/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200212.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 31

                            Headlines

00WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement
11044 HARRYHINES: Underpays Dancers, Herrera Suit Alleges
113-117 REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Perdomo FLSA Suit Denied
500.COM LIMITED: Kahn Swick Notes of March 16 Plaintiff Deadline
ADEBCO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Smith Claims

ALL REVERSE: Whittaker Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls & Texts
ALL WEB LEADS: Bacon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ALLERGAN PLC: Subsidiaries Settle Antitrust Class Action Litigation
AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Warren Suit Over Decline in Share Price
AUSTIN STATE: Sexual Assault Case Can't Proceed as Class Action

AWP INC: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under OMFWSA, Green Says
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Mineral-Based Sunscreen Label
BIOTRADE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over "U-Dream Life" Sleep-Aid

BITFINEX: Two Law Firms Seek Interim Co-Lead Counsel Role
BOTANX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almazan Alleges
BRENNTAG NA: Buescher Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's Order on Bid for Protection
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: May 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

BURFORD CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Withdrawn by Plaintiffs
BURKE WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Minniear Alleges
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 'Racist Layoffs' Class Action Dismissed
CITY OF INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreira Suit Says

COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Insurance Premiums
CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
COSTCO: Judge Skeptical of Arguments in Seating Class Action
CULTURAL CARE: Misrepresents Costs of Hosting Au Pair, Ohen Says
CURO GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid

D&A SERVICES LLC: Bagby Disputes Collection Letter Validity
DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Scarantino Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal
EDDIE BAUER: Workplace Class Action Decertified
EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

FACEBOOK INC: Justices Won't Halt $35-Bil. Privacy Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Suit to E.D. Arkansas
FARMERS GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed
FIRST SAVINGS BANK: Becker Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
FIRST SOLAR: Settles Arizona Class Action for US$350 Million

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: March 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of March 2 Deadline
FRANKLIN LOAN: Berengut Seeks Fines Under PAGA Over Unpaid Wages
HARROW HEALTH: Gaukel Class Action Dismissed
HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Spam Calls for $2.4MM

JAKARTA: Lawyers, Flood Survivors Mull Class Action
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Scavone Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
JEROME H MEYER: Faces McNeil Suit Over Violation of Chicago RLTO
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Certification Bid
KRAFT FOOD: Must Face Commodities Traders' Class Action

LEADDOG MARKETING: Davies Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs
LENNAR INC: Treasure Island Residents File $2 Billion Class Action
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Gaston Suit
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Dismissal of Roof Coverage Class Action Upheld
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Conn.

LONGFIN CORP: Investors Seek Class Certification
LUSAMERICA FOODS: Brooke Seeks Unpaid OT and Final Pay
MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Gatica Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN: $25K Attorneys' Fees in Pentel Suit Awarded
MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Moussouris Affirmed

MINDGEEK HOLDING: Web Sites Not Accessible to Deaf, Suris Alleges
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
MYLAN NV: Bernstein Informs Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
NATIONAL PLAN: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Smith Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio

NEXUS HOLIDAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NYLL, Zhang Says
NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing
NOVARTIS AG: Enoxaparin-Related Class Suits Resolved
NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits
NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Rejects Second Amended Class Action
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
PATTERN ENERGY: Krieger Files Suit Over Canada Pension Merger Deal
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Mar. 16 Deadline
QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

RAPID LOGISTICS: Faces Gonzales Employment Suit in California
RBC BANK: April 22 Settlement Hearing Set in Overdraft Fee Suit
RESCARE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Diaz Claims
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Sabatini Suit Over ECI Acquisition
RING: Faces Class Action Over Home Security Camera Hacking

RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action in NY Over Massive Overcharges
SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to M.D. Fla.
SITE WORKS: Underpays Laborers, Cerda Suit Alleges
SM LAW PC: Debesay Hits Collection Letter Validity
STADION MONEY: Davis ERISA Suit Venue Moved to Nebraska District

STAR SNACKS: Class Action Says Cashew Nut Mix is Mostly Peanuts
STATE FARM: Settles Homeowners' Insurance Class Action for $8.5MM
STRANGE HONEY: Consumers File Fraud Class Action
TIME WARNER CABLE: Wage & Hour Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
TJX COMPANIES: Faces Migyanko ADA Suit Over Access Barriers

TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Settles Caterers' Class Action Over Tips
UKRAINIAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Firm File Suit Over Iran Crash
[*] Court Stays Class Action Against CBD Company Pending FDA Rules

                            *********

00WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Sat Narayan, et al., the
Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order taking Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under
advisement, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb.
5, 2020.

