---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 28

                            Headlines

500.COM LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 16 Deadline
500.COM LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
ALLCOM ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Lawful Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
AMAZON WEB SERVICES: Biometrics Row Removed to S.D. Ill.
ARIZONA: Snodgrass Sues Over Violations of Prisoner Civil Rights

ARTSPACE WAREHOUSE: DeSalvo Claims Website not Blind Friendly
AU PAIR CARE: Munoz Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court
AURORA CANNABIS: Canadian Pot Companies Face Class Actions in U.S.
AUSTRALIA: Clubs Excluded in $100MM Grant Could Bring Class Action
AXA EQUITABLE: Sched for Summ. Judgment Briefing in COI Suit Issued

BARE HOBOKEN: Moussad Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BELLE VISTA BLUFFS: Keever Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEST BUY STORES: Leeman Action to Recover Overtime Pay
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Tran Securities Class Suit in C.D. California
BITFINEX: Merger of Market-Manipulation Lawsuits Sought

BLUE IN GREEN: Dominguez Says Website is Blind-Inaccessible
BOCONCEPT CAMBRIDGE: Patrick Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespeople
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Looney Sues Over Illegal Credit Info Access
CELLULAR SALES: Welch Seeks Overtime Wages & Sunday Premium Pay
CENTRAL VALLEY: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Risner Says

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maharaj Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
CHOCOLATE FASHION: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CIRCLE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Dancers Minimum & OT Wages, Herek Says
CLEARVIEW AI: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Startup
CLUB FANTASIES: Agrees to $750,000 Settlement With Strippers

COCRYSTA PHARMA: Order on Tutschek Securities Suit Status Entered
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA: Pension Arm Hit With Class Action
CONCERNED HOME: Quintyne Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CREE INC: Oregon Court Narrows Claims in Nguyen Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: $10MM Lawyer Fees Awarded in MyFord Touch Consumer Suit

GARDNER DENVER: Faces Kent Suit Challenging Ingersoll-Rand Merger
GERON CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Filing
GERON CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Notes of March 23 Deadline
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Sued by Gonzalez for Misrepresenting Sanitizer
GOOD SAMARITAN: Corrected Bid to Certify Class in Frank Suit Denied

HENNESSEY-CARLSBAD ASSOC: Goddard Seeks Earned Wages and OT Pay
HEXO CORP: Hudak Suit Hits Share Price Drop
HONEYWELL INT'L: Francisco Still Lead Plaintiff in Kanefsky Suit
HOUSTON ASTROS: Dodgers Fan Plans to File Class Action Suit
KINUM INC: Duffer Contests Collection Letter Legality

KYLE & MIKE: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LUCKY'S MARKET: Forsyth Seeks Wages for 60 Days Under WARN Act
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Astros, Red Sox Sign Stealing Spurs Suit
MARUGAME UDON: Fails to Pay Regular and OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
MEDTRONIC INC: Reaches Settlement in ICD Leads Class Suit

METRO METRO: To Pay Back Hidden Fees to 8,000 Festival Goers
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Galea Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Evans Securities Class Suit in Delaware
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 3 Deadline
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Chai Disputes Illegal Collection Notice

NOMATIC LLC: Greenberg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
OPERA LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Filing
OPERA LIMITED: Frank R. Cruz Says Class Action Filed for Investors
OPERA LIMITED: Hagens Berman Announces Class Action Filing
OPERA LIMITED: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action

OPERA LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Notes of March 24 Deadline
PINNACLE CLINICAL: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Perez Alleges
QUDIAN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Informs Investors of Class Action
QUDIAN INC: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Lawsuit has Silver Lining for XRP

RUSHMORE LOAN: Fernandez Sues Over Illegal Loan Processing Fees
SAFESPEED LLC: Gress Sues Over Wrongfully Installed RL Cameras
SAN ANGEL 2: Gracia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA
SEIU UNITED: Price Sues Over Illegal Debiting of Bank Accounts
SETTON PISTACHIO: Bid to Remand Ali Suit to State Court Denied

ST. LOUIS, MO: District Court Dismisses Mahdi Prisoners Suit
STARS GROUP: Faguy & Co. Reports CDN$30MM Class Action Settlement
SUNPATH LTD: Gonzalez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TESLA INC: Unintended Acceleration Class Action Filed
TETHER HOLDINGS: Faubus Sues Over Bitcoin Price Manipulation

TETRA TECH: Residents of Treasure Island File Class Action
TIDELANDS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over December Malware Attack
TIFFANY & CO: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Complaint
TOP MASTER: Worker Sues for Termination w/out 60-Day Notice
TOYOTA MOTOR: Won't Fix Car Until Brakes Fail, Says Class Action

UNITED STATES: Campo Sues Over Spillway-Linked Damage to Oysters
UNITED STATES: Pannagl Sues Over Spillway-Linked Harm to Oysters
US BANCORP: Kim Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
WAWA INC: Faces Peace Fraud Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
WAYNE COUNTY: Female Inmate Strip Searches Suit Now a Class Action

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $342MM Reserves at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,056 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Obtains Morse TEC with Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 8 Suits and Claims for $400K

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $247MM Reserve at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31


                            *********

500.COM LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 16, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of 500.com Limited (NYSE: WBAI)
investors who purchased securities between April 27, 2018 and Dec.
31, 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 December 31, 2019, the Company disclosed an internal
investigation regarding alleged illegal money transfers after one
of its former directors was arrested. 500.com also announced that
its Chairman of the Board of Directors resigned and that its Chief
Executive Officer would "step aside" from his position until the
investigation concluded.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.07, or over 12%, to
close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, 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 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a
bribery scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor
in a bid to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (2) that
consequently, 500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery
laws and its Code of Ethics; and (3) 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 500.com securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 16, 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.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200124005058/en/

Contact:

         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
         Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
[GN]

500.COM LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of 500.com Limited (NYSE: WBAI)
between April 27, 2018 and December 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important March 16, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for 500.com investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the 500.com class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1750.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) 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a bribery
scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor in a bid
to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (2) consequently,
500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery laws and its Code
of Ethics; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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 16,
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-1750.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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

Contact:

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

ALLCOM ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Lawful Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALLCOM ELECTRIC, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01123366-CU-OE-CXC
(Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 13, 2020), alleges that Allcom
Electric violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
lawful wages and to provide lawful meal periods and rest periods or
compensation in lieu.

According to the complaint, the Defendant enforced shift schedules,
employment policies and practices, and workload requirements
wherein the Plaintiff and all other non-exempt employees were not
paid proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including
minimum wages and/or overtime compensation; and were not permitted
to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay such employees one hour of
pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday
that the meal period and/or rest period that was not property
provided.

The Plaintiff was employed by Allcom in a non-exempt, hourly
position in September 2018. The Plaintiff occupied the non-exempt,
hourly position until the last day of his employment in March
2019.

Allcom was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes
providing general contracting services such as constructing water
and sewer mains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676


AMAZON WEB SERVICES: Biometrics Row Removed to S.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christine McGoveran, Joseph Valentine and Amelia
Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon Web Services,
Inc. and Pindrop Security, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019L001786
(Ill. Cir., December 17, 2019) was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on January 8, 2020,
under Case No. 20-cv-00031.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometrics, plus statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Plaintiffs called customer service representatives and/or other
entities using services offered by Amazon Web Services, Inc., and
had their voiceprints collected, stored, and/or used through the
use of Pindrop's voice authentication technology. They allege that
Defendants failed to safeguard their biometric identifiers and
biometric information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
     Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
     Brett Rismille, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
            aschlichter@uselaws.com
            abraitberg@uselaws.com
            brismiller@uselaws.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Jennifer L. Maloney, Esq.
     HEYL, ROYSTER, ET AL. - ST. LOUIS
     100 North Broadway, 21st Floor
     63102 St. Louis MO
     Tel: (314) 345-5076
     Email: jmaloney@bscr-law.com


ARIZONA: Snodgrass Sues Over Violations of Prisoner Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Department of
Human Services et al. The case is captioned as Carl Snodgrass and
all others similarly situated residents v. Arizona Department of
Human Services, individually and officially; Arizona Sex Offender
Program, individually and officially; Doug Ducey, individually and
officially; Aaron Bowen, individually and officially; Unknown
Bugby, individually and officially; Cara Crist, individually and
officially; Shanda Payne, individually and officially; and Sheridan
Miller, individually and officially, Case No.
2:20-cv-00086-SRB—DMF (D. Ariz., Jan. 13, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan R. Bolton.

The suit demands $250,000 in damages alleging violation of Prisoner
Civil Rights.

Arizona, a southwestern U.S. state, is best known for the Grand
Canyon, the mile-deep chasm carved by the Colorado River.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


ARTSPACE WAREHOUSE: DeSalvo Claims Website not Blind Friendly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Artspace Warehouse LLC and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00267 (C.D. Cal., January 10,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendant's website, https://www.artspacewarehouse.com, provides a
large selection of affordable original artworks from established
and emerging international artists. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that said site cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


AU PAIR CARE: Munoz Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Silvia Juliano Forero Munoz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AU PAIR CARE, INC.,
INTRAX, INC. d/b/a AUPAIRCARE, MARCIE SCHNEIDER, and DOES 1–10,
Case No. 2081CV00082, was removed from the Superior Court of
Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 30, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10184 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that "APC failed to pay Plaintiff and members
of the Class wages and overtime wages to which they are entitled"
in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nancy Kelly, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          21 Custom House Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (857) 504-2023
          Email: nkelly@grsm.com


AURORA CANNABIS: Canadian Pot Companies Face Class Actions in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Southwick, writing for CBC News, reports that some of Canada's
biggest cannabis producers are facing proposed class-action
lawsuits in the United States after investors were hit with steep
financial losses in the stock market.

At least nine U.S. law firms are pursuing cases against Canopy
Growth, Aurora Cannabis and Hexo Corp. in American courts.

Although the allegations vary, each pot producer is accused of
misleading investors or failing to disclose certain problems with
their businesses. When those problems became publicly known, the
lawsuits claim, share prices plunged and investors were stuck with
losses.

"[Investors] are mad; they were taken by surprise," said Reed
Kathrein, Esq. -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- a lawyer at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, which is pursuing claims against all three
producers.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Each of the companies declined to be interviewed for this story.
Canopy and Aurora denied the allegations in brief statements, while
Hexo said only its lawyers are reviewing the claims.

Producers ride green crush
These companies were among several Canadian cannabis firms that
listed on U.S. stock exchanges, riding a wave of investor
enthusiasm surrounding the industry before and after Canada
legalized pot.

"But when they hit obstacles, the share prices declined," said
Kevin LaCroix, Esq. a Cleveland-based lawyer who is not involved in
any of the proposed class actions, but has followed the industry.

"It's pretty common in the United States, when a company
experiences a significant decline in its share price, opportunistic
plaintiff lawyers will try and seize on that as an opportunity to
try and make some money."

Lawsuits could create uncertainty
Even if the lawsuits aren't successful, they could still pose
challenges to companies that are trying to win over investors, said
Brad Poulos, a lecturer at Ryerson University's Ted Rogers School
of Management.

"Anytime there's uncertainty about the future of a company, that's
going to create uncertainty in the minds of shareholders," Poulos
said.

"As the market determines the likelihood of a suit being
successful, that will start to get priced into the stock," he
said.

The cases against these three companies have attracted the
attention of at least nine legal firms because of a feature of U.S.
law, Kathrein said. After an investor's lawyer files an initial
securities lawsuit, they publish a notice, which gives other
investors 60 days to apply to the court to become lead plaintiff in
the case.

'A beauty contest'
Law firms then issue press releases seeking investors in the hopes
that they can attract a client who becomes the lead plaintiff. One
of the qualifications to become lead plaintiff is they suffered the
greatest amount of alleged losses.

"It's a beauty contest," Kathrein said. "These press releases are
basically saying, 'Hey, I'm part of the beauty contest; select
me.'"

Hexo, based in Gatineau, Que., is accused of failing to tell
investors that it was inflating its revenue figures through a
process called channel-stuffing, which involves sending retailers
more products than they are able to sell. A court filing alleges
Hexo didn't tell investors its reported cannabis inventory was
misstated and that it was growing pot in an Ontario facility not
properly licensed by Health Canada.

A class-action complaint filed with a New York court says when Hexo
announced in March 2019 it was buying rival Newstrike Brands, the
company said it was acquiring Newstrike's four production
facilities. It also said it was "committing to achieving over $400
million in net revenue in 2020."

But by October, the company withdrew that commitment after
projecting its net revenue for 2019 would hit between $46.5 million
and $48.5 million. It blamed a slow rollout of retail stores across
Canada, a delay in government approvals for edibles and vapes and
early signs of falling prices. Two weeks later, Hexo announced 200
layoffs.

In November, the company revealed one of the facilities it acquired
from Newstrike was growing cannabis without the proper federal
approvals. A press release said the firm learned about the problem
in July, shut down production and notified Health Canada.

"All told, Hexo has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in market
capitalization as a result of these disclosures," the complaint
says. "As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages."

According to the filing, anyone who bought Hexo shares on U.S.
stock exchanges between Jan. 25 and Nov. 15, 2019 can join the
proposed class action. During that period, Hexo's shares plunged by
65 per cent on the New York Stock Exchange.

In a brief email to CBC News, Hexo said it does not comment on
litigation issues, but that its legal team is actively handling the
matter.

A high bar for lawsuits
LaCroix, the Cleveland lawyer not involved in any of these claims,
says law firms pursuing the cannabis class actions have to meet a
high bar. It's not enough to argue that investors lost money. Their
lawyers have to prove the defendant companies and executives
intended to mislead shareholders when they made the allegedly false
or misleading statements, a concept called scienter, he said.

"Scienter is meant to encompass not only actual intent to deceive
but reckless indifference or just total indifference to whether or
not investors are misled," LaCroix said.

"That's often where shareholder claimants fall short, is they don't
sufficiently plead scienter."

Kathrein, one of the lawyers pursuing the class actions, said he
wouldn't be involved in the cases unless he was convinced he could
meet the scienter test.

"We don't just rely on public facts," he said. "We have
investigators that get out there and try and find witnesses who can
tie the information that was allegedly known to them, tie that
information to the senior executives."

Edmonton-based Aurora Cannabis is facing claims the company
exaggerated or over-estimated the demand for its pot and produced
too much, leading to oversupply. In November, Aurora said it was
halting or deferring construction at production facilities in
Denmark and Medicine Hat, Alta. It also reported disappointing
financial results, including a 24 per cent drop in quarterly net
revenues.

A couple of months later, the company told media it was selling a
greenhouse in Exeter, Ont.

Another allegation is that Aurora was not up front with investors
that it didn't secure necessary approvals from German authorities
to use a certain growing method in that country. After a Marijuana
Business Daily report revealed German pharmacists were ordered to
stop selling Aurora's medical pot until there was a review, the
lawsuit says, the company's share price dropped.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiffs and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," states the complaint, filed a week
ago in a New York court.

Aurora shares plunge
The filing says anyone who bought Aurora shares on U.S. stock
exchanges between Oct. 23, 2018 and Jan 6, 2020 can join the
proposed class action. During that period, Aurora's shares plunged
by 75 per cent on the New York Stock Exchange, from $7.51 per share
to $1.90.

Aurora denies the allegations.

"The company believes it has conducted itself in accordance with
all relevant securities laws, and refutes these claims," it said in
a brief statement. "The company intends to pursue a full defence
against these suits."

Canopy shares were 'artificially inflated,' suit claims
Canopy Growth, Canada's largest pot producer, is facing allegations
it exaggerated or overestimated the potential market for its
products in Canadian retail stores, leading to inventory writeoffs
and restructuring charges.

One class-action complaint says the Smiths Falls, Ont.-based
company issued press releases leading up to legalization that it
was expanding its production capacity to meet projections of
growing demand for cannabis in Canada and around the world.

"As a result of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and
misleading reports, releases and public statements, the market
price of Canopy securities was artificially inflated," the
complaint states.

In November 2019, the company reported lower-than-expected revenues
and a $374.6-million loss.

Then-CEO Mark Zekulin told analysts at the time the disappointing
results were the result in part of a slow rollout of retail stores
in Ontario, which cut its potential Canadian market in half. He
said some provinces had slowed their purchases of cannabis because
of high inventories, though Canopy's shipments were up in its most
recent quarter.

Mark Zekulin was CEO of Canopy Growth when it reported
disappointing financial results in November. He said a slow rollout
of retail stores was partially to blame. (Submitted by Canopy
Growth)

Canopy's stock fell on the news.

Between Sept. 8, 2017 and Nov. 13, 2019 -- the period that the
proposed class action covers -- Canopy's share price on the New
York exchange fell by more than a third, from $28.26 per share to
$18.50.

When asked for comment on the allegations, Canopy referred to a
November 2019 press release, in which the company said it believes
it has acted "in accordance with all relevant securities laws, and
that the claims are without merit.

"The company intends to vigorously defend itself against any such
suits."

Lawsuits could drag on
Kathrein, whose law firm is seeking the class actions, said the
cases will start to move ahead after deadlines to select lead
plaintiffs elapse, starting Monday. Ultimately, he believes the
cases will likely be collapsed into one proposed class action for
each of the three companies.

The defendant companies will likely file motions to dismiss the
cases against them, Kathrein said. It could take months to debate
those motions, which means they may not be resolved until the end
of the year, if not later, he said.

If the lawsuits survive that stage, it could take years to reach a
resolution through the courts, though both sides could negotiate a
settlement. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Clubs Excluded in $100MM Grant Could Bring Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that clubs which
missed out on federal funding under the $100 million sports program
overseen by Bridget McKenzie could bring court cases to overturn
the former sports minister's decisions, lawyers from two plaintiff
firms have said.

Slater and Gordon is investigating the possibility of a class
action and Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer, Josh Bornstein,
Esq., has offered to work pro bono for clubs which were denied
funding under a program the audit office found was targeted at
marginal seats.

Both cite the fact the Australian National Audit Office report said
it is "not evident to the ANAO what the legal authority was" for
McKenzie to approve grants.

McKenzie has defended her handling of the program, insisting that
all projects granted funding were eligible and "no rules were
broken".

