlement on the day of the
mediation, they engaged in further negotiations and entered into an
agreement that settled the Action and all of the Related Actions.
Thus, the Plaintiffs report the claims in Grob, Wong and Garcia
have been accounted for and valued in the proposed settlement.  The
Plaintiffs now seek certification of a settlement class and
preliminary approval of the settlement terms.  The Defendant has
not opposed the motion.

The parties agreed on a settlement of $8 million on a class wide,
common fund basis with no claim form requirement and with no
residual to revert to the Defendant.  

The Defendant agrees to fund the Settlement for the class defined
as follows: All persons employed by Defendant in California as
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked in retail locations,
including but not limited to, Retail Sales Managers, Retail
Assistant Managers, Retails Sales Associates, and Mobile Experts,
or functionally equivalent positions at any time during the Class
Period.

In addition, the Class Period is defined as the period from Feb. 3,
2013, through the date of Preliminary Approval, or Nov. 30, 2019,
or the last day of the pay period in which the total number of
workweeks of 1,045,295.92 increases by more than 10% ("Workweek
Threshold Cutoff Date"), whichever occurs first.

The settlement fund will cover payments to the class members and
the payments to the Plaintiffs for their roles as the class
representatives.  In addition, the Settlement provides for payments
to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses, to the
Settlement Administrator, and the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency.

Specifically, the settlement provides for the following payments
from the gross settlement amount: (i) Plaintiff Emmanuel Salgado
will receive $15,000; (ii) Plaintiffs David Garcia, Gael Grob, and
Andre Wong will receive $5,000 each; (iii) Class counsel will
receive fees not to exceed $2,640,000) and litigation expenses not
to exceed $70,000; (iv) The California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency will receive $225,000 from the award pursuant to
PAGA; and (v) the Settlement Administrator will receive reasonable
costs of administration, which are estimated to be $56,000.

After the identified deductions and payments, the remaining funds
-- the "Net Settlement Amount" -- will be distributed to all the
participating class members.  The shares of the individual
settlement payment for each class member will be determined based
upon the number of Workweeks a Class Member worked during the Class
Period.  Using this method, the Plaintiffs report that the average
settlement payment will be approximately $561, and the highest
settlement payment will be approximately $1,698.

Any class member who wishes may file objections or elect not to
participate in the non-PAGA portion of the Settlement.  The
proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement explains the claims that
are released as part of the Settlement.  In addition, the Notice
outlines the procedures to claim a share of the settlement, object
to the settlement, or elect not to participate in the Settlement.

Judge Thurston finds the proposed class settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the Settlement
Class.

The class is defined follows: All persons employed by Defendant in
California as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked in
retail locations, including but not limited to, Retail Sales
Managers, Retail Assistant Managers, Retails Sales Associates, and
Mobile Experts, or functionally equivalent positions at any time
from Feb. 3, 2013, through the date of Preliminary Approval.

Judge Thurston granted preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed settlement agreement, as modified by the Order.  The
proposed notice plan is also approved.

Emmanuel Salgado, Gael Grob, David Garcia, and Andre Wong are
appointed as Class Representatives.  Kevin Barnes and Gregg Lander
of the Law Offices of Kevin J. Barnes; Raphael Katri of the Law
Offices of Raphael A. Katri; Matthew Matern of Matern Law Group,
PC; Nazo Koulloukian of Koul Law Firm; Sahag Majarian, II of the
Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II; and Dennis Moss and Ari Moss of
Moss Bollinger LLP are appointed as  Class Counsel.  Rust
Consulting, Inc. is appointed as Settlement Administrator.

Judge Thurston preliminarily granted the Plaintiffs' request for
class representative enhancement payments -- subject to a petition
and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing -- in the
amount up to the amount of $15,000 for Emanuel Salgado; $5,000 for
Gael Grob, $5,000 for David Garcia, and $5,000 for Andre Wong.  The
Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose the request,
if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.

The Judge further preliminarily granted the Class Counsel's
requests for fees not to exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount
and expenses up to $70,000, subject to the counsel's petition for
fees and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.  The
Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request,
if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.