Ruling on Defendants' motions for judgment on pleadings is set for
March 19, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Status hearing set for Feb. 19, 2020
is stricken.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices
throughout the United States.[CC]

11044 HARRYHINES: Underpays Dancers, Herrera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA HERRERA aka VERONICA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 11044 HARRYHINES PC DE
CHICAS BONITAS; CHICAS BONITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and DALLAS
HALE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00042-K (N.D. Tex., Jan. 8,
2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Herrera was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

11044 Harryhines Pc De Chicas Bonitas operates a dance club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335

               - and -

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


113-117 REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Perdomo FLSA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIAN PERDOMO, on behalf of himself, FLSA collective
plaintiffs, and the class, Plaintiff, v. 113-117 REALTY, LLC,
DIRECT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, and LAWRENCE MAROLDA, Defendants,
Case No. 18 CV 9860 (VB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Perdomo brings the putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and putative class action under New York
labor laws, New York Labor Law and the Official Compilation of
Codes, Rules & Regulations of the State of New York, title 12
("NYLL"), against Defendants 113-117 Realty, Direct Property
Management, LLC, and Lawrence Marolda for unpaid compensation and
for violations of the wage and hour notice and wage statement
requirements.  The Plaintiff also brings retaliation claims under
the FLSA and the NYLL.

The Defendants own and operate building management companies that
service their clients' properties.  The Plaintiff was employed by
defendants as a maintenance and repair worker from July 2013 until
February 2018.  From July 2013 to December 2014, he was paid a
fixed salary of $425 per week.  From January 2015 to February 2018,
he was paid a fixed salary of $576 per week.

According to the Plaintiff, he was scheduled to work, and did work,
56 hours per week, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., from Mondays
through Fridays, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., on Saturdays, and
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays.  The Plaintiff alleges he
also worked at least an additional six hours per week, on top of
his scheduled 56 hours of work per week as a result of being on
call" at least three times per week until 7:00 p.m.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiff alleges he worked a total of 62 hours per week.

The Plaintiff also claims he was required to work without a lunch
break daily and worked ten or more hours the three weekdays he was
on call, without receiving spread of hours compensation.  Further,
he alleges that throughout his employment, the Defendants failed to
provide proper wage and hour notices, and wage statements.  He
insists the Defendants "did not maintain a system for tracking"
employees' "actual hours worked."

The Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment on Feb. 21,
2018.

On Oct. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit, alleging
violations of the FLSA and the NYLL.  Then on Jan. 15, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint bringing additional
claims for retaliation.  In response, the Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on Feb. 26, 2019.  The Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on March 21, 2019.  Thereafter, the Defendants filed the
instant motion to dismiss.

The Defendants argue the Court should disregard the second amended
complaint and instead refer to the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint because the second amended complaint is inconsistent with
teh Plaintiff's prior pleadings.  Judge Briccetti declines to do
so.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff (i) has adequately alleged
a retaliation claim under the FLSA; (ii) has adequately stated a
claim for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; (iii) has adequately
alleged an FLSA claim for failure to provide notice of employee
rights; (iv) has adequately alleged he is owed an additional hour
of compensation for each day he worked in excess of 10 hours; (v)
has stated a claim under the NYLL's wage and hour notice posting
requirement.; (vi) has adequately stated a claim under the NYLL's
wage statements requirement; and (vii) has plausibly alleged an
NYLL violation.