Bornstein told Guardian Australia "it looks like the minister
didn't have the power to approve grants [and] the minister
effectively usurped the role of Sports Australia . . . they were
just steam-rolled".

"That gives rise to question whether clubs can go to court and
quash the grants that have been approved and ensure the process is
conducted with integrity," he said.

Bornstein said he was "interested in conducting" a test case or
class action on a pro bono basis, suggesting there would be "no
shortage of volunteers from the legal community" to assemble a
crack team.

"Ideally the sorts of sporting club I'm looking for is someone who
was entitled to the grant on merit and lost out on as a result of
the minister's intervention."

Slater and Gordon class actions practice group leader, Andrew
Baker, said that "every dollar that went to a club whose
application should have been unsuccessful is a dollar that didn't
end up with a club that Sport Australia had identified and
recommended for funding in the course of proper processes".

"These community organisations, clubs and groups have lost out
because it appears public funds were used for political gain," he
said in a statement.

Baker said the audit office report "raises serious questions about
the lawfulness of the conduct involved".

In a scathing report, the auditor general found that 70% of
projects approved by the minister in the second round in March 2019
were not recommended by Sport Australia, rising to 73% in the third
round in April 2019 after an extra $40 million was tipped into the
program.

"A significant shortcoming was that, while the program guidelines
identified that the minister for sport would approve [community
sport infrastructure grant] funding, there are no records
evidencing that the minister was advised of the legal basis on
which the minister could undertake an approval role, and it is not
evident to the ANAO what the legal authority was," the ANAO report
said.

It noted that although the sports minister has a power to direct
Sports Australia "it was not used".

Labor leader Anthony Albanese, independent MP Zali Steggall and One
Nation leader Pauline Hanson have all called for McKenzie to resign
over the program.

A Senate inquiry is likely, as Labor has vowed to expose the
projects recommended by Sports Australia that were denied funding
by ministerial intervention and the Greens, Hanson and Centre
Alliance have offered to support an inquiry.

Scott Morrison is yet to comment on the scathing audit report,
after days of bad headlines including a $500,000 grant to Mosman
Rowing Club in Tony Abbott's seat of Warringah, Labor MP Graham
Perrett being excluded from the announcement of a grant he helped
lobby for, and a $500,000 sports grant in the rural Victorian seat
of Mallee a year and a half after it was first rejected when the
seat became hotly contested due to the resignation of Nationals MP
Andrew Broad. [GN]

AXA EQUITABLE: Sched for Summ. Judgment Briefing in COI Suit Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has issued an order on the structure and
schedule for summary judgment briefing in the case, IN RE: AXA
EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY COI LITIGATION, This Document
Relates to All Actions, Case No. 16-CV-740 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.).

The discovery in these cases is now over.  In light of the parties'
agreement that there is no need to hold the conference on Jan. 7,
2020, pending the Court's decision on the class certification
motion, Judge Furman adjourned sine die the conference.

As for the structure of summary judgment briefing, given that both
sides' proposals entail at least two sets of briefs, the Judge is
inclined to adopt a modified version of the Plaintiffs' proposals
in recognition of the fact that they are the masters of their
respective claims and the fact that the Opt-Out Plaintiffs are not
members of the Class or represented by the Class Counsel.  That
said, because both sides intend to move for summary judgment, the
parties' proposals would seem to entail four sets of briefs (and 12
briefs total), not two sets (and six briefs total) -- which seems
unnecessary and unduly burdensome on the parties and the Court.

Accordingly, the Judge would be inclined to have two sets of briefs
-- one set relating to the Class Plaintiffs' claims and a
consolidated set of briefs relating to the Opt-Out Plaintiffs'
claims -- with motions (by AXA in the first instance) and
oppositions/cross-motions (by each set of the Plaintiffs),
resulting in eight briefs total.  More specifically, he would be
inclined to adopt the structure and schedule for summary judgment
briefing.

The Judge reserves judgment on the structure and schedule of
briefing for any Daubert motions as it is plain from the parties'
joint letter that further meeting and conferring is warranted.
That said, for maximum efficiency, he would be inclined to adopt a
schedule that (1) is aligned (as much as possible) with the summary
judgment briefing schedule; and (2) minimizes the number of briefs
filed.  To the latter end, he would be inclined to require
consolidated briefing by the Plaintiffs with respect to AXA's
experts and a single brief by AXA with respect to any/all of tge
Plaintiffs' experts (with an appropriate enlargement of the page
limits for AXA's briefs and, if necessary or appropriate, separate
opposition briefing by the Plaintiffs).

The parties will meet and confer and, within two weeks of the date
of the Order, submit a joint letter indicating their views on the
summary judgment briefing schedule proposed above and proposing a
Daubert motion briefing schedule consistent with the Court's
guidance.  If the parties believe that a conference would be
helpful to discuss these matters, they should indicate as much in
their joint letter.  Otherwise, the Judge will plan on scheduling a
conference when it rules on the pending motion for class
certification.

The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the Order in 16-CV-740
(JMF) and all the related/member cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XVZzlK from Leagle.com.

Brach Family Foundation, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frances Sarah Lewis
-- frances.lewis@usdoj.gov -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Glenn Charles
Bridgman -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark P. Musico, Susman Godfrey LLP, Rohit Nath --
RNath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Seth
D. Ard -- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Steven
Gerald Sklaver -- ssklaver@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP.

Secondary Life Three LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah
Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W.
Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLC,
Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC & Scott Adam Kamber,
KamberLaw, LLC.

Jeremy Wenokur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Secondary Life Three LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Deborah
Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W.
Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLC,
Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Robert Walfish, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, David
Robert Gelfand -- dgelfand@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy LLP & Stacey Jill Rappaport -- srappaport@milbank.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.


BARE HOBOKEN: Moussad Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moussad, Kirilos Abdelmalaak, Goreg Botros, Luis Dominguez,
and Jamie Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BARE HOBOKEN, LLC; BAREBURGER GROUP, LLC, BE
MY BURGER, LLC; EURIPIDES PELEKANOS; GEORGIOS RODAS; GEORGIOS
DELLIS; and JOHN SIMEONIDIS; JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC CORPS. 1-5, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01004-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., Jan. 30, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages and all available relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law arising from the Defendants' failure to pay their
employees the full amount of wages due.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice that denied
restaurant workers the appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants did not satisfy the strict
requirement of the FLSA and NJWHL entitling them to take a tip
credit and pay a reduced minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and declaratory
relief against the Defendants' unlawful actions, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated restaurant workers.

The Plaintiffs were employed as tipped Deliver Drivers by the
Defendant.

The Defendants both directly own and franchise fast food
restaurants in several states, under the trade name
"Bareburger".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BELLE VISTA BLUFFS: Keever Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Keever, individually, and as class representatives of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Belle Vista Bluffs, Inc.
and Beverly C. Mackin, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00050, (M.D.
Fla., January 8, 2020), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid
overtime wages, monies due and owing, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violations of the minimum
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Belle Vista Bluffs is a board and care home located in Largo.
Keever was employed as a medical technician/caregiver from
approximately September 25, 2019 until present. He regularly worked
in excess of forty hours per week without payment of overtime
premiums, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Sartes, Esq.
      Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Tel: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
      Email: peter@greeklaw.com
             petertragos@greeklaw.com


BEST BUY STORES: Leeman Action to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Leeman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00156 (E.D. N.Y., January 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Best Buy is a multinational consumer electronics retailer with 52
stores in New York. Leeman is into installing and maintaining
television and home theater systems for Best Buy customers. He
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime and claims that Best Buy took out a tip credit, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Tel. (631) 257-5588
     Email: promero@romerolawny.com


BEYOND MEAT: Faces Tran Securities Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Tran, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., ETHAN BROWN, and MARK J. NELSON,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Beyond Meat
securities between May 2, 2019, and January 27, 2020, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Don Lee Farms is a maker of plant-based and meat proteins. In 2014,
Beyond Meat entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Don Lee
to produce all of Beyond Meat's products, including the development
and launch of the Company's popular Beyond Burger. In early 2017,
following the launch of the Beyond Burger, Beyond Meat terminated
the Supply Agreement and transferred its production from Don Lee to
other food manufacturers.

On May 25, 2017, Don Lee filed a complaint against Beyond Meat in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition, seeking
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Don Lee's initial lawsuit spawned other related legal proceedings,
including related claims by Don Lee against one of Beyond Meat's
new manufacturing partners, ProPortion Foods, LLC, and cross
complaints by both Beyond Meat and ProPortion against Don Lee. As
the litigation progressed, Don Lee further alleged that Beyond Meat
had employed lax food safety practices during the two companies'
partnership, specifically alleging, inter alia, that Don Lee found
plastics, cardboard and a metal nozzle in ingredients that Beyond
Meat supplied and that a Beyond Meat truck had arrived at a Don Lee
processing facility with a load contaminated with an unidentified
white powder. Don Lee alleged that Beyond Meat had provided an
altered copy of a food-safety audit of its manufacturing
facilities, and on that basis added fraud claims to its suit
against Beyond Meat in March 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Beyond Meat's termination of its supply agreement with Don Lee
constituted a breach of that agreement, thus exposing the Company
to foreseeable legal liability and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond
Meat and certain of its employees had doctored and omitted material
information from a food safety consultant's report, which the
Company represented as accurate to Don Lee; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 27, 2020, post-market, Don Lee issued a press release
entitled "Judge Rules Don Lee Farms Likely to Obtain a Judgment.
Beyond Meat's CFO and Others Named Individually for Fraud." On this
news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell $4.63 per share, or 3.71%, to
close at $120.12 per share on January 28, 2020.

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

The Plaintiff acquired Beyond Meat securities at allegedly
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Beyond Meat is a food company that provides plant-based meats. It
offers its products in the meat platforms of beef, pork, and
poultry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


BITFINEX: Merger of Market-Manipulation Lawsuits Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three separate putative class action lawsuits against
Bitfinex and Tether have moved to consolidate their cases,
according to a court filing.

Court filings by David Leibowitz et al, Eric Young et al, and Bryan
Faubus et al, accuse the sister companies of manipulating the
crypto markets. Their cases share common threads, filings show,
including allegations that Bitfinex and Tether manipulated the
price of bitcoin and bitcoin futures in violation of federal law.

All three cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Defendants did not object to the plaintiffs' proposed
consolidation, with Tether writing in a press statement it "looks
forward" to debunking the "fanciful accusations."

"Tether will continue to defend the digital token ecosystem and the
many contributions of the cryptocurrency community, and will not
now or in the future pay any amount to settle plaintiffs' claims,"
the statement said.

The consolidation sheds some light on Young's decision to withdraw
and refile in the Southern District of New York. At first
unexplained, it now appears that the plaintiffs abandoned the
original Western District of Washington jurisdiction so they could
join the other two in New York.

Tether anticipated a fourth class action suit, filed by Joseph
Ebanks on Thursday, may also join in. [GN]



BLUE IN GREEN: Dominguez Says Website is Blind-Inaccessible
------------------------------------------------------------
Yovanny Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Blue in Green, LLC, jointly and severally, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00208 (S.D. N.Y., January 9, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendants operate a clothing store located at 8 Greene Street, New
York with an online site, https://blueingreensoho.com. Plaintiff is
legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


BOCONCEPT CAMBRIDGE: Patrick Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespeople
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarin Patrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BoConcept Cambridge, LLC and Anthony Goodh, Case No.
20-0121D (Mass. Super., Jan. 14, 2020), seeks to recover damages
arising from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek and failure to pay all wages
earned in a timely manner, including Sunday/holiday compensation
due pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed at least
30 individuals as salespeople, who routinely worked over 40 hours
per week, on Sundays, and on holidays, and who did not receive
additional overtime compensation from the Defendants.

Plaintiff Patrick is a resident of Chelsea, Massachusetts, and was
employed by the Defendants out of Cambridge and Boston,
Massachusetts. BoConcept employed the Plaintiff as an inside
salesperson from July 5, 2019, to December 7, 2019.

BoConcept is a retail furniture sale chain specializing in
contemporary Danish furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLF FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-723-7700
          Facsimile: 617-227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Looney Sues Over Illegal Credit Info Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Looney, Sr., on behalf of himself and other
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00037 (S.D. N.Y., January
7, 2020), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal and
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Carrington is a home mortgage lender that regularly requests,
receives and uses consumer credit scores for use in its evaluation
of mortgage loan applications submitted by consumers. In June 2019,
Plaintiff and his wife, Shirley Faye Looney, applied for a mortgage
loan in connection with the upcoming purchase of their home.
Carrington used their credit score to evaluate qualifications for a
mortgage loan which was eventually approved. The application was
submitted through First Mortgage of Alabama, a mortgage broker
which brokers loans for lender, such as Carrington. It accessed
Looney's credit information and credit scores maintained by at
least one consumer reporting agency. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             nicholas@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
      UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
      2153 Airport Boulevard
      Mobile, AL 36606
      Telephone: (251) 432-9212
      Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
      Email: kriemer@alalaw.com


CELLULAR SALES: Welch Seeks Overtime Wages & Sunday Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WELCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CELLULAR SALES SERVICES GROUP, LLC, PAMELA KIMBALL, and
REESE THOMAS, Case No. 20-0114-G (Mass. Super., Jan. 13, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Massachusetts Wage Act and
Massachusetts Overtime Law by failing to pay overtime wages and
Sunday Premium Pay.

The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current
employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of cellular phones
and related products. These employees work in excess of 40 hours
per week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours
and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law, says
the complaint. These employees are also subjected to unlawful
deductions from their pay.

In June 2019, CSS Group hired Mr. Welch as a salesperson.

CSS Group is a nationwide retailer of cellular phones and related
products, and operates numerous retail stores in
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


CENTRAL VALLEY: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Risner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL RISNER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CENTRAL VALLEY CONCRETE, INC. dba CENTRAL VALLEY
TRUCKING; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00150 (Cal.
Super., Fresno Cty.), alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime compensation, and
failing to provide rest and meal breaks.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' policies, procedures
and practices deny the Plaintiff and members of the putative class
the right to rest breaks, as prescribed under California Law.
Rather, the Defendants maintained control over the activities and
actions of members of the Class during mandated rest breaks, as
evidenced by payroll and timekeeping records.

The Plaintiff, who works for the Defendants at all times in Fresno
County, contends that the Defendants have failed to properly
calculate and pay their employees the required overtime or double
time premium wages.

Central Valley manufactures and supplies ready-mix concrete. The
Company offers products, such as crushed rocks, aggregate base, and
asphalt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Woodland Street, Suite
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maharaj Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Devenan Maharaj, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Charter Communications, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
37-2019-00058788 (Cal. Super., November 5, 2019), was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
January 8, 2020 under Case No. 20CV0064.

Maharaj seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at
the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated
employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and
further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. [BN]

Defendant is represented by:

     Arthur F. Silbergeld, Esq.
     Geoffrey L. Warner, Esq.
     Keith R. Rasher, Esq.
     THOMPSON COBURN LLP
     2029 Century Yark East, Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 282-2500
     Fax: (310) 282-2501
     Email: asilbergeldc@thompsoncoburn.com
            gwarner@thompsoncoburn.com
            krasher@thompsoncoburn.com

Maharaj is represented by:

      Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
      David X. Lin, Esq.
      GRAHAMHOLLIS APC

      3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
      San Diego, California 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
      Email: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
             dlin@grahamhollis.com


CHOCOLATE FASHION: Escobar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge E. Escobar, and other similarly situated individuals v.
CHOCOLATE FASHION, INC. and PERSEVERANIA BERGER, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-20461-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2020), is brought to
recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid half-time overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks
on or after March 25, 2019, without being properly compensated,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants willfully failed to pay  him overtime hours at the rate
of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked
in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a line cook.

CHOCOLATE FASHION RESTAURANT is a gourmet bakery/restaurant and
catering service located at Coral Gables, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIRCLE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Dancers Minimum & OT Wages, Herek Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teal Herek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CIRCLE 2, INC. dba DADDY RABBITS, a Virginia
Corporation; WILLIAM PYLIARIS, an individual; ANDREAS PYLIARIS, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00058 (E.D. Va., Jan. 31, 2020), is brought for damages due
to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding
with the Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including
in the form of "House Fees."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA.

The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the
Plaintiff contends.  She adds that the Defendants' practice of
failing to pay tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage
provision.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' Daddy Rabbits as a dancer
in April 2018 until late 2019.

The Defendants operate adult-oriented entertainment facilities
located in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
          David A.C. Long, Esq.
          MEYER BALDWIN LONG & MOORE LLP
          5600 Grove Avenue
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Phone: (804) 285-3888
          Fax: (804) 285-7779
          Email: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
          Email: dlong@meyerbaldwin.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Fax: (310) 507-7906
          Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Phone: (713) 554-2377
          Fax: (888) 995-3335
          Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Startup
--------------------------------------------------------
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for Zero Day, reports that a lawsuit --
seeking class-action status -- was recently filed in Illinois
against Clearview AI, a New York-based startup that has scraped
social media networks for people's photos and created one of the
biggest facial recognition databases in the world.

The secretive startup was exposed last week in an explosive New
York Times report which revealed how Clearview was selling access
to "faceprints" and facial recognition software to law enforcement
agencies across the US. The startup claimed it could identify a
person based on a single photo, revealing their real name, general
location, and other identifiers.

The report sparked outrage among US citizens, who had photos
collected and added to the Clearview AI database without their
consent. The Times reported that the company collected more than
three billion photos, from sites such as Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, Venmo, and others.

The company was hit with the first lawsuit in the aftermath of the
New York Times expose.

LAWSUIT CLAIMS CLEARVIEW AI BROKE BIPA
According to a copy of the complaint obtained by ZDNet, plaintiffs
claim Clearview AI broke Illinois privacy laws.

Namely, the New York startup broke the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a law that safeguards state
residents from having their biometrics data used without consent.

According to BIPA, companies must obtain explicit consent from
Illinois residents before collecting or using any of their
biometric information -- such as the facial scans Clearview
collected from people's social media photos.