The Defendant is directed to provide the Settlement Administrator
with the Class List, and the Settlement Administrator will mail the
approved Class Notice.

A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement will
postmark the Exclusion Request within 45 days, or no later than
Feb. 14, 2020.  Any objections to or comments on the Settlement
Agreement must be filed with the Court and mailed to the Settlement
Administrator no later than Feb. 14, 2020.

A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for March 2, 2020 at
9:00 a.m.

The Court reserves the right to vacate the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing if no comments or objections are filed with the
Court by Feb. 14, 2020.

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

Emmanuel Salgado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Lander, Law Offices Of
Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes -- Barnes@kbarnes.com -- Law
Offices Of Kevin T. Barnes & Raphael A. Katri --
RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com -- Law Offices of Raphael A. Katri.

David Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari E. Moss, Moss Bollinger,
LLP, Dennis F. Moss, Moss Bollinger, LLP & Sahag Majarian, Law
Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

Andre Wong, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff, represented by Nazo L. Koulloukian, Koul Law Firm &
Sahag Majarian, Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

Gael F. Grob, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua David Boxer, Matern Law
Group, PC & Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Keith A. Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
Natalie Marie Kuzma -- njansen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Ryan Lee Eddings -- reddings@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
A Professional Corporation, Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Perry K. Miska -- pmiska@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Gregory G. Iskander --
giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


T-MOBILE USA: Finalized Class Notice in Salgado Labor Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EMMANUEL SALGADO, GAEL GROB, DAVID GARCIA,
and ANDRE WONG behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00339-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer
L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California approved the finalized Class Notice.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended Notice of Class Action Settlement,
which includes the revisions required by the Court.  In addition,
it contains the information required by Rule 23(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, including the nature of the action, the
class definition approved by the Court, the claims and issues to be
resolved, representation by the counsel, how a class member may
choose to be excluded from the class, the time and method to
opt-out of the class, and the binding effect of a class judgment.
For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge approved the finalized
Class Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SVFfVr from Leagle.com.

Emmanuel Salgado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Lander, Law Offices Of
Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes -- Barnes@kbarnes.com -- Law
Offices Of Kevin T. Barnes & Raphael Katri --
RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com -- Law Offices Of Raphael A. Katri.

David Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari E. Moss, Moss Bollinger,
LLP, Dennis F. Moss, Moss Bollinger, LLP & Sahag Majarian, Law
Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

Andre Wong, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff, represented by Nazo L. Koulloukian, Koul Law Firm &
Sahag Majarian, Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

Gael F. Grob, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern, Matern Law
Group.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Keith A. Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
Natalie Marie Kuzma -- njansen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Ryan Lee Eddings -- reddings@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
A Professional Corporation, Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Perry K. Miska -- pmiska@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Gregory G. Iskander --
giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


TEXAS MEDGROUP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Texas Medgroup, P.A., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Texas Medgroup, P.A., Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00270-JCJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

Texas Medgroup, P.A., Inc. is a Medical clinic in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


TIK TOK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Harvesting
--------------------------------------------------------
Blake Montgomery, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that the
social-media platform TikTok is amassing vast swaths of data on its
users without their consent and sending it to servers in China,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed the day before
Thanksgiving in California federal court.

The suit, filed by Misty Hong, a college student from Palo Alto,
alleges TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, neglected
their duty to handle user data with care and knowingly violated a
slew of statutes governing data gathering and the right to
privacy.

Hong is seeking punitive damages and injunctions on the company
that would, among other things, bar it from transferring user data
from the U.S. to China and from retrieving any biometric data like
facial scans from videos users have chosen not to upload.

"At the same time that Defendants utilized the Musical.ly and
TikTok apps to covertly tap into a massive array of private and
personally-identifiable information, they went to great lengths to
hide their tracks," Hong alleges.

TikTok has been downloaded more than 750 million times in the past
year, becoming the first global social-media app to emerge from
China. Because Chinese law grants authorities and the government
greater search-and-seizure power than in the United States and many
other countries, questions about control over TikTok's data have
clouded the app's rise.

According to the suit, ByteDance used Musical.ly -- which was
acquired in November 2017 for $800 million to $1 billion and later
christened TikTok -- to secretly gather users' locations, ages,
private messages, phone numbers, contacts, genders, browsing
histories, cell-phone serial numbers, and IP addresses. That data
was allegedly then sent to Chinese servers.

The suit contends that previous versions of TikTok's privacy
policies explicitly stated that the app might send user data to
China but that even after the policy changed, TikTok still
delivered such information to servers in China.

TikTok's leaders have repeatedly offered assurances, most recently
in an in-depth profile in The New York Times, that the app stores
American users' data in the U.S., specifically in Virginia (with a
backup in Singapore), and that the Chinese government has no access
to the company's user information.

Hong's suit takes issue with the process of posting a video on
TikTok, alleging that in between recording a video and posting it,
an intermediary stage saves the video and transfers the video to
ByteDance's servers without the user's knowledge. Hong alleges that
after she downloaded TikTok in March or April 2019, the app made an
account for her using her phone number -- despite the fact that she
never signed up -- that it created a dossier on her by analyzing
several videos she never posted. The information on her, the suit
contends, included a scan of her face.

The app, she alleges, transferred all of her information to servers
owned and operated by companies that cooperate with the Chinese
government. She's filed the lawsuit on behalf of all U.S. residents
who have downloaded TikTok, roughly 110 million people.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is
conducting a national security review of ByteDance's acquisition of
Musical.ly. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
sent a letter to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph
Maguire warning of the risks TikTok posed to national security if
users were to share data that wound up in the hands of the Chinese
government.

Hong, her lawyers, and ByteDance did not immediately return
requests for comment. [GN]


TRADER JOE'S: Figueroa Sues Over Misleading Labels of Cereal
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00322 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 21, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws
arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on its
cereal containing oat clusters, corn, multigrain flakes and
almonds, which is purportedly flavored by vanilla.

The relevant front label representations include the product name,
"Just the Clusters" and a statement of identity, "Vanilla Almond
Granola Cereal" and a bowl of the contents in milk.

The Plaintiff alleges that the representations are misleading
because the Product does not contain the amount, type, and
proportion of vanilla relative to non-vanilla flavor components
which is expected based on the front label. The Defendant's
branding and packaging of the Products are designed to--and
do--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers.

The Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading branding and
packaging of the Product has enabled defendant to sell more of the
Product 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 contends. As a result of the
false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium
price, approximately no less than $3.99 per unit, excluding tax,
compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading
way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption.

Trader Joe's Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells cereal containing oat clusters, corn and multigrain flakes
and almonds purportedly flavored by vanilla under their Trader
Joe's 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


TRULIA: Faces Class Action Over Premier Agent Advertising Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E.B. Solomont, writing for The Real Deal, reports that Trulia was
slapped with a federal lawsuit assailing its Premier Agent
advertising program as "unfair" and "deceptive," and accusing it of
diverting home buyers away from listing agents.

According to the suit, which seeks class-action status, the Zillow
Group subsidiary connects buyers with agents who "have no actual
connection to the property being advertised, other than having paid
defendant to be presented prominently next to the property."

The lawsuit, filed November 28 in Eastern District Court, compares
Premier Agent to a broker who purchases a billboard to advertise a
listing already held by a competitor.

The suit says neither Trulia nor its parent Zillow Group requires
Premier Agents to obtain consent from the listing agent or firm to
advertise alongside their listing. "Defendant's practices make it
less likely that a prospective homebuyer is able to successfully
contact the listing agent instead of the Premier Agents," the suit
said.

The suit seeks $5 million in damages on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew
Kim, a licensed agent in Queens; John Doe, a broker who oversees
six agents; and "all others similarly situated."

It was filed by Long Island attorney Spencer Sheehan, who has been
busy in 2018 year suing food companies over their use of synthetic
vanilla flavoring. (In 2019, Sheehan filed at least 27 lawsuits
against the makers of ice cream, yogurt and cookies.)

In 2015, Sheehan represented former subway vigilante Bernhard
Goetz, who was facing eviction from his apartment for keeping a pet
squirrel.