"Plaintiff and the Illinois Class retain a significant interest in
ensuring that their biometric identifiers and information, which
remain in Defendant Clearview's possession, are protected from
hacks and further unlawful sales and use," the lawsuit reads.

"Plaintiff therefore seeks to remedy the harms Clearview and the
individually-named defendants have already caused, to prevent
further damage, and to eliminate the risks to citizens in Illinois
and throughout the United States created by Clearview's business
misuse of millions of citizen's biometric identifiers and
information."

The plaintiffs are asking the court for an injunction against
Clearview to stop it from selling the biometric data of Illinois
residents, a court order forcing the company to delete any Illinois
residents' data, and punitive damage, to be decided by the court at
a later date.

"Defendants' violation of BIPA was intentional or reckless or,
pleaded in the alternative, negligent," the complaint reads.

Clearview AI did not return a request for comment.

Earlier this week, US lawmakers also sought answers from the
company, while Twitter sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding the
startup stop collecting user photos from their site and delete any
existing images. [GN]



CLUB FANTASIES: Agrees to $750,000 Settlement With Strippers
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Amaral, writing for Providence Journal, reports that a strip
club in Sims Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island, has agreed to pay
$750,000 to settle a federal class-action lawsuit by strippers who
said the club failed to pay them wages and illegally forced them to
share their tips.

The agreement between Club Fantasies and its strippers still needs
to be approved by a federal judge.  In the absence of an objection,
approval of class-action settlements is generally routine.

Under the agreement, the strippers' lawyers will receive no more
than a third of the proceeds. The person who originally brought the
suit, Arielle Walsh, will receive a $20,000 bonus, called a service
award for being the representative plaintiff in the litigation.

About 300 strippers could get a share of the rest, court papers
show. The settlement covers anyone who worked as an "exotic dancer"
there since November 2012.

Providence club owners have in recent years faced an onslaught of
legal troubles. Celebrities like Carmen Electra have accused them
of brazenly appropriating their images. And the city police
department has raised concerns about prostitution at two of them;
the city unsuccessfully fought to permanently close the Foxy Lady
and is now considering whether to close the Wild Zebra.

But some big financial hits have come from the wage suits. The
issue brings together the erotic world of strip clubs with the
decidedly unsexy, but high stakes, area of employment law.

Clubs in Providence and around the country have classified their
strippers as "independent contractors." Because of that, the
strippers don't receive worker protections like a minimum wage and
overtime. They're also forced to pay the club fees just to dance
there ($30 per shift, $5 per lap dance, $30 per champagne room lap
dance, the Fantasies suit said) and must give bartenders and
bouncers a cut of their main source of revenue — tips from
customers.

But they're clearly employees, plaintiffs' lawyers have repeatedly
said. That comes down to the amount of control that the clubs have
over these workers. It's extensive, the suits say. For example, in
the case of Fantasies, the strippers weren't allowed to dance at
other clubs; they're managed by "house moms" who work for the club;
and they have scheduled shifts. Independent contractors, like an
accountant who does the taxes for a car dealership, aren't subject
to that sort of detailed control of how they do their work.

Plus, the Fantasies suit said, the strippers are offering services
integral to the club's business — live entertainment in the form
of nude or semi-nude dancing. That makes them employees, the suit
argued.

Fantasies is just one of the Providence clubs that has faced such a
suit, and case after case in recent years, judges have agreed: The
strippers are employees, not independent contractors, and they're
protected by certain employment laws, notably the federal and state
minimum wage. Fantasies failed to pay a base wage at all, the suit
said.

But according to experts in the field of suing strip clubs, the
clubs have often responded to these legal setbacks by continuing to
do business in a way that's repeatedly been found to violate the
law. They'll pay out a settlement every few years as part of the
cost of doing business. And some clubs nationally have also
resorted to forcing their strippers to sign arbitration agreements
before they can work there, essentially agreeing not to sue in
court or form class actions. That limits their ability to fight in
court.

An attorney for the club declined to comment. An attorney for the
class of workers was not immediately available. [GN]


COCRYSTA PHARMA: Order on Tutschek Securities Suit Status Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN TUTSCHEK, Derivatively on Behalf of COCRYSTAL
PHARMA, INC., Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND SCHINAZI, GARY WILCOX, PHILLIP
FROST, JANE HSIAO, STEVE RUBIN, DAVID S. BLOCK, ELLIOT MITCHELL
MAZA, JEFFREY MECKLER, BRIAN KELLER, TODD BRADY, BARRY HONIG,
MICHAEL BRAUSER, JOHN STETSON, and JOHN O'ROURKE, Defendants,
COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01775
TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington has entered a stipulated
order regarding the status of the Tutschek case, the Pepe
Securities Class Action, the Church Derivative Action, and the
appropriate next steps.

On Nov. 1, 2019, Plaintiff Martin Tutschek filed with the
Washington District Court a Verified Stockholder Derivative
Complaint on behalf of nominal Defendant Cocrystal, captioned
Tutschek v. Schinazi, et al.  The Complaint names as Defendants
Raymond Schinazi, Gary Wilcox, Phillip Frost, Jane Hsiao, Steve
Rubin, David S. Block, Jeffrey Meckler and Todd Brady ("Individual
Cocrystal Defendants"), who are current or former directors or
officers of Cocrystal, and Elliot Mitchell Maza and Brian Keller
("Officer/Director Defendants"), who are former officers of
Cocrystal's predecessor, BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
generally alleges that these Officer/Director Defendants breached
fiduciary duties to shareholders of Cocrystal or BioZone by failing
to disclose an alleged scheme to artificially inflate the price of
BioZone's stock.

The Complaint also names as Defendants Barry Honig, Michael
Brauser, John Stetson, and John O'Rourke ("Shareholder
Defendants"), who are alleged to be controlling shareholders of
Cocrystal, and generally alleges that these Shareholder Defendants
breached fiduciary duties by engaging in a "pump and dump" scheme
that artificially inflated the price of BioZone stock, and
otherwise engaged in related-party transactions that benefited
themselves or entities that were either controlled or affiliated
with them.

A related securities class action lawsuit, captioned Pepe v.
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-14091-KM-JBC, is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Securities Class Action/the Pepe Action).  The Plaintiff in the
Pepe Securities Class Action asserts federal securities claims
against certain Defendants who are also named as the Defendants in
the Tutschek Action -- including certain current or former officers
of Cocrystal and former officers of BioZone -- arising from facts
common to those alleged in the Action.

The plaintiff in the Pepe Action filed an amended complaint on June
25, 2019.  The court in the Pepe Action entered a stipulated order
on Oct. 21, 2019, directing that the "Stipulating Defendants" in
that case would not be required to answer, move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to the plaintiff's amended complaint until after
the parties to the Pepe Action had engaged in mediation of the
claims asserted in the Pepe Action and reported to the District
Court on the outcome of the mediation efforts.

The parties to the Pepe Action engaged in mediation on Nov. 22,
2019, before Judge Jose Linares.  They did not achieve a settlement
t are continuing to work with the mediator in an attempt to reach
an agreed resolution.

On Jan. 16, 2019, Plaintiff Susan S. Church filed a Verified
Stockholder Derivative Complaint on behalf of nominal defendant
Cocrystal, captioned Church v. Maza, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00080-TSZ
.  The Church Complaint alleges claims against some of the same
individuals who are the Defendants in the Action based on the same
alleged misconduct.

On April 9, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated order in the
Church Derivative Action pursuant to which all proceedings,
including any motion practice, obligation to respond to the Church
Complaint and any amended complaint, and all discovery and
disclosure obligations or deadlines under the applicable local and
federal rules or previously-issued Orders of the Court were stayed
until (1) the Pepe Action is dismissed, with prejudice, and all
appeals related thereto have been exhausted; (2) any defendant's
motion to dismiss the Pepe Action is denied in whole or in part; or
(3) the stay is modified by stipulation of the parties to the
Church Derivative Action as ordered by the Court, or by the Court
pursuant to a motion.

The counsel for Tutschek and the counsel for Defendants Raymond
Schinazi, Gary Wilcox, Jane Hsiao, Steve Rubin, David S. Block,
Jeffrey Meckler and Todd Brady, and Nominal Defendant Cocrystal
Pharma, Inc. ("Stipulating Parties"), have conferred regarding the
status of the Tutschek Action, the Pepe Action, the Church
Derivative Action, and the appropriate next steps.  The Stipulating
Parties agree, as did the stipulating parties in the Church
Derivative Action, that resolution of the related Pepe Action will
have a bearing on the claims asserted in the Tutschek Action.

Based on the overlapping parties and factual allegations in the
Tutschek Action and in the Pepe Action and the likely impact of the
resolution of the Pepe Action on the claims in the Tutschek Action,
and to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of judicial and party
resources, the Stipulating Parties have agreed, subject to the
Court's approval, as did the stipulating parties in the Church
Derivative Action, to a limited stay of the Action until (1) the
Pepe Action is dismissed, with prejudice, and all appeals related
thereto have been exhausted; (2) any defendant's motion to dismiss
the Pepe Action is denied in whole or in part; (3) the stay is
modified by stipulation of the parties to the Tutschek Action as
ordered by the Court, or by the Court pursuant to a motion; or (4)
in the event a related derivative action is not stayed, plaintiff
may lift the stay upon 30 days' notice, by email, to the
Defendants' counsel.  Such a stay in the Tutschek Action is
consistent with the terms of the Stay Order in the Church
Derivative Action.

The counsel for the Stipulating Parties have conferred with
out-of-state counsel for Defendant Brauser, who has not yet
appeared in the Tutschek Action, and the counsel for Defendant
Brauser acknowledges that Defendant Brauser has been served with
the complaint in the action, reserving all rights and defenses, and
consents to the relief requested in the Stipulation and Proposed
Order.

Defendant Brian Keller was served with the Complaint on Nov. 20,
2019 and an affidavit of service was filed with the Court on Nov.
26, 2019, and Mr. Keller has not yet appeared in the Action, and
the Stipulating Parties do not know his opinion on the relief
requested in the Stipulation and Proposed Order.

The counsel for the Stipulating Parties have conferred with
out-of-state counsel for Defendant John O'Rourke, who has not yet
appeared in the Action, and the counsel for Mr. O'Rourke has agreed
to the relief requested in the Stipulation and Proposed Order.

The counsel for the Stipulating Parties have conferred with
out-of-state counsel for Defendant Maza, who has not yet appeared
in the Action, and the counsel for Defendant Maza has executed a
waiver of service on behalf of Defendant Maza, reserving all rights
and defenses other than insufficient service of process, and
consents to the relief requested in the Stipulation and Proposed
Order.

The counsel for the Stipulating Parties have conferred with
out-of-state counsel for Defendant Phillip Frost, who has not yet
appeared in the Action, and the counsel for Dr. Frost has agreed to
accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Dr. Frost, reserving
all rights and defenses other than insufficient service of process,
and consents to the relief requested in the Stipulation and
Proposed Order.

The Stipulating Parties, through their undersigned counsel, agreed,
stipulated, and respectfully requested, and Judge Zilly granted, as
amended, without prejudice to the right of any Defendant who has
not yet appear to oppose the relief granted, that the undersigned
counsel for the Defendants who are parties to the Stipulated Motion
agreed to accept service of the Complaint in the Action on behalf
of each of the Defendants they represent, but each such Defendant
expressly reserves all rights and defenses other than insufficient
service of process.  Except as noted, all proceedings, including
any motion practice, obligation to respond to the Complaint and any
amended complaint, and all discovery and disclosure obligations or
deadlines under the applicable local and federal rules or
previously-issued Orders of this Court in the Action are stayed
until further order of the Court.

The Defendants will promptly notify the Plaintiff's undersigned
counsel of any related shareholder derivative actions filed
nominally on behalf of Cocrystal of which they become aware.  They
will promptly notify the Plaintiff's undersigned counsel if any
such related derivative action is not stayed.  In the event that
any such related derivative action is not stayed, the Plaintiff may
move to lift the stay of the Action upon 30 days' notice, by email,
to the Defendants' undersigned counsel.

During the stay, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, but
the Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to any amended complaint during the pendency of the stay.
Either during the stay, or shortly after termination of the stay,
the parties to the Tutschek Action and the Church Derivative Action
may move to consolidate the Tutschek Action with the Church
Derivative Action.

All pending deadlines, hearings, or conferences are vacated until
after the stay is lifted.  Within 14 days after the Pepe Action is
resolved, or a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action is
denied, or by July 31, 2020, whichever occurs earliest, the parties
to the Tutschek Action will file a Joint Status Report.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Stipulated
Order is available at https://is.gd/OHGLU6 from Leagle.com.

Martin Tutschek, Derivatively, Plaintiff, represented by David C.
Katz -- dkatz@weisslawllp.com -- WEISSLAW LLP, pro hac vice & Roger
M. Townsend -- rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC.

Raymond F Schinazi, Gary Wilcox, Jane Hsiao, Steve Rubin, David S
Block, Jeffrey Meckler & Todd Brady, Defendants, represented by
Joseph E. Bringman -- JBringman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE,
Ronald L. Berenstain -- RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE
& Sean C. Knowles -- SKnowles@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.

Cocrystal Pharma Inc, Nominal Defendant, represented by Joseph E.
Bringman, PERKINS COIE, Ronald L. Berenstain, PERKINS COIE & Sean
C. Knowles, PERKINS COIE.


COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA: Pension Arm Hit With Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business World reports that Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)
said on January 23, 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against
its pension arm, Colonial First State, for allegedly not acting in
customers interest for insurance policies.

The pension arm of Australia's biggest bank has been hit with at
least three such lawsuits, highlighting the intense scrutiny the
sector faces after a government-backed inquiry showed systemic
over-charging of fees.

The law firm, Shine Lawyers, had said in a statement earlier this
week that Colonial First State encouraged customers to pick
policies by CBA's insurance unit CommInsure, leaving them with
higher premiums.

"These customers were forced to pay more for life insurance as well
as total and permanent disability insurance, and this has eaten
into their superannuation," its class actions practice leader
Rebecca Jancauskas, Esq., had said.

The country's biggest bank said it was reviewing the claim, while
the law firm said it acted on behalf of "hundreds of thousands of
Australians." [GN]



CONCERNED HOME: Quintyne Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Quintyne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Concerned Home Managers for the Elderly,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 150245/2020 (N.Y. Sup, January 8, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, redress for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Quintyne worked for Altice as a home health aide. She claims that
she worked uncompensated about one hour and fifteen minutes outside
of her scheduled shift for three to four shifts a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Tel. (516) 625-0105 Ext. 18


CREE INC: Oregon Court Narrows Claims in Nguyen Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DON NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02097-SB (D. Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon (i) adopted Magistrate
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"),
entered in Nov. 6, 2019; (ii) granted the Defendant's Request for
Judicial Notice; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

Judge Beckerman specifically recommended that the District Court
should grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims based on alleged misrepresentations regarding
the minimum estimated lifespan of the Defendant's bulbs as being
preempted by federal law, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim,
and his breach of implied warranty claim.  Judge Beckerman
recommended the motion be denied as to the Plaintiff's claims for
violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), his
claim for fraudulent representation and concealment, and his claim
for breach of express warranty.  Judge Beckerman also recommended
that the District Court deny the Defendant's motion on standing and
preemption grounds.

Judge Mosman disagrees with one aspect of Judge Beckerman's
recommendations.  Judge Beckerman recommended that the Defendant's
motion be denied as it relates to the Plaintiff's claim for breach
of express warranty.  Judge Beckerman reasoned that the Plaintiff's
complaint allowed an inference that the Defendant had not repaired,
replaced, or refunded the bulbs at issue.  

Judge Mosman disagrees.  Judge Mosman finds that the Plaintiff's
complaint does not allege that he sought a repair, replacement, or
refund, nor does it actually allege that the Defendant breached any
warranty.  The Plaintiff's argument as to his fourth claim for
relief (breach of express and implied warranties) alleges that the
Defendant made warranties to consumers by way of its packaging,
that the products were defective, and that this defect constitutes
a breach.  As Judge Beckerman correctly found, alleging a defect is
not sufficient to allege a breach of express warranty. Judge Mosman
therefore grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground
as well, and the Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty
is dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Mosman otherwise adopts Judge Beckerman's recommendations,
but he does not wholly adopt Beckerman's reasoning as to the issue
of standing.  Judge Mosman denies the Defendant's motion on
standing grounds only because a disconnect between the complaint
and the Plaintiff's briefing gives rise to an apparent fact
dispute.  The Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he purchased
four 100-watt bulbs made by the Defendant in October 2015.  He
alleged that those four bulbs burned out within two years.

The Defendant then produced, in a declaration attached to the
motion to dismiss, a record that indicates the Plaintiff submitted
a warranty request for four 100-watt bulbs in October 2017.  This
warranty claim appears to fit the description for the four bulbs
that the Plaintiff alleges he purchased.  In addition, Defendant
also produced a record that shows that the Plaintiff made two other
warranty claims, one for six bulbs, and one for three bulbs.
Williams Decl.  In total, the warranty claims appear to document
that the Plaintiff purchased -- and had replaced -- 13 bulbs.  That
accounts for more lightbulbs than the Plaintiff has alleged he
purchased.

However, Judge Mosman finds that the Plaintiff's briefing remains
ambiguous on this point.  First, in his complaint, the Plaintiff
states that he attempted to contact Cree to request replacement but
was unsuccessful in contacting Cree through their website.  Later,
in briefing, he argues that the fact that he may have purchased
more bulbs that he received replacements for prior to filing the
suit does not mean he cannot establish standing.  Those statements
are incompatible.  Either the Plaintiff was unsuccessful in filing
a warranty claim or not.  Second, his complaint alleges only that
he bought four bulbs, which appear to be the same bulbs Cree has
shown that it replaced.  This ambiguity gives rise to a possibility
that he has purchased some bulbs that he has not received a remedy
for, which would convey him standing.