Zillow, which acquired Trulia in a $2.5 billion deal in 2015, said
in a statement that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit.
"Our site arms consumers with information that helps them make
decisions when finding their next home, and that includes
convenient and fast tools to connect with real estate
professionals," said Viet Shelton, a company spokesman.

Premier Agent has roiled the real estate industry in New York City
since Zillow-owned StreetEasy brought the program here in 2017.
That year, the Real Estate Board of New York, having blasted
Premier Agent for causing a "maelstrom" of consumer confusion,
demanded an investigation into whether it was legal under state
advertising laws.

In January 2019, Zillow launched Agent Spotlight, a program that
lets listing agents avoid Premier Agent -- for $333 a month.

But in May, New York regulators enacted stricter rules for online
ads, requiring third-party sites to make clear when a broker is
paying for an ad.

For years, Premier Agent has been responsible for the lion's share
of Zillow Group revenue. During the third quarter of 2019, Premier
Agent generated $240.7 million, up 3 percent year-over-year.

But over 2018, Zillow has pivoted toward instant home-buying, which
CEO Richard Barton has described as the company's "moonshot."
During the third quarter, revenue from Zillow's "Homes" segment
surpassed that of agent advertising for the first time.

"It's the size and strength of Premier Agent that allow us to
invest in and expand Zillow Offers so quickly," Barton said during
an earnings call. [GN]


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased Trulieve Cannabis Corp. (OTC:
TCNNF) securities between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Trulieve investors have until
February 28, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research published a report alleging
that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from "hoop
houses that produce low quality output," that there were extensive
ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into
corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of
corruption," and that the Company engaged in undisclosed related
party transactions.

On this news, Trulieve's share price fell $1.51, or more than 12%,
to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its
biological assets; (2) that Trulieve's reported gross profit was
inflated; (3) that Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party
real estate sale with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) that 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.

If you purchased Trulieve securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than February 28, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200103005033/en/

Contact:

         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
                888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]



UNITED STATES: Trial Begins in Migrant Children Detention Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a rare trial
began on Dec. 2 in a class action challenging the placement of
unauthorized migrant children in adult detention facilities once
they turned 18.

The bench trial, expected to last three weeks, comes in a case
brought by Kirkland & Ellis and the National Immigrant Justice
Center against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its
unit, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Plaintiffs allege
that government officials routinely violate the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which, under a 2013
amendment, requires that authorities place unaccompanied migrant
children who turn 18 in the "least restrictive setting available."

"The plaintiffs are a class of those individuals who are currently
incarcerated in county jails and adult detention facilities across
the country," said Stephen Patton -- stephen.patton@kirkland.com --
of counsel in Chicago at Kirkland & Ellis, who is trying the case
pro bono with firm partner Tia Trout-Perez, in Washington, D.C.,
and the National Immigrant Justice Center. "Under federal law, ICE
has to make a determination where to place these kids, who have
just aged out. That includes placing them in adult detention, or
some other less restrictive alternative, which is where this
statute comes into play."

In addition to their agencies, former ICE Acting Director Thomas
Homan and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen are
defendants in the case.

A representative of the Homeland Security Department did not
respond to a request for comment. In court documents, government
lawyers insisted that ICE has a nationwide policy that complies
with the amended statute, such as completing an "age-out review
worksheet."

"This is a blatant attempt to compel agency action which is not
unlawfully withheld because it is not required in the first
instance," they wrote in pretrial documents filed in November.
"Rather, plaintiffs ask the court to re-write the statute in
accordance with plaintiffs' policy preferences."

The case, which seeks injunctive relief, is the latest to challenge
immigration policies under President Donald Trump.

"There definitely was a pretty significant increase in the rate at
which these young people were detained by ICE starting after the
2016 election and early 2017 with the new administration," Patton
said. "So, overall, there is a correlation between the increased
detention of these young people and the new administration, but
when that increase occurred, it varies by field office."

The named plaintiffs are two migrant teenagers -- a girl from
Honduras and a boy from Guatemala -- who entered the United States
as minors without their parents. The boy, Wilmer Garcia Ramirez,
escaped poverty, neglect and "deplorable" working conditions at a
coffee plantation, while the girl, Sulma Hernandez Alfaro, fled an
uncle who threatened to kill her.