Finally, for the sake of clarity, Judge Mosman's reading of
Hamilton is somewhat broader than Judge Beckerman's.  If the
Plaintiff has received replacement bulbs for every bulb that he
purchased, this is sufficient to satisfy Hamilton and eliminate
standing.  It is immaterial whether the Plaintiff received a refund
or a replacement.  It is also the Judge's position that standing is
eliminated if the Plaintiff was offered replacement bulbs through
the warranty program but refused to mitigate his damages, which was
also the case in Hamilton.   Unless Plaintiff can show that (1) he
purchased bulbs from Defendant that have not been replaced through
the warranty program, and (2) that the warranty program is, in some
way, a mere facade, he cannot show that he has standing.

Upon review, Judge Mosman agreed with Judge Beckerman's
recommendation, and adopted.  Judge Mosman granted the Defendant's
Request for Judicial Notice.  Judge Mosman granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim.  The Judge dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims for alleged misrepresentations regarding the
minimum estimated lifespan of the Defendant's bulbs as being
preempted by federal law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express
and implied warranties.  The Plaintiff's amended complaint was due
on Dec. 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/WlqXC8 from Leagle.com.

Don Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Schaffer, Levin
Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Michael A. McShane --
mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac vice, S.
Clinton Woods -- cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, pro
hac vice & Steve D. Larson -- slarson@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll
Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.

Cree, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Demko --
andrew.demko@katten.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac
vice, Charles A. DeVore -- andrew.demko@katten.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory S. Korman, Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca K. Lindahl, Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Richter, Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP, pro hac vice & Darin M. Sands -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- Lane
Powell, PC.


FORD MOTOR: $10MM Lawyer Fees Awarded in MyFord Touch Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorney's Fees in IN RE MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No.
13-cv-03072-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees in August 2019.
They seek $16 million in attorneys' fees and costs, which was the
figure that Magistrate Judge Kim "independently proposed to the
parties."  The Class Counsel represents that it accrued
approximately $5,800,535 in expenses, of which $4.1 million went
towards expert fees (primarily related to hiring engineers to
review software code).  Subtracting these costs from the $16
million request, the Class Counsel is effectively seeking
$10,199,465 in attorneys' fees.

In assessing the request for attorneys' fees, Judge Chen employed
both the lodestar approach and the percentage-of-recovery method.
When compared to the $31,445,713.25 in fees accrued by the Class
Counsel (as reflected in their contemporaneously tracked records),
the fee request represents a negative multiplier of .32.  Nothing
has changed since the Court's earlier order that would disturb its
prior analysis, thus the lodestar analysis counsels in favor of
granting the fee request.

Judge Chen also employed the percentage-of-recovery method in
assessing the request for fees.  The attorneys' fees of
$10,199,464.94 represent approximately 31% of the estimated $33
million that Ford will pay in settling the case ($17 million
settlement fund + $16 million fees and costs); while slightly high,
that percentage is not so excessive relative to the 25% benchmark
in the Ninth Circuit, see Bluetooth Headset to impugn the request.
The request for attorneys' fees is reasonable.

For these reasons and for those stated on the record at the
fairness hearing, Judge Chen granted the the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees in the amount of $10,199,464.94.

Turning next to the issue of costs, the Class Counsel represents
that it has accrued approximately $5,800,535.06 in expenses, of
which $4.1 million went towards expert fees.  As with the lodestar
numbers, each firm provided an individualized expense report
further explaining their expenditures.  In addition, the Plaintiffs
note that some of the counsel's expenses were reduced in order to
comply with the Court's cost-limiting order.  For the reasons
stated on the record, as well as those reasons reflected in the
Court's order granting preliminary approval, Judge Chen granted the
request for expenses in the amount of $5,800,535.06.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion,
Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/R0KC4V from
Leagle.com.

Jennifer Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Cory Steven
Fein, Attorney at Law, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Esq. --
craigs@hbsslaw.com -- Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Catherine Gannon, Esq. --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Esq. --
jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- Shelby Smith, Esq. -- shelby@hbsslaw.com -
- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Tyler S.
Weaver, Esq. -- tyler@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP -- Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. -- cbc@caddellchapman.com -- and
-- Michael A. Caddell, Esq. -- mac@cadellchapman.com -- CADDELL &
CHAPMAN -- Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- BenJohns@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP -- Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. --
jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA -- Joseph
Bryce Kenney, Esq. -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- and -- Joseph G.
Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP --
Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq. -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com --
DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.

Thomas Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Ripley
Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Benjamin F. Johns,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford
Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Stephanie Elena Saunders,
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso,
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C..

Joe D'Aguanno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Deb Makowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jose Randy Rodriguez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated & Michael Ervin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Benjamin F. Johns,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Michael Travalio,
Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, pro hac vice, Jason Allen
Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford
Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman,
pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C.

Ford Motor Company is represented by Randall W. Edwards, Esq. --
redwards@omm.com -- Brian Christopher Anderson, Esq. --
banderson@omm.com -- David Richard Dorey, Esq. -- ddorey@omm.com
-- Edmundo Clay Marquez, Esq. -- emarquez@omm.com -- and -- Scott
M. Hammack, Esq. -- shammack@omm.com -- O'MELVENY AND MYERS --
Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq. -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA --
Warren Earl Platt, Esq. -- wplatt@swlaw.com -- SNELL AND WILMER
LLP.


GARDNER DENVER: Faces Kent Suit Challenging Ingersoll-Rand Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GARDNER DENVER HOLDINGS, INC., PETER STAVROS, BRANDON
BRAHM, ELIZABETH CENTONI, WILLIAM DONNELLY, JOHN HUMPHREY, MARC
JONES, WILLIAM KASSLING, MICHAEL MARN, VICENTE REYNAL, NICKOLAS
VANDE STEEG, JOSHUA WEISENBECK, INGERSOLL-RAND PLC, INGERSOLL- RAND
U.S. HOLDCO, INC., and CHARM MERGER SUB INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00145-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants pursuant to the Security Exchange Act of 1934 stemming
from a proposed merger of the Company with Ingersoll-Rand plc, et
al.

On April 30, 2019, Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc.'s Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Ingersoll-Rand plc, Ingersoll-Rand U.S. HoldCo, Inc.,
and Charm Merger Sub Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the Defendants will combine Gardner Denver with the
industrial segment of Ingersoll Rand, and Gardner Denver will issue
shares of common stock such that Ingersoll-Rand's stockholders will
own approximately 50.1% of the Company's common stock, while the
Company's stockholders will own only approximately 49.9%.

On January 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy
statement/prospectus with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for February 21, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that the Prospectus omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Prospectus false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The Prospectus omits
material information regarding: the Company's and Ingersoll-Rand's
financial projections; the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated; potential conflicts of interest
of Baird and the Company's additional financial advisor, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc.; and the timing and nature of all
communications regarding future employment and directorship of the
Company's officers and directors, including who participated in all
such communications.

Because of the false and misleading statements in the Prospectus,
the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the Prospectus is
an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and Gardner Denver's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Gardner Denver common stock.

Gardner Denver is a leading global provider of mission-critical
flow control and compression equipment and associated aftermarket
parts, consumables, and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          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: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 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


GERON CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Geron Corporation ("Geron" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: GERN) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Geron between March 19, 2018 and September 26,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Geron investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) misled investors about
the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark;
and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Geron's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Portola
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March
23, 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]

GERON CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Notes of March 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Geron
Corporation ("Geron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GERN) common stock
between March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Geron investors have until March 23, 2020 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Geron investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On March 27, 2018, STAT published a report revealing that the
Company's recent stock performance was due to "flimsy" claims in
connection to the efficacy of imetelstat, Geron's experimental
myelofibrosis treatment. STAT stated that the available data for
imetelstat undercuts Geron's representations as to the drug's
efficacy.

On this news, Geron's share price fell $1.75, or over 29%, over two
consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.23 per share on March
27, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on September 27, 2018, Geron disclosed its Phase 2 study
results for imetelstat failed to meet its primary efficacy
endpoints.

On this news, Geron's share price fell $3.92, or over 62%, to close
at $2.31 per share on September 27, 2018, 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 the Company had misled investors about the
clinical study results for imetelstat; and (2) 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 Geron common stock, have information or 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



GOJO INDUSTRIES: Sued by Gonzalez for Misrepresenting Sanitizer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magdiela Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gojo Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00888
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on its topical
antiseptic products consisting primarily of ethyl alcohol under the
Purell brand and Advanced Hand Sanitizer product line.

The Products contain substantially similar representations on the
labels, including "2X Sanitizing Strength*: 1 squirt PURELL
Advanced = 2 squirts Other National Brands," "Advanced Hand
Sanitizer," "Kills 99.99% of Illness Causing Germs," "Refreshing
Gel" and "Leaves Hands Feeling Soft." However, the Plaintiff says,
the Food and Drug Administration recently issued a warning letter
to the Defendant, which detailed its false, deceptive and dangerous
marketing of the Products.

The Defendant's claims are harmful and deceptive to consumers
because they give the impression that using the Products is
sufficient to prevent certain diseases and illnesses, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff points out that the Defendant's false,
deceptive, and misleading marketing of the Products has enabled it
to sell more of the Products and at higher prices per unit, than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct.

According to the complaint, had the Plaintiff and class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would
have paid less for it, and would not have forgone or deferred
proven, medically established recommendations to prevent
transmission of disease and illness. As a result of the false and
misleading labeling, the Products are sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $2.99 per 12 OZ, excluding tax, compared
to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal use/consumption.

Gojo Industries, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells topical antiseptic products consisting primarily of ethyl
alcohol under the Purell brand and Advanced Hand Sanitizer product
line which includes gels and foams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


GOOD SAMARITAN: Corrected Bid to Certify Class in Frank Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff, v. The Good
Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00618 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
(i) denied Frank's Corrected Motion for Class Certification, and
(ii) granted the Plaintiff's oral motion that the Court directs
entry of a final judgment as to his third cause of action.

The Plaintiff filed his "Medical Malpractice Complaint with Class
Allegations for Negligent Destruction of Medical Records" in the
Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 31, 2018.  Specific to his third
cause of action, Plaintiff contends that Good Samaritan Hospital
was subject under the American Medical Association Code of Ethics
to a non-delegable duty to manage medical records appropriately.
He contends further that it is a violation of Ohio law for any
physician to violate any provision of said Code of Ethics, citing
Ohio Revised Code Section 4731.22(B)(18).

The "provision" violated, according to the Plaintiff, is Ethics
Opinion 3.3.1, which states that a physician must retain old
records against possible future need and use medical considerations
to determine how long to keep records.  In this context, then, he
alleges that the Hospital had a duty under Ohio law to retain birth
records for at least the length of time of the statute of
limitations for medical malpractice claims, 21 years in the case of
a minor.  And, because its contractor Cintas "unintentionally"
destroyed the records in 2010, when the Plaintiff would have been
only 12 years old, the Hospital is liable to him, and the members
of the putative class, in compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest and attorneys fees.

A comprehensive motion to dismiss followed on Oct. 3, 2018.  In the
wake of a variety of procedural twists and turns, the single issue
left for decision with regard to that motion concerned the
Plaintiff's third cause of action against the Hospital.  The
Hospital argued that Ohio does not recognize a tort for negligent
destruction of medical records—as opposed to the tort of
spoliation of evidence -- and the Court agreed.  Accordingly, on
Dec. 9, 2019, the Court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's third cause of action for failure to state a claim
under which relief can be granted under Ohio law.

During a status conference by telephone held the next day, Dec. 10,
2019, the Court discussed with the parties the ongoing viability of
the Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff
conceded that his class action allegations were supported solely by
his third cause of action, now dismissed.  The Court sua sponte (i)
denied the Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Class Certification for
failure to state a claim under which relief can be granted under
Ohio law; and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's oral motion that the
Court directs entry of a final judgment as to his third cause of
action.

To comply with Rule 54(b), the Court must follow a two-step
process.  First, the district court must expressly direct the entry
of final judgment as to one or more but fewer that all the claims
or parties in a case. Second, the district court must expressly
determine that there is no just reason to delay appellate review.

Judge Barrett holds that the first step is easily met.  The
Plaintiff's class action complaint sets forth three causes of
action.  The first two -- medical malpractice and respondeat
superior -- underpin his allegation that he is the victim of a
negligent delivery at the Hospital and consequently suffers from
periventricular leukomalacia, a permanent and debilitating brain
injury that he attributes to trauma in utero during his delivery at
the Hospital.  The first two causes of action were not the subject
of the Court's Order dated Dec. 9, 2019 and are completely distinct
from the Plaintiff's third cause of action.  Thus, Judge Barrett
has directed entry of final judgment expressly as to the
Plaintiff's third cause of action -- negligent destruction of
medical records -- pled on behalf of himself and thousands of
individuals whose records were prematurely destroyed, but not his
first or second causes of action.

The second step, a determination by the Court that there is no just
reason for delay, requires consideration of judicial administrative
interests as well as the equities involved.  Judge Barrett finds
that the adjudicated claim for negligent destruction of medical
records and the unadjudicated medical malpractice claim are
independent of each other.  The issue decided in any interlocutory
appeal will obviously be different from the issues decided in an
appeal after judgment on the Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.
With regard to set-off, while the Hospital has pled
contributory/comparative negligence as an affirmative defense, it
has not pled a counterclaim against the Plaintiff.  Moreover, any
purported contributory/comparative negligence on the Plaintiff's
part would have nothing to do with destroyed medical records.
Finally, the miscellaneous factors appear to be neutral with regard
to the question of certification.  On balance, then, Judge Barrett
finds no just cause for delay.

In conclusion, Judge Barrett (i) denied Frank's Corrected Motion
for Class Certification, and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's oral
motion that the Court directs entry of a final judgment as to his
third cause of action.  There will be no stay pending appeal with
regard to the Plaintiff's first and second causes of action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/uYYUR9 from Leagle.com.

Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D.
Lambros, Janik & Doman LLP & Percy Squire -- psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
-- Percy Squire Co., LLC.

The Good Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant,
represented by C. Jessica Pratt -- JPratt@Rendigs.com -- Rendigs,
Fry, Kiely & Dennis. LLP, Michael P. Foley -- MFoley@Rendigs.com --
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Thomas Montgomery Evans --
TEvans@rendigs.com -- Rendigs Fry Kiely & Dennis & Anthony George
Raluy -- traluy@rendigs.com -- Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP,
pro hac vice.

John Doe Physicians #1-5, John Doe Corporations #1-5, John Doe
Employees #1-5 & John Doe Nurses #1-10, Defendants, represented by
Michael P. Foley, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis.


HENNESSEY-CARLSBAD ASSOC: Goddard Seeks Earned Wages and OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLYSON GODDARD, an individual v. HENNESSEY'S TAVERN, INC., a
California corporation, HENNESSEY-CARLSBAD ASSOCIATES, L.P. a
limited partnership, PAUL HENNESSEY, an individual, JENNIFER
HENNESSEY, an individual and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV01717 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
earned wages and overtime compensation, and failing to provide rest
and meal breaks.

On August 5, 2015, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as a
non-exempt, hourly employee to work as a server, serving food and
beverages, including preparing place settings.

Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff
asserts that she was never provided with lawful rest and meal
breaks. She adds that she also did not receive overtime pay as
well, even though she worked for more than eight hours in a day or
40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GAVRIL T. GABRIEL
          8255 Firestone Blvd., Suite 209
          Downey, CA 90241
          Telephone: (562) 758-8210
          Facsimile: (562) 758-8219
          E-mail: GGabriel@GTGLaw.org


HEXO CORP: Hudak Suit Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------
George Hudak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hexo Corp., Sebastien St. Louis, Ed
Chaplin, Michael Monahan and Steve Burwash, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00196, (S.D. N.Y., December 24, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

HEXO is a licensed producer and distributor of branded cannabis
products catering to both the medical and recreational cannabis
markets. On July 16, 2019, HEXO became listed and began trading on
the New York Stock Exchange.

Hudak alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that
HEXO's reported inventory was misstated and failed to write down or
write off obsolete product that no longer had value; that HEXO was
engaged in channel-stuffing to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; and that HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada. HEXO has lost hundreds
of millions of dollars in market capitalization as a result of
these disclosures.

Hudak acquired and held shares of HEXO at artificially inflated
prices and lost upon this revelation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


HONEYWELL INT'L: Francisco Still Lead Plaintiff in Kanefsky Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
DARIUS ADAMCZYK, and THOMAS A. SZLOSEK, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-15536 (D. N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (1) denied Wayne
County Employees' Retirement System's ("WCRS") motion to substitute
the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Charles Francisco; (2) granted
Francisco's motion to approve of new lead counsel; and (iii) denied
WCRS' motion for sanctions.

The putative securities class action arises out of Defendant
Honeywell's purportedly false and misleading statements regarding
asbestos-related liabilities.  The case was initiated by David
Kanefsky, a Honeywell investor.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the Court entertained
competing motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.  On Feb.
26, 2019, the Court appointed Plaintiff Charles Francisco as the
Lead Plaintiff and class representative.  It also approved of
Francisco's choice of counsel, naming Levi & Korsinsky, LLP ("L&K")
as the lead counsel.

At some point between February and August 2019, Francisco and L&K's
relationship broke down.  The details are disputed, but the
following facts are clear: Francisco and L&K were unable to
finalize a fee arrangement.  On Aug. 19, 2019, L&K filed the
present motion to substitute WCRS as the Lead Plaintiff.

On Sept. 10, the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KS&F") filed
an opposition on Francisco's behalf.  With the opposition, KS&F
submitted a declaration from Francisco noting that, contrary to
L&K's representations, at no point did he agree to withdraw as the
Lead Plaintiff.  Instead, he was seeking new counsel due to his
objection to L&K's proposed fee arrangement.

Also on Sept. 10, Francisco moved to substitute KS&F as the lead
counsel.  L&K opposed the motion on behalf of WCRS, and filed a
motion for sanctions based on purportedly false representations in
KS&F's briefs.

Judge Martini will deny WCRS' motion to replace Francisco as the
Lead Plaintiff.  The PSLRA establishes a procedure to appoint lead
plaintiffs, and the Court duly appointed Francesco pursuant to that
process.  WCRS did not file a timely motion for lead plaintiff
status and L&K has not provided a sufficient basis for
substitution.

Judge Martini will also grant KS&F's motion to replace L&K as the
lead counsel.  The Judge holds that the Court's involvement is
appropriately limited to whether the lead plaintiff's selection and
agreement with the counsel are reasonable on their own terms.  The
Court is confident that Francisco's selection of KS&F was the
result of a good faith selection and negotiation process.  Indeed,
Francisco's relationship with L&K ended due to his insistence on a
favorable fee arrangement.  He specifically sought out KS&F to
ensure attorney's fees would eat up less of any eventual judgment
or settlement.  And KS&F is highly experienced and has previously
represented classes in asbestos-reserve litigation.  Nothing
indicates the Court should intervene and disrupt Francisco's choice
of counsel.  

Judge Martini will deny WCRS's motion for sanctions.  The motion is
based on KS&F's purportedly false statements of fact in its moving
papers and supporting documents.  But the statements at issue are
accurate, or, at worst, ambiguous.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Martini (a) denied WCRS' motions
to (1) substitute the duly appointed Lead Plaintiff, and (2)
sanction KS&F.  Plaintiff Francisco's motion to substitute KS&F as
the lead counsel is also granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2dO1bB from Leagle.com.

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Movant, represented by
EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN DAVID LINDENFELD --
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP.

CHARLES FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY, LEVI
& KORSINSKY LLP & VINCENT M. GIBLIN -- vgiblin@decotiislaw.com --
DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin LLP.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., DARIUS ADAMCZYK & THOMAS A. SZLOSEK,
Defendants, represented by BRIAN M. ENGLISH --
benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD &
BARRY, LLP & WILLIAM H. TROUSDALE -- wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com
-- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP.


HOUSTON ASTROS: Dodgers Fan Plans to File Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dodgers fans, the storylines are flowing on the Houston Astros
cheating scandal; and we are truly just getting started I believe,
wrote Clint Evans for Dodgers Nation.

Meet Jose "Bluebeard" Lara of Los Angeles. Jose is a Dodgers' super
fan who plans to start a class action lawsuit against the Houston
Astros for their role in cheating the Dodgers out of the 2017 World
Series. With a nickname like 'Bluebeard', he's not a guy I would
want to tangle with in the courtroom.

Furthermore, Lara joins KTLA to talk about why he believes he has a
case.

First, he declares his plans to set up shop; and take down the
mega-powers that are baseball and the last two teams to defeat the
Dodgers in the World Series.

Right now, a lot of action is being taken against these same foes.
Keep in mind that Los Angeles City Council is requesting that the
title be stripped from the Astros.

Next, Bluebeard Lara says he's not only upset, but he remembers
hearing the ‘bangs' of the trashcan during the games.

Honestly, the shock was the emotion I felt up until today. Now, I
am a bit angry at all of this. Not just for what the Astros did to
the Los Angeles Dodgers; but also for tarnishing what should be a
child's game with some semblance of innocence left in it.

For me, this whole thing serves as a harsh reminder that Santa
Claus isn't real, I'm not longer nine years old, and all the
simplicity we once enjoyed is gone for the moment. Notably -- for
that reason -- I hope Bluebeard Lara is successful in his legal
proceedings.[GN]

KINUM INC: Duffer Contests Collection Letter Legality
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Duffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kinum, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00091 (S.D. Ill., January 9, 2020), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Kinum operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts
to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state. It
attempted to collect a consumer debt from Duffer owed for medical
services via a collection letter that threatens to impose
additional interest and fees when none would, or could, be imposed
and stating different amounts for the same debt, says the
complaint.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angie@philippslegal.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: john@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


KYLE & MIKE: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy L. Hernandez, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. KYLE & MIKE, INC., d/b/a FRUTILANDIA NO. 2, and KHALED
YOUSSEF, Individually, Case No. 4:20-cv-00350 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 31,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a business plan that
includes paying non-exempt hourly employees the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, even those hours over 40 per workweek. The
Defendants' plan includes paying employees for hours worked in
excess of 40 in cash so that these payments to not appear in their
payroll records. The Plaintiff is one of the workers, who was hired
by Defendants as an hourly employee and not paid overtime pay.

The Plaintiff worked for Frutilandia as a non-exempt employee
working as a cashier and check casher from 2002 until March of
2019. She says she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
but the Defendants did not pay her an overtime premium for any of
the hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, they
paid her the same hourly rate for all the hours she worked.

Kyle & Mike, Inc. is a Texas corporation and an "employer" as
defined by the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCKY'S MARKET: Forsyth Seeks Wages for 60 Days Under WARN Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Forsyth, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUCKY'S MARKET GP2, LLC, LUCKY'S MARKET
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, and LUCKY'S MARKET PARENT COMPANY, LLC,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00255 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2020), seeks to recover
damages in the amount of 60 days' compensation and benefits for
each of the Plaintiff and other employees in connection the
Defendants' violation of their rights under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

In January 24, 2020, the Plaintiff was told her employment with the
Defendant is terminated effective February 12, 2020, due to a mass
layoff. Thus, the Plaintiff and approximately 1,000 other
employees, who had been working for the Defendants, were terminated
without cause on their part as part of or as the reasonably
expected consequence of the terminations that occurred on January
27, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to give her and
the other class members at least 60 days' sufficient advance (and
adequate) notice of their termination. As a consequence, the
Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled under the WARN
Act to recover from the Defendants their respective compensation
and benefits for 60 days, no part of which has been paid, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee, who worked for the Defendant.

The Defendants were a business authorized to conduct business in
the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main No: 813-224-0431
          Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 jcornell@wfclaw.com
                 rcooke@wfclaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Astros, Red Sox Sign Stealing Spurs Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown and Bill Sanderson, writing for NY Daily News,
reports that a Massachusetts man filed a class-action lawsuit
against Major League Baseball, the Houston Astros and the Boston
Red Sox over the teams' stealing of signals between pitchers and
catchers of opposing teams.

The suit filed January 23 in Manhattan Federal Court says the
teams' cheating cost fans money by hurting their fantasy baseball
picks made through DraftKings — in which Major League Baseball is
an investor.

The lead plaintiff in the case is identified in the suit as
Kristopher Olson, a Massachusetts resident who "like millions of
other" DraftKings customers was victimized by the "wrongful
conduct" of Major League baseball and its "corrupt member teams."

The suit is also being brought on behalf of anyone else who played
fantasy games with DraftKings.

Major League Baseball and its teams, including the Astros and Red
Sox, "encouraged their fans to take a financial stake in
DraftKings' fantasy baseball wagering competitions," the lawsuit
says.

Fans have paid "millions of dollars" to play DraftKings' games, the
suit says.

"What MLB's fans did not know was that MLB's and its member teams'
commitment to ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of
baseball had also changed," says the suit.

Baseball's failure to police the Astros' and Red Sox' sign had the
effect of "substantially undermining and compromising the fairness
not only of MLB team vs. team competition, but DraftKings' fantasy
baseball contests as well," the lawsuit says.

"[A]t the very least, all of DraftKings' fantasy baseball contests
from early in the 2017 baseball season through the end of the 2018
regular season and into the 2019 season, were tainted by cheating
and compromised, at the expense of DraftKings' contestants," says
the suit.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for "unjust enrichment." It
also accuses the Red Sox and the Astros of violating their state's
respective consumer protection laws.

DraftKings is not a defendant in the case.

The sign stealing occurred during the Astros' championship 2017
season and in part of 2018, MLB has said. The scandal resulted in
the departure of newly-hired Mets manager Carlos Beltran, who
played for the Astros in 2017.

It also resulted in the firings of Astros manager A.J. Hinch and
general manager Jeff Luhnow, and the departure of Red Sox manager
Alex Cora. [GN]


MARUGAME UDON: Fails to Pay Regular and OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nereyda Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. MARUGAME UDON USA LLC, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2020-01127343-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Jan.
30, 2020), alleges that the Defendants fail to properly pay their
employees for all regular and overtime wages earned.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class
members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week
during their employment with the Defendants. The Defendants engaged
in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees within the State of California.

This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay the
employees for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for
missed meal periods and rest breaks, in violation of California
law, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff argues that the
Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and the
other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate
overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from August 2018 to January 2019.

The Defendants were employers whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, including the County of
Orange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDTRONIC INC: Reaches Settlement in ICD Leads Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began on January 15, 2020, as ordered by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to advise Canadian residents
about a proposed settlement of litigation related to certain ICD
Leads manufactured by Medtronic, Inc. and/or Medtronic of Canada
Ltd.

The proposed settlement, which requires approval of the Ontario
Court, provides for the creation of a $26 million CDN settlement
fund which will be used to pay compensation to eligible Class
Members, the claims of the Public Health Insurers, as well as
administration costs and court-approved legal fees and
disbursements.

The proposed settlement is not an admission of liability on the
part of the defendants, nor has there been any finding of liability
by the Courts against them.  The defendants deny the allegations
made in the lawsuit.

Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights and the
details of the settlement are being mailed to known Class Members
and will be published in various newspapers across Canada, leading
up to a hearing in Toronto at which time the Court will consider
whether or not to approve the proposed settlement.  The Settlement
Approval Hearing is scheduled to proceed on March 2, 2020 at 9:00
a.m. at Osgoode Hall.

Class Members who wish to file a written objection to the proposed
settlement must do so by February 24, 2020 by sending a written
objection to the Claims Administrator. Further information relating
to the proposed settlement, including the Notice, the settlement
documents including the Claim Package, is available at:
www.medtronicleadsettlement.ca, from the Claims Administrator by
phone at 1-888-788-4820 or by writing to the following address:

Medtronic Leads Class Action Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 4454, Toronto Station A
25 The Esplanade, Toronto, ON M5W 4B1
info@medtronicleadsettlement.ca

The law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and Kim Spencer McPhee
Barristers P.C. represent the Class Members. [GN]



METRO METRO: To Pay Back Hidden Fees to 8,000 Festival Goers
------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Dupont, writing for Narcity, reports that in February 2019,
an application was filed against Montreal's Festival Metro Metro
that demanded compensation for thousands of attendees. The Metro
Metro festival lawsuit alleged that many people suffered financial
damage as a result of hidden fees and ticket price modification.
Almost a year later, those who participated in the class-action
lawsuit will finally be compensated.

Law firm Lambert Avocat Inc. went after festival organizers for
"partial reimbursement for all consumers who suffered damages due
to hidden service and delivery fees as well as unilateral
modifications of the ticket price."

It is alleged that the festival violated Quebec's Consumer
Protection Act, which states that an advertisement for a product or
service must advertise an "all inclusive" price.

In this case, customers were unaware of the additional fees that
were tacked on at the last minute.

Those who purchased festival tickets on May 18 and May 19 are now
eligible for compensation, specifically those who paid extra for
service and delivery fees.

This also applies to attendees who paid more than the original
posted price of $170 or $300, and who bought their tickets on
metrometro.electrostub.com.

The settlement was finally determined this past January 15 by the
Superior Court.

In a notice of the final judgement released by Lambert Avocat Inc.,
it was announced that an amount of $20 per Weekend Pass ($170) and
an amount of $35 per VIP Pass ($300) will be given to those who
purchased tickets on those dates.

The attendees who are eligible will automatically receive their
payment and no further action is required, says the statement.

The first year of Festival Metro Metro drew big-name headliners
including Cardi B, Snoop Dogg and Sean Paul. It is returning to
Montreal this year at the city's Olympic Stadium.

According to TVA Nouvelles, the festival is compensating nearly
8,000 people. The outlet reports that the payments will be
distributed in March. [GN]



MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Galea Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Shauna Galea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-10259-LJM-DRG (W.D. Mich., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act relating
to its attempt to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff obtained credit for personal and household expenses
from GE Capital Retail Bank R Us. The Subject Debt, an amount of
$539.58, fell into a default status. Thereafter, Midland purchased
the Subject Debt from GE Capital. After Midland obtained the
Subject from G.E. Capital, MCM attempted to collect the Subject
Debt on behalf of Midland. The Subject Debt is not subject to
arbitration because the underlying debt sale and purchase
agreements merely conveyed to MCM the right to collect accounts in
the form of "receivables."

In an attempt to collect the Subject Debt, within one year from the
filing of this lawsuit, MCM sent at least one collection letter to
where the letter was mailed to the Plaintiff inside of a white
envelope that stated "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" in bold, fully
capitalized font. The Plaintiff immediately opened the Time
Sensitive Document Envelope in order to examine the letter
contained inside of it that reportedly was time sensitive.

The Plaintiff contends that the Time Sensitive Document Envelope's
use of the words "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" violates the FDCPA
because these words intended to create, and did create, a false
sense of urgency with regard to the Plaintiff's perception of MCM's
collection efforts relative to the Subject Debt.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Trenton, Michigan.

The Defendant is incorporated in the State of Kansas and is a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Evans Securities Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Evans, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., JEFFREY S. LORBERBAUM, FRANK
H. BOYKIN, and WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER WELLBORN, Case No. N20C-01-259
AML (Del. Super., Jan. 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased shares of Mohawk's common stock
in the Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017, and July 25, 2019,
inclusive, seeking claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

Over the past several years, consumers around the world have
increasingly opted to use a new flooring material, Luxury Vinyl
Tile ("LVT"), as an alternative to more traditional floor
coverings. Indeed, during the Class Period, Mohawk's CEO described
the rapid growth in U.S. consumer demand for LVT as the biggest
change in the flooring industry since carpet in the 1960s. In just
five years, LVT has gone from being a relatively unknown product to
comprising approximately 15% of all flooring sales in the U.S.
As consumer demand for LVT has grown, however, it has siphoned
growth away from Mohawk's Conventional Flooring Products--a market
in which the Company has historically dominated the industry, the
Plaintiff says.

While Mohawk's competitors entered into direct distribution deals
with Chinese manufacturers to capitalize on the growing LVT market,
Mohawk took a different approach by investing in LVT production
plants and growing its LVT business through the acquisition of IVC
Group ("IVC"), an LVT manufacturer with operations in Europe and
the U.S., in a deal worth $1.2 billion that closed on June 15,
2015. However, prior to and during the Class Period, Mohawk
struggled to grow its LVT business and keep up with consumer demand
for LVT products because of the Company's LVT "capacity restraints"
and other production issues. As rapid growth in demand for LVT
cannibalized sales of Mohawk's Conventional Flooring Products, the
Company was left scrambling to prop up sales of its Conventional
Flooring Products.

As a result, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants engaged in a
scheme to "channel stuff" its Conventional Flooring Products--that
is, they induced their distributors to take on surpluses of
Conventional Flooring Products that were vastly greater than
demand--in an effort to make Mohawk's sales growth and financial
performance appear far better than they were. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendants continued making false and misleading
statements about the Company's sales growth and demand for its
Conventional Flooring Products.

Despite the Company's accounts receivable and inventory levels
increasing during the Class Period, the Defendants assuaged market
concerns by misleading it to believe that those increases were the
result of external factors like rising raw material costs and
inflation. But in reality, the Plaintiff alleges, Mohawk was
engaging in channel-stuffing to artificially inflate its sales and
revenues.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to disclose that
Mohawk was stuffing its distribution channels with Conventional
Flooring Products, which made the Company's sales growth and
financial performance appear far better than they were. As a result
of these misrepresentations, shares of Mohawk's common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company reported
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2018,
with earnings that were well below both Wall Street estimates and
the Company's previous guidance range. The following morning, in a
conference call with analysts and investors, Mohawk also disclosed
deteriorating margins which it attributed, in part, to significant
production cuts the Company imposed to normalize inventory. These
disclosures caused the Company's stock price to decline from
$217.37 per share to $179.31 per share, or over 17%.

Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company
reported sales and earnings for the third quarter of 2018 that
substantially missed analysts' estimates and the Company's previous
guidance range, with sales growth in all segments lower than
estimates. On this news, the Company's stock price fell nearly 24%,
from $151.07 per share to $115.03 per share, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dustin Evans purchased Mohawk stock in the Plan and was
damaged by the decline of the Company's stock price.

Mohawk is a global manufacturer of flooring products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
          824 N. Market St., Suite 1001A
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 778-4000
          Email: rernst@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
          Email: gegleston@gme-law.com
                 tjmckenna@gme-law.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased common stock of Mohawk Industries, Inc. ("Mohawk" or the
"Company") (NYSE: MHK) between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased shares of the common stock of Mohawk during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Mohawk investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Mohawk, incorporated and headquartered in Calhoun, Georgia, is a
global manufacturer of flooring products, including ceramic and
porcelain tile and natural stone products, carpets, rugs, laminate,
hardwood flooring, sheet vinyl, and luxury vinyl tile, or LVT.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Mohawk engaged in a scheme to inflate its revenues
and earnings by stuffing the channel with its conventional flooring
products and booking fictitious sales of those products. Defendants
made false and misleading statements about Mohawk's sales growth
and the demand for its conventional flooring products. Defendants
also reassured investors about Mohawk's increasing accounts
receivable and inventory levels by falsely attributing those
increases to market factors including rising raw material costs and
inflation.

The truth about Defendants' fraudulent scheme was revealed
beginning on July 25, 2018, when the Company reported disappointing
financial results well below its previous guidance and Wall Street
estimates. The Company also announced that it would be reducing
production, which indicated that its sales channels were stuffed
with more product than it was able to sell. Following this news,
Mohawk's stock price declined $38.06 per share, or 17%, from its
closing price on July 25, 2018 to close at $179.31 on July 26,
2018.

On October 25, 2018, Mohawk reported its financial results for the
third quarter of 2018 that was well below analysts' estimates.
Mohawk executives attributed the disappointing results, in part, to
further manufacturing reductions that were required to control
inventory buildup. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$36.03 per share, or 23.9%, from its closing price on October 25,
2018 to close at $115.03 per share on October 26, 2018.

On July 26, 2019, Mohawk reported that it was again reducing
production to control inventory levels so that supply matched
customer demand. Following this news, the price of Mohawk stock
fell nearly 18% to close at $128.84 on July 26, 2019.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

Contact:

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: 1-800-541-7358
[GN]

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Chai Disputes Illegal Collection Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Da Yid Chai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc. and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 20CV361490 (Cal. Super.,
January 9, 2020) seeks statutory damages, costs of this action,
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for
violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

National Enterprise Systems is an Ohio corporation engaged in the
business of collecting defaulted and time-barred, obsolete consumer
debts.