Initially, both fell under the direction of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement, which
has authority over the detention of minors. Immigration authorities
transferred them to ICE facilities in Arizona and Texas once they
turned 18.

That violated the federal trafficking victims statute, which
requires the "least restrictive" alternative, such as staying with
a family friend or sponsor, or a group home, or released on bond.

"Instead, ICE automatically places unaccompanied immigrants who
have turned 18 into adult detention without considering or making
available the least restrictive (or other) alternatives," says the
complaint, filed in 2018.

The case estimated the class to be thousands of migrants.

"We have a data set from 2016 through May 2019 and within that data
set around 4,700 kids who aged out, and of that 4,700, more than
50% were detained," said Kate Melloy Goettel, associate director of
litigation at National Immigrant Justice Center.

The trial is taking place before U.S. District Judge Rudolph
Contreras of the District of Columbia. In 2018, Contreras granted a
preliminary injunction to the lead plaintiffs and refused to
dismiss the class action, despite immigration authorities releasing
both of them from detention. He also certified the class,
concluding that the case was about a "single alleged practice"
involving more than just the named plaintiffs.

"Here, plaintiffs explain that, like the other members of the
putative class, the named plaintiffs are former unaccompanied
minors who, upon reaching their respective 18th birthdays, were
transferred from ORR custody to DHS and placed in adult
facilities," he wrote. [GN]


UNITI GROUP: Faces Avery Suit over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL AVERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITI GROUP, INC.; KENNETH A. GUNDERMAND;
and MARK A. WALLACE, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00927-LPR (E.D.
Ark., Dec. 23, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Uniti common stock between April 20, 2015 and June
24, 2019, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Uniti, formerly known as Communications
Sales & Leasing, Inc., is a REIT engaged in the acquisition and
construction of mission critical infrastructure in the
communications industry. In February 2014, the Company was
incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Windstream Holdings,
Inc., a telecommunications company.  It was spun off from
Windstream Holdings in 2015.

According to Uniti, in connection with the Spin-Off, Windstream
sold certain of its telecommunications network assets, including
fiber and copper networks and other real estate and a small
consumer competitive local exchange carrier to Uniti. Uniti then
leased these assets back to Windstream via a "Master Lease"
agreement. A substantial portion of Uniti's leasing revenues are
derived from the Master Lease. While the Master Lease was between
Uniti and Windstream, the Windstream operating subsidiaries were
the direct beneficiaries of the lease and in effect were the de
facto lessees of the fiber and copper network assets.

On March 18, 2019, Uniti filed its Form 10-K for Fiscal Year 2018,
with the SEC which was signed by the Defendants Gunderman and
Wallace (the "2018 Form 10-K"). In the 2018 Form 10-K, Uniti stated
that its auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, have "substantial
doubt as to whether [Uniti] could continue as a going concern
within one year after the date the financial statements are issued
as a result of Windstream's bankruptcy petition and its potential
uncertain effects on the Master Lease." They added that they
included the going concern opinion letter in their 2018 audited
financial statement because not doing so would be a breach of the
covenants of their Credit Agreement but that they "expect
Windstream will continue to perform on the Master Lease and believe
it is unlikely that Windstream will reject the Master Lease because
the Master Lease is central to Windstream's operations."

In the 2018 Form 10-K, Uniti further downplayed the concerns
stating that it was their expectation "that any disruption in
payments by Windstream would be limited" because Uniti's Master
Lease is essential to Windstream's operations and based on this,
Uniti "would have enough liquidity to fund our cash needs within
one year after the date the financial statements are issued."

Despite Uniti's repeated assertions that they did not have any
liquidity concerns, on June 24, 2019, Uniti announced a note
offering of $300 million aggregate principal amount of exchangeable
senior notes due 2024, with an option to purchase up to an
additional $45 million aggregate principal amount of the
Exchangeable Notes during a 13-day period beginning on, and
including, the first day on which the Exchangeable Notes are
issued. As a result of this, the price of Uniti stock dropped
another 12%, from $10.69 when the market closed on June 24, 2019,
to $9.38 when the market closed on June 25, 2019, on very heavy
volume.