The complaint relates that Defendant was assigned to collect a debt
allegedly owed by Chai to Citibank via collection letter that
failed to include the notice required by California Civil Code that
states that " . . . the law limits how long you can be sued on a
debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it,
and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency." Said
debt was time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
      Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
      Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
      12 South First Street, Suite 1014
      San Jose, CA 95113-2418
      Tel: (408) 294-6100
      Fax: (408) 294-6190
      Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


NOMATIC LLC: Greenberg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nomatic, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-60044 (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2020), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Nomatic, LLC creates minimalist products like travel bags,
backpacks, watches, notebooks and wallets. To promote its services,
it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer.
Greenberg did not give express consent to receive such texts, the
complaint asserts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

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


OPERA LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Opera Limited ("Opera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OPRA) either: (i)
pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or the
"Offering") and/or (ii) between July 27, 2018, and January 15,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
materially misleading statements and that the Offering Documents
were negligently prepared, and as a result contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market
opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects, especially with respect to its lending
applications' continued availability on the Google Play Store; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report asserting that Hindenburg had "a 12-month price target of
$2.60 on Opera, representing a 70% downside." Among other issues,
Hindenburg reported that Opera's "browser market share is declining
rapidly, down ~30% since its IPO"; that Opera was involved in
"predatory short-term loans in Africa and India, deploying
deceptive 'bait and switch' tactics to lure in borrowers and
charging egregious interest rates ranging from ~365-876%"; that
Opera's lending business applications, many of which are offered on
Google's Play Store--particularly, OKash, OPesa, CashBean, and
Opay—were "in black and white violation of numerous Google rules"
aimed at "curtail[ing] predatory lending"; and that consequently,
Opera's entire lending business was "at risk of disappearing or
being severely curtailed when Google notices" Opera's alleged
violation of its rules.

On this news, Opera's ADS price fell $1.69 per share, or 18.74%, to
close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.

If you purchased Opera securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/operalimited-opra-shareholder-class-action-litigation-stock-fraud-240/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

Contact:

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



OPERA LIMITED: Frank R. Cruz Says Class Action Filed for Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Opera
Limited ("Opera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OPRA ) securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering")
and/or between July 27, 2018 and January 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Portola investors have until March 23, 2020 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Opera's apps are now in black
and white violation of numerous Google [Play Store] rules" on
predatory, short-term lending, and misleading apps and that Opera
had spent $9.5 million to purchase a business already funded and
operated by Opera.

Following this news, Opera's ADS price fell $1.69 per share, or
18.74%, to close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its
browser applications was significantly overstated; (ii) Defendants'
funded, owned, or otherwise controlled loan services applications
and/or businesses relied on predatory lending practices; (iii) all
the foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on Opera's financial prospects, especially
with respect to its lending applications' continued availability on
the Google Play Store; and (iv) as a result, the public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Opera securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than March 23, 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 purchased Opera securities, have information or 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.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/20200124005502/en/

Contact:

       Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
       The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
       Tel: 310-914-5007
       Website: www.frankcruzlaw.com
       E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
[GN]




OPERA LIMITED: Hagens Berman Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Opera (NASDAQ: OPRA) investors who have
suffered significant losses to submit their losses now to learn if
they qualify to recover their investment losses.  A securities
class action has been filed against the Company and certain
investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: July 24, 2018 - Jan. 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 24, 2020

Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OPRA

Contact An Attorney Now:
OPRA@hbsslaw.com  
844-916-0895

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose that (1) Opera's
sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser apps were
significantly overstated and (2) Defendants' funded, owned, or
otherwise controlled loan services apps and businesses relied on
predatory lending practices, and (3) all the foregoing, once
revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Opera's financial prospects, especially with respect to its
lending apps' continued availability on the Google Play Store.

The market learned the truth on Jan. 16, 2020, when Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report about the Company, accusing
Opera of engaging in predatory short-term loans in Africa and
India, deploying deceptive "bait and switch" tactics to lure
borrowers, and charging egregious interest rates ranging from about
365% - 876%.  According to the report, Opera's apps are now "in
black and white violation of numerous Google rules," and therefore
"this entire line of business is at risk of disappearing or being
severely curtailed."

In addition, the Report accused Opera's chairman and CEO, Yahui
Zhou of diverting $40 million of Company proceeds to entities owned
or influenced by Zhou through a slew of questionable related-party
transactions that were not adequately disclosed to investors.

In response, the price of Opera ADSs fell sharply on Jan. 16, 2020.
Opera ADSs now trade sharply below Opera's IPO and secondary
offering prices.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Opera concealed the
risks posed by its short term loan business and questionable
related-party deals," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.

If you purchased ADSs of Opera and suffered significant losses,
click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Opera
Limited should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email OPRA@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

         Contact:
         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel: 844-916-0895
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]



OPERA LIMITED: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Opera Limited
("Opera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OPRA) securities during the
period from July 27, 2018 through January 15, 2020 (the "Class
Period") and/or pursuant to the Company's July 27, 2018 Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"). Investors have until March 24, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Specifically, the Offering Documents and the Company failed to
disclose that: (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market
opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; and (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects, especially with respect to its lending
applications continued availability on the Google Play Store.

On August 9, 2018, Opera completed its IPO, issuing 9,600,000 ADSs
priced at $12.00 per share, raising approximately $115.2 million in
proceeds.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging that Opera's microfinancing app is in violation of the
Google Play Store's policies on predatory, short-term lending and
misleading apps. The report also alleges that Opera's chairman and
CEO, Yahui Zhou, diverted $40 million of company proceeds to
entities owned or influenced by Zhou through a series of
questionable related-party transactions that were not adequately
disclosed to investors.

On this news, the price of Opera ADSs fell $1.69, or 18.7%, to
close at $7.33 on January 16, 2020.

If you acquired Opera securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com, telrod@kmllp.com
[GN]



OPERA LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Notes of March 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Opera Limited ("Opera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:  OPRA)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
indexed under 20-cv-00674, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Opera American depositary shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering");
and/or (b) Opera securities between July 27, 2018 and January 15,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Opera securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you
have until March 24, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Opera was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Oslo, Norway.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides mobile and Personal
Computer web browser applications in Ireland, Russia, and
internationally, under the Opera Mini, Opera for Android, Opera
Touch, and Opera for Computers brand names.

Opera has also increasingly invested in its fintech businesses,
providing mobile loan and financing applications marketed to Kenya,
Nigeria, and India, under the OKash, OPesa, CashBean, and OPay
brand names, which are offered on Google LLC's ("Google") Play
Store marketplace, as downloadable applications.

On August 9, 2018, Opera completed its IPO, issuing 9,600,000 ADSs
priced at $12.00 per share, raising approximately $115.2 million in
proceeds before underwriting discounts and commissions, and other
expenses.

The Complaint alleges that the offering documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Opera's sustainable
growth and market opportunity for its browser applications was
significantly overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded, owned, or
otherwise controlled loan services applications and/or businesses
relied on predatory lending practices; (iii) all the foregoing,
once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material negative
impact on Opera's financial prospects, especially with respect to
its lending applications' continued availability on the Google Play
Store; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants'
statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report asserting that Hindenburg had "a 12-month price target of
$2.60 on Opera, representing a 70% downside."  Among other issues,
Hindenburg reported that Opera's "browser market share is declining
rapidly, down ~30% since its IPO"; that Opera was involved in
"predatory short-term loans in Africa and India, deploying
deceptive 'bait and switch' tactics to lure in borrowers and
charging egregious interest rates ranging from ~365-876%"; that
Opera's lending business applications, many of which are offered on
Google's Play Store—particularly, OKash, OPesa, CashBean, and
Opay—were "in black and white violation of numerous Google rules"
aimed at "curtail[ing] predatory lending"; and that consequently,
Opera's entire lending business was "at risk of disappearing or
being severely curtailed when Google notices" Opera's alleged
violation of its rules.

On this news, Opera's ADS price fell $1.69 per share, or 18.74%, to
close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.

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

Contact:

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




PINNACLE CLINICAL: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Perez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez and Samantha Galley, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. PINNACLE CLINICAL RESEARCH, PLLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00112 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and others overtime
compensation for all hours worked each week that they were/are made
to work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants in at least one week
in which they performed work in connection with receiving a bonus,
according to the complaint. Because the Defendant did not include
bonus payments in the overtime wage calculations, the Plaintiffs
contend that they and other hourly-paid employees were not properly
paid overtime wages for all overtime hours worked by them.


Plaintiff Perez worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid Clinical
Research Coordinator from January 2017 through December 2019.

Defendant's primary business purpose is to coordinate and conduct
medical research and clinical trials in various areas, including
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's
disease, among other services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUDIAN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Informs Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Qudian Inc. (QD) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Qudian
securities between December 13, 2018 through January 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:www.bgandg.com/qd.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) regulatory developments in China threatened to negatively
impact Qudian's fiscal full year 2019 ("FY19") financial results;
(2) Qudian's business was unprepared to mitigate the risks
associated with these regulatory changes; (3) as a result, Qudian's
loan portfolio was plagued by growing delinquency rates; (4) all of
the foregoing made Qudian's repeated assertions concerning its FY19
financial guidance unrealistic; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/qd or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Qudian you have until March 23, 2020 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com
                 peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]


QUDIAN INC: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Qudian Inc. (NYSE: QD) between December 13, 2018 and
January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Qudian investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Qudian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1255.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) regulatory developments in China threatened to negatively
impact Qudian's fiscal full year 2019 ("FY19") financial results;
(2) Qudian's business was unprepared to mitigate the risks
associated with these regulatory changes; (3) as a result, Qudian's
loan portfolio was plagued by growing delinquency rates; (4) all of
the foregoing made Qudian's repeated assertions concerning its FY19
financial guidance unrealistic; and (5) 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 23,
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-1255.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Lawsuit has Silver Lining for XRP
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olayode Yusuff, writing for News Logical, reports that Weiss Crypto
Rating has said the present class-action lawsuit against Ripple
Labs Inc. has silver lining for the company and digital token XRP.

The "nation's leading provider" of independent, unbiased, trusted
ratings of Stocks, Mutual Funds, Cryptocurrencies and some other
assets, says the court case has the potential of settling the issue
of whether or not XRP is a security.

Weiss Crypto Rating also foresaw the possibility that the America's
Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) could file another
lawsuit against Ripple, if the enterprise software company wins the
present class-action lawsuit.

Weiss, in a two-part thread said even if Ripple Labs Inc. wins the
particular class-action lawsuit filed before the Northern District
Court of California, there is a high chance the SEC files another
before the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a concluding tweet, the crypto rating firm shows its point of
belief that Ripple and XRP may at the end be vindicated. This, the
platform says will translates to blessing for the software
enterprise firm.

Ripple Requests Judge Strikes Out Court Cases
Ripple has officially requested that the Northern District of
California's Judge Phyllis Hamilton to dismiss the class-action
lawsuit filed against it.

Ripple prayed the judge consider that the future and fate of the
"half a trillion XRP market" is arguably in her hands.

Ripple Labs said the Judge's decision to continue the lawsuit
"would not only threaten to eliminate XRP's utility as a currency,
but it would upend and threaten to destroy the established XRP
market more broadly -- a market involving over USD 500 billion in
trading over the last two years."

If the Judge continues, Ripple says the action has the potential of
destroying "the value held by the alleged thousands of individual
XRP holders around the world (many of whom no doubt disagree with
Plaintiff's claim that XRP is a security)."

Is XRP a Security or Commodity?
Chairman, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Heath
Tarbert, has spoken on whether XRP is a security or commodity.

The chairman of the regulatory body, during an interview section
with Cheddar, did not offer a clear answer regarding whether XRP is
a commodity, however, he said it could be claimed at the moment
that XRP is a security or a commodity.

The chairman said: "It's unclear. Stay tuned I'd say. Part of the
issue is that our jurisdiction we share with the SEC. If it's a
security, it falls under their jurisdiction. If it's a commodity,
it falls under ours."

While Ripple executive continues to claim XRP is not a security, or
that the digital currency does not have anything to do with the
company, observers have continued to insist that the digital
currency is an investment contract of Ripple Labs Inc.

A recent partnership with MoneyGram allayed the doubts of investors
who thought the digital currency could later be declared a
security. [GN]



RUSHMORE LOAN: Fernandez Sues Over Illegal Loan Processing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phitsamay Fernandez, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC,
Case No. 30-2020-01128156-CU-AT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Jan.
30, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for alleged breach of
contract, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendant routinely violates state debt collection law and
breaches the uniform terms of borrowers' mortgages by charging and
collecting illegal processing fees when borrowers pay their monthly
mortgage payments by telephone ("Pay-to-Pay Fees"), the Plaintiff
alleges. Specifically, she contends, Rushmore charges a $5 fee when
borrowers make payments by telephone using Rushmore's Automated
Phone Payments System, and a $10 fee when borrowers make payments
by speaking with a Rushmore customer service representative by
telephone.

Under California law, Rushmore is not allowed to mark-up the
amounts it pays third parties to provide borrowers' services and
impose unauthorized charges to create a profit center for itself,
the Plaintiff asserts. She contends that the Uniform Mortgage also
bars Rushmore from charging fees prohibited by applicable law or
not expressly permitted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development. She adds that Rushmore's Pay-to-Pay Fees are not
authorized by the Secretary and violate California's prohibition on
charging fees not expressly provided for in the contract.

Plaintiff Phitsamay Fernandez is a natural person residing in
Riverside County, California. She had a loan serviced by Rushmore.

Rushmore is a servicer of residential mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and –

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6807
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                 vprentice@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          475 14th Street, Suite 610
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 207-8633
          Email: twalburg@baileyglasser.com


SAFESPEED LLC: Gress Sues Over Wrongfully Installed RL Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence H, Gress, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SAFESPEED, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company;
NIKKI ZOLLAR; CHRIS LAI; KHALID ("CLIFF") MAANI; OMAR MAANI; TONY
RAGUCCI; MARTIN A. SANDOVAL; CITY OF OAKBROOK TERRACE; PATRICK
DOHERTY; BILL HELM; JEFF TOBOLSKI; ROBERT GEDVILLE; JOHN
O'SULLIVAN; SERGIO RODRIGUEZ; JOHN RYAN; MICHAEL CARBERRY; JOHN
KOSMOWSKI; and BILL MUNDY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00756 (N.D. Ill., Feb.
2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The alleged violations were committed by the Defendants by
perpetrating a scheme through an enterprise specifically designed
to defraud the Plaintiff and the Class out of millions of dollars
in fines issued by red-light cameras ("RLCs" or "Red-Light
Cameras") that were corruptly and wrongfully installed and
maintained as a direct and proximate result of bribes paid to
public officials.

Beginning no later than 2016 and continuing to the present,
SAFESPEED, LLC, along with its members and undisclosed sales
agents, created and conducted, in collaboration with various public
officials and municipalities, a racketeering conspiracy that
corruptly used RLCs to create a "money machine" that would
automatically generate millions of dollars in revenue for the
Defendants and thereafter used bribes to protect the money machine
from calls for legislation to ban RLCs as well as, in at least one
instance, objections of the Illinois Department of Transportation
("IDOT"), according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff notes that in 2016, former Illinois State Senator
Martin A. Sandoval asked SafeSpeed for $20,000 in annual campaign
contributions in return for Mr. Sandoval's support for SafeSpeed
and its business interests in the General Assembly. SafeSpeed
agreed and subsequently made, with the knowledge and acquiescence
of SafeSpeed's President, Nikki Zollar, $20,000 in annual campaign
contributions to Mr. Sandoval from SafeSpeed and other entities so
as to conceal the fact that SafeSpeed was making the annual
contributions to him.

No later than 2016, in exchange for these and other secret campaign
contributions and bribes from SafeSpeed, Mr. Sandoval corruptly
used his position as Chairman of the Senate's Transportation
Committee and its Red-Light Camera Subcommittee (i) to summarily to
kill a series of bills that would have banned RLCs by repealing
Illinois State Law; and (ii) corruptly to override objections of
the IDOT to RLCs that SafeSpeed wished to install, the Plaintiff
asserts. In return for his services as SafeSpeed's "Protector" in
the Illinois Senate, Mr. Sandoval accepted at least $70,000 in
bribes from SafeSpeed, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff's proposed class consists of persons, who received
traffic tickets generated by RLCs installed and maintained in
operation because of bribes paid to public officials, including
bribes paid to Mr. Sandoval and Tony Ragucci, the Mayor of Oakbrook
Terrace.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the RICO
by actively participating in the association-in-fact enterprise
conducted by the Defendants to recruit and corrupt with bribes
public officials, including Mr. Sandoval, who agreed to act as
SafeSpeed's "Protector" against unfavorable legislation in the
General Assembly and to help SafeSpeed override objections from
IDOT as to placement of RLCs desired by SafeSpeed.

The Plaintiff is a person, who received traffic tickets issued with
data collected by corruptly installed and corruptly maintained
RLCs.

SAFESPEED, LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability Company authorized
to do business and doing business in the Northern District of
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kent Maynard, Jr., Esq.
          KENT MAYNARD & ASSOCIATES LLC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312.423.6586
          Fax: 312.878.1553


SAN ANGEL 2: Gracia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Gracia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees v. SAN ANGEL 2 OF ARKANSAS, INC., RAFAEL ANGEL, and
FRANCISO JAVIER ROMO, Case No. 2:20-cv-00022-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan.
31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff says she routinely worked in excess of 50 hours per
week but only received $2.63 per hour for 40 hours per week and no
compensation for time past the first 40 hours in the work week. She
also did not receive either the minimum wage or proper overtime
compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
As a result of the actions and conduct, the Plaintiff contends that
the Defendants have violated the FLSA's and the AMWA's minimum wage
and overtime requirements for servers.

Ms. Gracia worked as a server for the Defendants.

San Angel 2 of Arkansas, Inc. is a corporation currently conducting
business as Mi Pueblo of West Memphis, Arkansas, a Mexican
restaurant and bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          Janelle C. Osowski, Esq.
          Alison T. Ryan, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Phone: 901-278-1004
          Fax: 901-278-3111
          Email: bryce@donatilaw.com


SEIU UNITED: Price Sues Over Illegal Debiting of Bank Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREG PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS WEST and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 20CECG00176 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 14, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' illegal actions in debiting the Plaintiff's
and the putative class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization for preauthorized
electronic fund transfers, thereby, violating the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

In September 2018, the Plaintiff stopped his employment with the
Defendant. At that time, he canceled his son's membership, and
asked the Defendant to cease the automatic withdrawals from his
account for his son's dues. The Defendant initially complied with
Plaintiff's request and no payment was taken out between September
2018 and March 2019. However, on April 15, 2019, the Defendant
resumed billing the Plaintiff's account for "PLEDGEUP DUES & PAC"
without providing explicit written notice to or obtaining written
permission from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant never provided advanced,
clear and conspicuous notice to him of this auto-renewal. He adds
that the Defendant failed to notify him in any reasonable manner,
did not send him any e-mail, or other written correspondence, nor
did the Defendant attempt to call him to inform him of its intent
to renew the 20 dollar auto withdrawal.

Mr. Price also alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
disclose certain price changes, in violation of the California
Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute.

SEIU United is a California statewide local union of the Service
Employees International Union in California in the United States.
The Defendant is headquartered in Oakland, California and has
offices statewide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SETTON PISTACHIO: Bid to Remand Ali Suit to State Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case, LILIA ALI, on behalf of herself and all similarly
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF TERRA BELLA,
INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00959-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), to the state court.

The Plaintiff's lawsuit was originally filed on April 27, 2016 in
Tulare County Superior Court alleging wage violations under
California Law.  Plaintiff subsequently amended the complaint on
Aug. 1, 2016.  On July 12, 2019, Defendant Setton filed a notice of
removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

The Plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit must be remanded because the
Defendant's removal of the case was untimely.  The Defendant
contends that the time to remove the case has not expired or begun
to run because minimal diversity of citizenship was not readily
apparent on the face of the complaint or the First Amended
Complaint (FAC).  Similarly, the parties dispute when the amount in
controversy was disclosed to the Defendant.  The Plaintiff asserts
that the amount in controversy was disclosed during mediation on
June 28, 2017 in the form of a damages model provided to the
Defendant.  The Defendant contends that it never received the
document and that it only learned of the amount in controversy in
an email from the defense counsel on June 14, 2019.  The parties do
not otherwise dispute that the requirements for removal under CAFA
are met.

To resolve the factual dispute on the issue of timeliness, the
Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a declaration and for the
Defendant to file a responsive declaration.  Similarly, it required
the Defendant to address the date which it learned from its own
investigation that minimal diversity was present.

The Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration of attorney Michael
Nourmand on Dec. 2, 2019.  The Defendant filed a supplemental
declaration of attorney Anthony Raimondo on Dec. 10, 2019.  The
General Manager of Setton, Lee Cohen, filed a declaration on Dec.
10, 2019.

Judge O'Neill finds that the Defendant did not receive the damages
model.  Michael Nourmand claims that during the mediation, mediator
Daniel Quinn left the Plaintiff's room and Quinn told him that he
gave one copy of the damages model to defense counsel.  Plaintiff
urges the Court to consider Quinn's hearsay statement as proof that
Defendant received the damages model.  The Plaintiff does not offer
any further support of the mediator's statement.

On the other hand, Anthony Raimondo, an officer of the court,
represents that he was not provided the document.  Nourmand lacks
personal knowledge that the defense counsel actually received the
damages model the day of the mediation.  Accordingly, Judge O'Neill
finds, even when considering Quinn's hearsay statement, that the
Defendant did not receive the damages model at the June 2017
mediation.  Therefore, the amount in controversy was first
disclosed in writing to the Defendant in an email summarizing the
Plaintiff's calculation of damages sent to attorney Steven Wainess
on June 14, 2019.

Even if the Defendant determined that minimal diversity was present
prior to June 14, 2019, the notice of removal was still timely, the
Court finds.  Assuming, arguendo, that the Defendant had notice of
minimal diversity of citizenship as early as Dec. 26, 2017, the
amount in controversy was not disclosed until June 14, 2019.
Therefore, the Judge need not make a specific finding of when
minimal diversity was disclosed by the Plaintiff or discovered by
the Defendant.  The Plaintiff does not contest the existence of
minimal diversity of citizenship.  Regardless of when minimal
diversity was first disclosed or discovered, the Defendant's notice
of removal was timely based on the June 14, 2019 disclosure of the
amount in controversy.

In light of the foregoing, Judge O'Neill denies the Plaintiff's
motion to remand to the state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/HVFo7H from Leagle.com.

Lilia Ali, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff, represented by James A. De Sario -
jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com - The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, Michael
Nourmand  - mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com - The Nourmand Law Firm,
APC, Kevin T. Barnes , Law Offices Of Kevin T. Barnes, 1635
Pontius
Ave2nd FloorLos Angeles, CA 90025 & Melissa Misao Kurata  -
mkurata@nourmandlawfirm.com - The Nourmand Law Firm, APC.

Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc., a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Gerardo Hernandez, Jr.  -
gvh@raimondoassociates.com - Raimondo & Associates , Steven R.
Wainess , Raimondo & Associates, 7110 N Marks Ave. Suite
104Fresno,
CA 93711 & Anthony Peter Raimondo - APR@raimondoassociates.com -
Raimondo & Associates.

Applicant-Intervenors One Through Fifteen, Intervenor, represented
by Yesenia Zamora Carrillo - yesenia@hatmakerlaw.com - Hatmaker
Law
Group.


ST. LOUIS, MO: District Court Dismisses Mahdi Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint LAKENIA MAHDI,
Plaintiff, v. JULIAN BUSH, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:19CV183HEA (E.D. Mo.).

The action was filed Feb. 5, 2019, alleging Defendants Julian Bush,
Lyda Krewson, and John W. Hayden, Jr. violated the Plaintiff's
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The Plaintiff
claims officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department
arrested her and charged her with resisting arrest.  She further
contends that she was forced to sign a civil liability release
agreement by a prosecutor in the City Counselor's Office.  The
release agreement was allegedly in exchange for a reduction of the
resisting arrest charge.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three claims: deprivation of
rights to petition the courts in violation of the First Amendment
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against all the Defendants on
behalf of a putative class (Count I); declaratory judgment to void
the blanket release contracts based on a violation of public policy
against all the Defendants on behalf of the putative class (Count
II); and deprivation of civil rights in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments against Defendant Hayden on behalf of
Plaintiff Mahdi individually.  

The Complaint names Defendant Bush in his individual and official
capacities.  Defendants Krewson and Hayden are sued in their
official capacities only.  The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
Defendant Bush in his individual capacity on Aug. 1, 2019, as a
result, all the defendants are now sued in their official
capacities only.

On Nov. 14, 2019, the matter was consolidated with White v. City of
St. Louis, et al., No. 4:18-cv-518 SRC, Scruggs v. City of St.
Louis, et al., No. 4:19-cv-00948 RWS, and Ball-Bey v. Chandler, et
al., No. 4:18-cv-01364 SPM.  After consolidation, Judge Clark
entered a Memorandum and Order in the instant case.  Judge Clark
dismissed Count III of the Plaintiff's Complaint against John W.
Hayden, Jr. in his official capacity.  Judge Clark then
unconsolidated these cases.

In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Clark set out the background,
standard of review, and the Plaintiff's allegations.

The only claims remaining are Counts I and II, as Count III has
been dismissed.  These claims are brought against the City of St.
Louis.  The Plaintiff claims within the allegations of her
Complaint that she has been subjected to numerous civil rights
violations, however, it appears that the only "underlying" claim
she alleges to support her denial of access to the court claim is
the excessive force claim against the City, which does not appear
to be a viable claim at this time since it has been dismissed by
Judge Clark in his Nov. 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order.

While it may be that the Plaintiff could state various viable
underlying claims to support her denial of meaningful access to the
courts in violation of the First Amendment claim, Judge Autrey
holds that the Complaint currently before the Court fails to do so.
Under Rule 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is
required to set forth a short and plain statement of the claims
showing that she is entitled to relief. Count I will be dismissed.

As to Count II, the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and
injunctive relief must be dismissed.  Count II necessarily relies
upon Count I, arguing that the policies identified in Count I are
void as against public policy.  Because Count I is subject to
dismissal, Count II must be dismissed as well.

Judge Autrey finds that in her response to the Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiff states that she seeks leave to file a full count
complaint.  While the Court is unclear as to the meaning of this
statement, the Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended
complaint.  Judge Autrey admonishes the Plaintiff to adhere to the
pleading requirements articulated, and to further pay particular
attention to the requirements of Rules 8, 12, and 23 (in the event
she seeks to attempt to plead a class action) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, Judge Autrey granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiff was given time to file an amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NwfHVt from Leagle.com.

Lakenia Mahdi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Dailey --
intake@kingdomlitigators.com -- KINGDOM LITIGATORS, INC A Public
Interest Law Firm & Jermaine Wooten.

Julian L. Bush, Official Capacity Only, St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department, Chief of Police, officially & The City of St.
Louis Mayor, officially, Defendants, represented by Erin K.
McGowan, ST. LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE & Robert H. Dierker, ST.
LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.


STARS GROUP: Faguy & Co. Reports CDN$30MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Faguy & Co. and Morganti & Co., P.C. announce that
on January 21, 2020 the Honourable Justice Suzanne Courchesne of
the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec authorized the
bringing of a civil liability and securities class action against
The Stars Group Inc. ("TSGI") in Court File No. 500-06-000785-168,
for settlement purposes.

On April 7, 2020, the Superior Court will be asked to approve the
proposed settlement in the amount of CDN $30 million, at the
Montreal courthouse. Further details are available by consulting
the link below.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities,
excluding certain persons associated with the Defendants, who
acquired securities of THE STARS GROUP INC. between March 31, 2014
to March 22, 2016 (the "Class Period") and held all or some of
those acquired TSGI securities until after March 22, 2016. You are
a member of the class action if you meet this description.

The class action asserts that TSGI made misrepresentations and
omissions of material fact in TSGI's public filings and statements
regarding its business practices. It is alleged that when the
misrepresentations and omissions of fact were publicly corrected,
TSGI's securities dropped significantly in value causing the class
members damages. The parties have reached the proposed settlement
without admission of liability on the part of the Defendants. In
fact, the Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all
of the claims and allegations of wrongdoing made by the Plaintiff
in the class action.

Details of the authorization of the class action, including the
process for Class Members to opt-out of the class action and the
proposed settlement prior to March 25, 2020 are available by
consulting the link below.

The judgments of the Superior Court of Quebec and other information
in both English and French are available on class counsel's website
at http://faguyco.com/portfolio/amaya-class-action/as well as on
the Registre des actions collectives.

Contacts
For any inquiries, please contact class counsel representing Class
Members:

         Shawn Faguy, Esq.
         Faguy & Co. Barristers and Solicitors Inc.
         329 de la Commune West, Suite 200
         Montreal, PQ H2Y 2E1
         Tel: 514.285.8100 ext. 225
         Fax: 514.285.8050
         Email: classactions@faguyco.com

         Eli Karp, Esq.
         Morganti & Co., P.C.
         21 St. Clair Avenue, Suite 1102
         Toronto, Ontario M4T 1L9
         Telephone: 647.344.1900
         Email: ekarp@morgantico.com
[GN]



SUNPATH LTD: Gonzalez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Allen Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Car Cure LLC and SunPath Ltd.
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-60046, (S.D. Fla., January 9,
2020), seeks damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

SunPath sells vehicle service contracts, commonly referred to as
extended warranties that provide repair coverage once the
manufacturer-provided coverage expires. To market and sell its
extended warranty plans, SunPath, in connection with agents and
vendors such as National Car Cure, conducts mass, unsolicited
telemarketing campaigns to target potential customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 803-1578
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


TESLA INC: Unintended Acceleration Class Action Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that a Tesla
unintended acceleration class action lawsuit alleges hardware and
software defects cause uncommanded acceleration incidents in Tesla
Model 3, Model S and Model X vehicles.

The class action lawsuit accuses Tesla of intentionally
manufacturing and selling 2013-2020 Model S, 2016-2020 Model X and
2018-2020 Model 3 vehicles with known defects.

The class action was filed just days after the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced it had received a
petition to investigate unintended acceleration incidents. The
petitioner, a Tesla stock short-seller, alleges sudden acceleration
complaints have been filed about 123 Tesla vehicles, allegedly
causing 110 crashes and 52 injuries.

NHTSA hasn't decided if a federal investigation is necessary, but
Tesla responded to the petition by alleging complaints about sudden
unintended acceleration are routinely reviewed with NHTSA.

The automaker says the reviews have occurred with the government
for several years and in every case the data proved the vehicles
operated normally.

Tesla also says each of the three models is equipped with two
independent position sensors that cause the system to kill the
motor if errors occur. The automaker also says applying the
accelerator pedal and the brake pedal at the same time overrides
input from the accelerator.

Based on complaint records, the vast majority of drivers say their
vehicles experienced sudden unintended acceleration while traveling
at slow speeds, often while pulling into parking lots or parking
spaces. This is the very time during a trip when a driver would be
using both the brake pedal and accelerator pedal.

According to Tesla, the timing of the incidents isn't a coincidence
because data from the vehicles show drivers are mistakenly pressing
the accelerator pedals instead of the brake pedals. And with the
incredibly quick response times of the electric vehicles (zero to
60 mph in 2.9 seconds), a split-second is all it takes to send a
vehicle reeling through a storefront.

The lawsuit accuses Tesla of intentionally designing the vehicles
to record data which shows a driver pressed the accelerator pedal
as part of a "computerized cover-up" to conceal defects.

"And, to add insult to very real injury, it appears that Tesla has
designed the automobile's sensors to report after such incidents
that the driver deployed the accelerator pedal. In other words, the
automobile inexplicably speeds up, then blames the driver." - Tesla
lawsuit

Although the plaintiffs claim they know the vehicles have defects
that cause sudden uncommanded acceleration (SUA), none of the
plaintiffs say they know what the defects are.

"Unfortunately, Plaintiff does not yet know the exact nature of the
SUA Defect, because Tesla vehicles are a black box by design.
Tesla's secrecy has made it impossible to determine the specific
nature of the SUA Defect, or why its flawed software is causing its
vehicles to engage in uncommanded acceleration." - Tesla lawsuit

After admitting they don't know what the defects are, the
plaintiffs go on to tell the judge to have faith the cars are
defective.

"For now, it is enough to understand that these defects are
manifest in Tesla vehicles, and thus endangering Tesla owners,
occupants, and the general public."

According to the unintended acceleration class action, Model 3,
Model S and Model X vehicles are "defective and unsafe" even if the
evidence shows a driver is responsible for the acceleration
incident by pressing the wrong pedal.

"Irrespective of whether the Tesla-related SUA events are caused by
mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown failure in
the electronic motor control system, a failure in other aspects of
the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or some instances
of pedal misapplication, the Model S, Model X, and Model 3 are
defective and unsafe."

The lawsuit seeks an order that requires Tesla to repair, recall
and/or replace the Model 3, Model S and Model X vehicles.

The Tesla unintended acceleration class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
Lee, et al., v. Tesla, Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, and Bailey
Glasser.

In a previous proposed Tesla unintended acceleration class action
lawsuit, Tesla said no automaker manufactures cars that are
failsafe, something Tesla drivers apparently don't understand.
[GN]


TETHER HOLDINGS: Faubus Sues Over Bitcoin Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Faubus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IFINEX Inc., BFXNA Inc., BFXWW INC., Tether
Holdings Limited, Tether Limited, DIGFINEX Inc., Tether Operations
Limited, Tether International Limited and John Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00211, (S.D. N.Y., January 9, 2020),
seeks remedies under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act,
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

Defendants issued and maintained a stablecoin known as "Tether," a
digital token whose value is anchored to the U.S. dollar. They
allegedly manipulated prices of Bitcoin by issuing Tether unbacked
by a 1:1 U.S. dollar reserve and using it to purchase Bitcoin
through U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchanges Bittrex and Poloniex.
This artificially inflated the price of Bitcoin, which enabled
Defendants to extract supra-competitive profits from Bitcoin
traders, says the complaint.

Faubus is a Bitcoin trader. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian P. Murray, Esq.
     Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Tel: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com
            bmurray@glancylaw.com
            lalbert@glancylaw.com


TETRA TECH: Residents of Treasure Island File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in
a class action filed January 23, 2020, in a California state court,
current and former residents of the decommissioned nuclear training
site on San Francisco's Treasure Island claim they were deceived
for years about radioactive contamination near their homes.

The class is represented by 47 named plaintiffs who say the U.S.
Navy, local authorities, developers and major engineering firm
Tetra Tech knew that radiation levels were much higher than the
Navy disclosed in a 2006 survey, but chose not to tell them.

The Navy, the complaint says, failed to properly assess levels of
nuclear fission byproduct cesium 137 in soil samples dated from the
1970s.

"In reality, contamination levels are some three times higher than
the Navy reported, and 60 percent higher than the Navy's own safety
guidelines," the lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court,
states.

After the Navy handed the site over to the city of San Francisco
for residential use, toxic cleanup contractor Robert McLean found
radioactive material near some Navy housing being turned into
civilian apartments, a discovery reported in 2014 by the Center for
Investigative Reporting.

While the class could number up to 2,000, the complaint names 47
people who have been directly affected by the contamination and
seek $2 billion in damages. All have lived on Treasure Island at
some point since 2006, though many have been evicted to make way
for a redevelopment project that will add 8,000 new homes to the
area.

Named plaintiffs Andre Patterson and his partner Felita Sample have
already been displaced, and are suffering from mysterious health
conditions their attorney Stanley Goff believes are connected to
radiation exposure.

"Andre Patterson has been diagnosed with three tumors on his back,
he has rashes, he has family members who have lost kidneys and he's
lost several of his teeth," Goff said in a phone interview
Thursday. He said Sample has also lost teeth and has been diagnosed
with a heart murmur.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Goff said, both have been evicted by
property management company John Stewart since complaining about
contamination.