During the Class Period, the Defendants materially misled the
investing public, thereby inflating the price of Uniti common stock
by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to
disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants' statements,
not false and misleading. Said statements and omissions were
materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose
material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about the
Company, its business and operations.

Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Gates, Esq.
          BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          415 N. Mckinley St., Suite 210
          Little Rock, AK 72205
          Telephone: (501) 420-3050
          Facsimile: (501) 420-3128
          E-mail: joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

               - and –

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (470) 632-6000
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
          E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com


VERICITY INC: Faces Rokowsky Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Rokowsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VERICITY, INC.; MEMBERS MUTUAL; FIDELITY LIFE
ASSOCIATION; and APEX HOLDCO L.P., ERIC RAHE, CALVIN DONG, SCOTT
PERRY, RICHARD HEMMINGS, JAMES E. HOHMANN, JAMES SCHACT, LINDA
WALKER BYNOE, STEVEN GROOT, JOHN FIBIGER, AND NEIL ASHE, Case No.
1:20-cv-00456 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2020), seeks to recover damages
arising from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Court's diversity
jurisdiction as expanded by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
asserting: (a) Illinois statutory claims for the improper deal
Defendant Vericity entered into when it consummated the Stand-by
Purchaser Agreement with Apex Holdco to the detriment of its
existing members, and (b) violations of state common law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
negligence.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class were life insurance
policyholders in Fidelity Life and, as a result, were members of
Members Mutual, a mutual insurance holding company organized under
the laws of Illinois. Members Mutual is the parent of Fidelity
Life.

In 2018, Members Mutual adopted a Stock Conversion Plan for the
purpose of converting Members Mutual from a mutual to stock form of
organization. Pursuant to the Plan, upon conversion of Members
Mutual to stock form, Defendant Vericity, a stock holding company,
was to acquire all stock of Members Mutual and thus be wholly owned
by Vericity. In turn, and also pursuant to the Plan, shares in
Vericity would be listed on NASDAQ (symbol "VERY") and offered
initially to eligible members of Members Mutual for $10.00 per
share.

The Plan, however, was structured so as to improperly constrain the
Plaintiff and the Class members' rights to acquire stock in
Vericity in favor of Vericity's management team, directors and
advisory board members and a third-party purchaser, according to
the complaint. The Plan was structured and executed in such a
fashion that it breached Vericity's and its directors' basic
fiduciary duties to the members, the Plaintiff and the Class.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Plan purported to offer a combined
14,875,000 shares in a subscription offering and community
offering, but its real purpose was to shift control of Vericity
away from its individual members, the Plaintiff and the Class, to a
holding company, Defendant Apex Holdco, the affiliate of the
private equity firm, J.C. Flowers & Co., LLC, whose Managing
Director, Defendant Eric Rahe, is also Vericity's Board Chairman.
In exchange, Vericity's executives would acquire an ownership
interest in Apex Holdco.

Unfortunately for him and the Class, the Plaintiff asserts, the fix
was in. Publicly, Vericity reported that a total of 20,125,000
shares were offered on a first-priority basis to eligible members
of Members Mutual and on a second-priority basis to the directors
and officers of Members Mutual. Vericity actually allocated
2,123,675 million shares to its directors and officers. Then,
secondly, Vericity unilaterally capped the amount of shares that
the Plaintiff and the Class members could purchase at 3,501,648,
thus, guaranteeing that Apex Holdco's obligations as the stand-by
purchaser would be triggered. Ultimately, Apex Holdco acquired
11,373,352 of 14,875,000 shares--76.5% of Vericity's outstanding
shares.

In reality, and subject to the duties owed to shareholders, the
stand-by purchaser should have only been permitted to exercise its
purchase rights if the original shareholders, Plaintiff and the
Class, did not exercise their own rights to reach the minimum
amount of shares, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of this
allocation of shares directly to the stand-by purchaser, the
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Yitzchok Rokowsky is an individual residing in New
Jersey, who was a member of Members Mutual as of July 31, 2018.

Defendant Vericity offers life insurance protection to the middle
American market, targeting domestic households with incomes of
between $50,000 and $125,000[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Wallace
          Mark R. Miller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 mrm@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com
                 ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Lance Rogers, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq.
          ROGERS CASTOR
          26 E. Athens Ave.
          Ardmore, PA 19003
          Phone: 610-649-1880
          Fax: 877-649-1880
          Email: Lance@RogercCastor.com
                 Dan@RogersCastor.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (610) 822-0200
          Fax: (610) 822-0206
          Email: mboni@bonizack.com
                 jsnyder@bonizack.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Largest-Ever Class Action in United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Spence, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Volkswagen
AG is facing one of the largest-ever U.K. class action lawsuits,
with almost 100,000 vehicle owners accusing it of misleading them
by installing emissions-cheating software that made it appear their
diesel vehicles met environmental standards.

Lawyers for the drivers opened their case on Dec. 2, and must first
prove that the allegations belong in court. They need judges to
follow findings by regulators that led to vehicle recalls, and to
rule that the software is a so-called defeat device that's banned
under European law. Then the case would proceed to another trial to
decide whether the owners lost anything from buying the vehicles.

The automaker has faced numerous lawsuits after the use of the
software designed to lower emissions when being tested was exposed
by a U.S. probe in 2015. That led to a recall throughout Europe
that cost the company 29 billion euros ($32 billion). Regulators in
the Netherlands and Italy have fined VW for use of the software,
while a German probe in 2018 fined the carmaker 1 billion euros.

In its court filing, VW says that the law only prohibits devices
that reduce the effectiveness of pollution control systems and not
those, like the software, which enhance them. According to the
driver's lawyers, that argument is an abuse of the intention of the
law.

"The defendants' case results in an understanding of the defeat
device that is entirely divorced from the emissions test and the
emissions limits," Tom De La Mare, an attorney for the drivers,
said in court. "It's aimed at legitimizing the total subversion of
the emission regime."

In his submissions, De La Mare pointed to an diagram from an
internal VW document, showing how the software made the vehicle
sacrifice its fuel consumption, driveability and engine noise when
under testing, in order to dip beneath the legal limit on
pollutants.

A spokesman for Volkswagen said that the drivers didn't suffer any
losses and that the vehicles didn't use prohibited defeat devices.
The company also disputes the number of claimants involved in the
class action, saying it's closer to 85,000.

Gareth Pope, a lawyer from Slater and Gordon representing the
drivers, said in a statement that VW had perpetrated an
"environmental scandal" and had spent "millions of pounds denying
the claims our clients bring."

Many similar cases are proceeding in German courts, including a
group action that involves thousands of Volkswagen drivers. They
argue that they faced their vehicles being banned from the road and
suffered losses as the resale value of their cars declined. Those
cases hinge on whether the fact that a software update that made
the cars legal to use invalidates the claim.

VW in Germany has for years argued that the software used here was
legal. That argument was tossed by Germany's top civil court in
February in a rare a rebuke of VW's position.

An earlier version of this story was corrected to reference to
regulator fine in third paragraph.

- With assistance by Karin Matussek [GN]


WASTE PRO USA: Underpays Drivers, Blandon Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DODD BLANDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE PRO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-02420 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 23, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Blandon was employed by the Defendant as driver.

Waste Pro USA, Inc. provides waste removal services. The Company
offers residential, roll-off dumpster, recycling, compaction
equipment, transfer and landfill, and other related services. Waste
Pro serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5352
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com


WAWA INC: First Choice Federal Files Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is styled as First Choice Federal Credit Union, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wawa, Inc. and Wild
Goose Holding Co., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00263-GEKP
(E.D., Pa., Jan. 15, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.

Wawa, Inc. 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:

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


WEBANCO BANK: Mahoney Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Webanco Bank, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Webanco Bank, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00244-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2020).

WesBanco, Inc., is a bank holding company headquartered in
Wheeling, West Virginia. It has 236 branches in West Virginia,
Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Maryland and Southern
Indiana. WesBanco is the second-largest bank headquartered in West
Virginia, after United Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
   Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
   123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
   Philadelphia, PA 19109
   Tel: (215) 981-5400
   Email: dglanzberg@aol.com



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 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 ***