"We believe John Stewart Company colluded with Tetra Tech and the
Navy to get rid of anybody who was raising concerns about radiation
exposure," Goff said. "There are people right now who are scared to
be named on the complaint because they do not want to face
retaliation by John Stewart and other property companies they pay
rent to. San Francisco is so expensive and people are so desperate
to have housing that they're not even willing to say anything about
being exposed to radiation and toxins just to have a roof over
their heads."

A call made to the company's general inbox after business hours was
not immediately returned.

The lawsuit also names environmental cleanup companies Tetra Tech
EC and Shaw Environmental as defendants. Tetra Tech performed
"limited radiological work" on the island between 2007-2008 and
2013-2016, overseen by the Navy and California Department of Public
Health.

In a report from March 2019, the Navy said various cleanup sites
posed no public health risk.

"The Navy wants the public to know that the site conditions at
Treasure Island present no health risk to those who live on, work
on, or visit Treasure Island," the Navy's Base Realignment and
Closure Program Management Office said in the report.

But a BRAC bulletin in September 2019 said the Navy had uncovered a
"basketball-sized amount of soil" beneath the concrete of a
residential unit in which a low level of radiation was detected.

"Following the excavation, the Navy scanned the excavated area
again and confirmed that all contaminated material was removed. The
hole was refilled with clean soil and the concrete entrance was
repaired," BRAC said. In an October update, crews also excavated a
"degraded radium painted dial or gauge."

The Navy did not respond to a request for comment on the residents'
lawsuit.

Tetra Tech spokesman Sam Singer said the company cannot comment as
it has not yet been served with the complaint.

The residents also blame San Francisco's Department of Public
Health, saying it knew the land was tainted but held back the
information.

City Attorney spokesman John Coté said in an email that this is
not true.

"The safety of San Francisco residents is our top priority. We take
that responsibility very seriously," he said. "The information that
we have from state and federal regulators is that the parts of the
island where people live, work and visit are safe. It's worth
noting that the vast majority of the allegations in this 23-page
lawsuit do not involve the City and County of San Francisco. The
only allegation involving the City claims that officials withheld
information from residents. That is false."

Goff pointed to the planned multi-billion development project
already in the works as an incentive for local authorities to stay
mum.

"We feel they knew all this was going on and they looked the other
way because they're trying to make money off of that land," he
said. "If development and growth is allowed to take place, they
stand to make a lot of money."

But in addition to the $2 billion, the residents are seeking an
injunction that would halt the development project.

"We're asking San Francisco to simply stop the development of any
housing from taking place on the island until the island is fully
eradicated of toxins, which I feel will never happen," Goff said.
"We're asking the court to make them stop." [GN]


TIDELANDS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over December Malware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew James, writing for ABC 15 News, reports that the impacts of
the December 12 cyberattack on the Tidelands Health Hospital System
are unclear, but what is clear is that patients feel they were
victimized as a result of negligence.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court this week holding
the hospital system liable for the attack and the treatment of
patients thereafter.

The lawsuit calls the attack an act of ransomware that disrupted
the operations of Tidelands Health, blocking the systems and data
and included the disclosure of "highly sensitive" patient medical
records of thousands of patients.

Brandi Kersey is one of those patients and her name sits at the top
of the lawsuit.

"It was a holy mess there," Kersey said. "Use this as a warning
because you could be taking people's lives because you are not
doing a backup."

Kersey said she was meant to visit Tidelands on December 18 for a
nuclear stress test. She has suffered two strokes in the past year
according to the lawsuit. However, when she was preparing to go in
for the test, she said she was turned away.

"I was left in the dark until after they got it cleared up," said
Kersey adding that she finally learned that the system's computers
were back online from someone not with the hospital and later by
her heart doctor.

The lawsuit claims the hospital system lost names, demographic
information, date of birth, Social Security numbers and health
insurance information among other information in the attack.

The attorneys claim since this breach, the hospital system has
allowed that information to be at risk for fraud and identity
theft. Friday night, Tidelands Health responded sharing with us
this statement.

We cannot comment on pending litigation. As we've previously
disclosed to patients and the public, on Dec. 12, the Tidelands
Health computer network was impacted by a malware incident. Upon
discovery of the incident, we immediately engaged external
cybersecurity experts to help us secure our network, restore our
systems and investigate the situation.

Our primary computer systems have been restored, and we have
resumed normal operations. Our hospitals and outpatient locations
continue to deliver safe, high-quality care to our patients and
community.

To date, we have no evidence that patient medical information was
exfiltrated during the Dec. 12 malware incident. However, the
investigation is ongoing. We will continue to take appropriate
steps to address the situation, collaborate with the appropriate
authorities and notify any impacted individuals, if and when that
is needed.

In the lawsuit, the second plaintiff, Starr Collister alleges that
nurses repeatedly gave her food items that she could not eat as a
result of the nurse's not being able to access Collister's medical
records.

That's why Kersey shared this hypothetical situation with ABC 15's
Andrew James in an exclusive interview. You see, Kersey is allergic
to a litany of painkiller medications predominantly used in an
emergency room.

"If I was there, and they had to give me something, and they can't
pull up on the computer what I'm taking, they could have killed
me," said Kersey. "That scares me. And that's just using me, how
many other patients are in there, it's not right."

Collister called her three-visit stay at the hospital during the
malware attack a "nightmare".

The lawsuit goes on to challenge the hospital's actions now in the
aftermath. It claims the hospital has violated state data breach
and HIPAA because a data breach has not been reported to the
Department of Health and Human Services according to its online
list.

The ordeal has been a learning lesson for Kersey. She said she
plans to expand to other medical service providers in the area, but
relies on Tidelands for some treatment.

"Why couldn't they have done something, why didn't they have
something in backup," said Kersey.

The lawsuit lists more than a dozen ways patients believe the
hospital failed to protect their information and the aftermath of
the cyberattack. Patients are asking for monetary damages in a
variety of forms as well as free credit monitoring for three years.
[GN]



TIFFANY & CO: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Tiffany & Co. ("Tiffany") (NYSE:
TIF) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Tiffany by LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, Breakfast Holdings
Acquisition Corp., and Breakfast Acquisition Corp. (collectively,
the "Buyers") announced on November 25, 2019 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Tiffany and its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), is captioned Thompson v. Tiffany & Co., Case No.
1:20-cv-00009 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On November 24, 2019, Tiffany entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Buyers.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Tiffany will receive
$135.00 in cash per share (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Tiffany's financial advisors. The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of
Tiffany common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 23, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Contact:

         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Tel: (888) 969-4242, (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: info@rl-legal.com
                gms@rl-legal.com   
                sdr@rl-legal.com  
         Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]


TOP MASTER: Worker Sues for Termination w/out 60-Day Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niesha Henderson, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clio Holdings, LLC and Top Master
Acquisition, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06003 (W.D. Mo.,
January 9, 2020), seeks recovery of compensation and benefit plans,
actual payroll checks for payment of wages/salary, vacation
benefits, deferred compensation and bonuses, including incentive
bonuses, severance and retention bonuses as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Clio and Top Master formed a single enterprise into specialty
surfaces. In January 3, 2020, they closed seventeen facilities
throughout the country after giving their approximately one
thousand employees less than twenty-four hours of notice, less than
the mandatory 60 days advance written notice of their termination
as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany C. Mehl, Esq.
      Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
      Jessica M. McDowell, Esq.
      CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
      8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 225
      Kansas City, MO 64151
      Telephone (816) 581-4040
      Facsimile (816) 741-8889
      Email: r.pauls@cornerstonefirm.com
             b.mehl@cornerstonefirm.com
             j.mcdowell@cornerstonefirm.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Won't Fix Car Until Brakes Fail, Says Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSB-TV 2 Atlanta reports that a brake defect could affect more than
1 million Toyota Priuses.

Now, a new lawsuit claims Toyota won't fix it until it is too
late.

Channel 2 investigative reporter Justin Gray broke this story on
Channel 2 Action News at 5 p.m. Friday, January 24.

It was a Toyota dealer who first complained to federal regulators.
The owner of a California Toyota dealership said he thought it was
wrong that he was having to tell customers Toyota won't fix a
faulty brake part.

The problem with the Priuses is you could push down the brake
pedal, and the car won't stop.

Toyota tells Channel 2 Action News they can't comment on the
lawsuit because they haven't seen it yet.

They have extended the warranty for the brake component to 10 years
and 150,000 miles. [GN]



UNITED STATES: Campo Sues Over Spillway-Linked Damage to Oysters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Campo; Michael Campo; Lepetich Aquaculture, L.L.C. and
M.J. Lepetich Oysters, L.L.C. v. The United States of America, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00044-RTH (Fed. Cl., Jan. 14, 2020), seeks just
compensation for the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
persons and entities, whose real and personal property were taken
by the government for public use through inverse condemnation, in
violation of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.

According to the complaint, the taking of the Plaintiffs' and the
putative Class members' properties effectuated by the government is
the direct, natural and probable result of the processes set in
motion on February 27, 2019, by the United States Corps of
Engineers with the record-setting opening of the Bonnet Carre
Spillway for a total of 123 days during the year 2019.

The Spillway opening was first set on February 27 to April 11 and
then from May 10 to July 27, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Spillway opening redirected nearly ten trillion gallons of fresh
water from the Mississippi River into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
and the Mississippi Sound, lowering the natural and essential
salinity levels of the waters and marshes where plaintiffs and the
putative Class members cultivate and harvest oysters.

In a short period of time, the Spillway opening caused between 18%
and 100% oyster mortality to the Plaintiffs' and the putative Class
members' oyster stock, and permanent and severe damage to their
oyster beds and reefs in the Pontchartrain Basin, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Pontchartrain Basin includes Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne,
the Biloxi Marshes, Chandeleur Sound and Breton Sound.

The Plaintiffs are residents of St. Bernard Parish, State of
Louisiana, and are oyster farmers.

The United States answers and is responsible for the actions of the
Corps of Engineers and the Mississippi River Commission with
respect to the operation of the Bonnet Carre Spillway.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
          SALAS & CO., L.C.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-799-3080
          Facsimile: 504-799-3085
          E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Stag, Esq.
          Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq.
          Mathew D. Rogenes, Esq.
          STAG LIUZZA, L.L.C.
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 593-9600
          Facsimile: 504 593-9601


UNITED STATES: Pannagl Sues Over Spillway-Linked Harm to Oysters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Curt Pannagl and Point a la Hache Oyster Fisheries, Inc. v.
The United States of America, Case No. 1:20-cv-00047-CFL (Fed. Cl.,
Jan. 14, 2020), seeks just compensation for the Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated persons and entities, whose real and
personal property were taken by the government for public use
through inverse condemnation, in violation of the Takings Clause of
the United States Constitution.

According to the complaint, the taking of the Plaintiffs' and the
putative Class members' properties effectuated by the government is
the direct, natural and probable result of the processes set in
motion on February 27, 2019, by the United States Corps of
Engineers with the record-setting opening of the Bonnet Carre
Spillway for a total of 123 days during the year 2019.

The Spillway opening was first set on February 27 to April 11 and
then from May 10 to July 27, 2019. The Spillway opening redirected
nearly ten trillion gallons of fresh water from the Mississippi
River into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and the Mississippi Sound,
lowering the natural and essential salinity levels of the waters
and marshes, where the Plaintiffs and the putative Class members
cultivate and harvest oysters.

In a short period of time, the Spillway opening caused between 18%
and 100% oyster mortality to the Plaintiffs' and the putative Class
members' oyster stock, and permanent and severe damage to their
oyster beds and reefs in the Pontchartrain Basin, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Pontchartrain Basin includes Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne,
the Biloxi Marshes, Chandeleur Sound and Breton Sound.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and are
oyster farmers.

The United States answers and is responsible for the actions of the
Corps of Engineers and the Mississippi River Commission with
respect to the operation of the Bonnet Carre Spillway.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
          SALAS & CO., L.C.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-799-3080
          Facsimile: 504-799-3085
          E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Stag, Esq.
          Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq.
          Mathew D. Rogenes, Esq.
          STAG LIUZZA, L.L.C.
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 593-9600
          Facsimile: 504 593-9601

               - and -

          Sally D. Fleming, Esq.
          Owen M. Courreges, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SALLY DUNLAP FLEMING, P.L.C.
          305 Main Street
          Belle Chase, LA 70037
          Telephone: 504 891-3090
          Facsimile: 504 895-5190


US BANCORP: Kim Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National
Association, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00032, (W.D. Wash., January
8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an equal
amount as liquidated damages, damages from unreasonably delayed
payment of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and
disbursements of this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act.

U.S. Bancorp is a bank holding company where Kim worked as a Branch
Assistant Manager. He regularly worked in excess of forty hours per
week without payment of overtime premiums, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brittany J. Glass, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
     Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
     Email: bglass@terrellmarhsall.com

            - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
     Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
     951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
            lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

            - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Michael Litrownik, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (212) 977-4005
     Email: jms@outtengolden.com
            mlitrownik@outtengolden.com


WAWA INC: Faces Peace Fraud Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is captioned as JANEKA PEACE, INDIVIDUALLY AND on behalf of ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00235-GEKP
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 13, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.

The suit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

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:

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          161 Washington St., Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com


WAYNE COUNTY: Female Inmate Strip Searches Suit Now a Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oralandar Brand-Williams, writing for The Detroit News, reports
that a federal court judge in Detroit approved class action status
on Jan. 23 for a lawsuit filed by former female inmates at the
Wayne County Jail in Detroit who say they were abused and
mistreated during group searches that sometimes included being
stripped in front of men.

The ruling could affect about 16,000 female inmates who had been
housed at the Wayne County Jail from November 2014 on, according to
the women's attorney, Michael Dezsi, Esq.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow approved the motion brought by
Dezsi seeking the class action status. The motion alleges that some
female inmates were subjected to "demeaning, unsanitary, abusive
and invasive group strip searches" while at the jail.

A spokeswoman for the Wayne County Sheriff's Office had no
immediate response to the judge's decision.

The plaintiffs, Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis,
Joanie Williams, Latoya Hearst and Cynthia Whack-Finley brought the
lawsuit in 2017 against Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon, Wayne
County Jail Cpl. Terri Graham and the county.

"Plaintiffs allege that they were made to strip in full view of
male guards, officers, employees and inmates," according to the
complaint. "Plaintiffs and other female inmates were 'forced to
bend over . . . under the pretense of searching for contraband."

Woodall, 28, told The News Thursday, Janury 23, she still gets
emotional recalling her time at the jail, which stemmed from a bond
issue from an assault case involving another woman.

Woodall said she was housed at the jail seven or eight times in
2013. She said she hopes attaining class-action status will bring
justice to her and the other women.

"It's been 7 1/2 years. It's been very long," she said. "It's been
horrible for many years. I'm very thankful and happy the judge
brought forth some justice."

"Now is the time to pray," said Woodall. "What happens in the dark
comes to light. Now is the time to seek justice."

Reacting to the judge's ruling, Dezsi said, "it's been a long time
coming."

"The women have been waiting for years in years to get the case
... to this point," he said. "The women were basically waiting on
the sideline. (They) are really anxious for this case to come to
some sort of conclusion."

In the lawsuit, Woodall and her co-plaintiffs allege that jail
guards "would routinely degrade and humiliate" them by crudely
commenting on their appearance and sexuality "while comparing them
to animals." [GN]


[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th.

Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.

Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.  

For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at
colin@beardgroup.com

Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $342MM Reserves at December 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$342 million at December 31, 2019 compared to US$352
million at September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley.  The amount and timing of settlements and number
of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.  A summary of
Ashland asbestos claims activity, excluding Hercules claims,
follows.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2019 quarter, it was determined that the liability
for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased by US$1
million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$342 million at
December 31, 2019 compared to US$352 million at September 30,
2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M0g5Xs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,056 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,056 pending asbestos-related claims as of December
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2020.

The Company states, "Of the 29,056 pending claims as of December
31, 2019, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.  We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/FKcfus


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. recorded Other Noncurrent Liabilities of US$1,060 million
related to asbestos matters as of December 31, 2019, according to
the press release issued by the Company on January 29, 2020,
announcing results for the fourth quarter of 2019.

A full-text copy of the Company's Press Release is available at
https://is.gd/D5tgj2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Obtains Morse TEC with Asbestos Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. announced in a press release dated January 28,
2020, that on October 30, 2019, the Company entered into a
definitive agreement with Enstar Holdings (US) LLC ("Enstar"), a
subsidiary of Enstar Group Limited, pursuant to which Enstar
acquired 100% of the equity interests of BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC
("Morse TEC"), a consolidated wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company that holds asbestos and certain other liabilities.

In connection with the closing, the Company recorded a pre-tax gain
of US$177 million.  The tax expense associated with this
transaction was US$173 million, resulting in a net after-tax gain
of US$4 million.

A full-text copy of the Company's Press Release, dated January 28,
2020, is available at https://is.gd/uFRD2u


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 8 Suits and Claims for $400K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company settled eight asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims for US$400,000 during the year ended November 30, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.  

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).  Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation.  However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.  

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow.  However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/QNtag2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $247MM Reserve at December 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that wholly-owned subsidiary
Hercules LLC's total reserves for asbestos claims were US$247
million at December 31, 2019 compared to US$252 million at
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.  As a result of the most recent annual update
of this estimate, completed during the June 2019 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be decreased by US$10 million.  Total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$247 million at December 31, 2019 compared to US$252
million at September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M0g5Xs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LlVeLK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 5,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of December 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,
2019.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2019, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 5,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of December 31, 2019, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$40.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$30.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$40.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.  The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2019, is in excess
of the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of December 31, 2019, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of US$40.0 million, which corresponds
to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LlVeLK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2019, that "currently there are a few thousand
claimants" in lawsuits that name the Company as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims.
Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.  But
in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with
our products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we
have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims.  We believe these
arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense
and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.  The uncertainties of
asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately
the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.  That uncertainty is
increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation
affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.
Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience
defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iFLzbJ



                            *********

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 ***