The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff cannot maintain any
federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims.  The Judge
holds that the Plaintiff has alleged plausible FLSA claims for
retaliation, and for failure to pay overtime and post notices.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims arise from a
common nucleus of operative fact, as required for the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction.  Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a), the Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear teh
Plaintiff's state law claims for unpaid compensation and other NYLL
violations.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Briccetti denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/v3WK4f from Leagle.com.

Julian Perdomo, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

113-117 Realty, LLC, Direct Property Management LLC & Lawrence
Marolda, Defendants, represented by Abraham Hamra --
info@hamralawgroup.com -- Sirotkin Varacalli & Hamra, LLP, Anthony
R. Portesy, Varacalli & Hamra, LLP & David Samuel Schwartz --
dsschwartz@wisc.edu -- Varacalli & Hamra LLP.


500.COM LIMITED: Kahn Swick Notes of March 16 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

500.com Limited (WBAI)
Class Period: 4/27/2018 - 12/31/2018
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wbai/   


If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]

ADEBCO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Smith Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTREESE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. ADEBCO, INC., a Tennessee For-Profit
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant violated the the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

While employed by ADEBCO, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours per work week during certain work weeks, but was not paid
overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 in some workweeks as required
by Section 207 of the FLSA, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for ADEBCO as a driver operating a dump truck
in Davidson County, Tennessee.

ADEBCO specializes in heavy civil construction projects and related
material supply and transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall W. Burton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL BURTON
          1222 16th Avenue, South, Suite 23
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 620-5838


ALL REVERSE: Whittaker Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls & Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Whittaker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. All Reverse Mortgage, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08016-DLR (D. Ariz., Jan. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls and text message calls
to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is the owner and customary user of the cellular
telephone number ending in 9679. In August 2019, the Plaintiff
received an unsolicited telephone call from ARM from the telephone
number (800) 565-1722.

The Plaintiff seeks to: stop the Defendant's practice of placing
telephone calls and text message calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system to cellular telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; enjoin ARM from
continuing to place unsolicited telemarketing telephone calls and
text message calls to consumers, who did not provide prior express
written consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.

All Reverse is a reverse mortgage lender company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E, Baseline Road, Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone (480) 833-1001
          E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

               - and -

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


ALL WEB LEADS: Bacon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Bacon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. All Web Leads, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00043, (W.D. Tex., January 14, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
and statutory damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

All Web Leads delivers consumers or leads to its insurance industry
customers. They generate leads by placing telemarketing calls to
consumers who might be interested in purchasing insurance, and then
transferring those calls to customers of All Web Leads, who are
typically insurance agents. Bacon did not give his expressed
consent to be contacted using an auto-dialer. He is on the national
Do-Not-Call Registry, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com
             leigh@hughesellzey.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Subsidiaries Settle Antitrust Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that Allergan plc (AGN) announced that its Warner
Chilcott and Watson subsidiaries have reached resolutions with all
plaintiffs, including a class of direct purchasers, individual
direct purchasers that previously opted out of the direct purchaser
class, and a class of indirect purchasers of Loestrin 24 Fe and
Minastrin 24 Fe.

This concluded the previously disclosed antitrust litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The
settlements make no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the
company and resolve the litigation that was scheduled to go to
trial on January 6, 2020.

Warner Chilcott and Watson will pay approximately $300 million
under the settlement agreements. The settlements are subject to
court approval of the agreements with the direct and indirect
purchaser classes.

The company will take a pre-tax GAAP charge of approximately $300
million to its fourth quarter 2019 earnings. [GN]


AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Warren Suit Over Decline in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW L. WARREN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., TERRY BOOTH, STEPHEN
DOBLER, GLEN IBBOTT, CAMERON BATTLEY, MICHAEL SINGER and JASON
DYCK, Case No. 2:20-cv-00555 (D.N.J., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Aurora securities between Oct. 23,
2018, and Jan. 6, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Class Period begins on October 23, 2018, when Aurora shares
began trading on the NYSE. In the days leading up to the start of
the Class Period, the Defendants artificially inflated the trading
price of Aurora securities by issuing false and misleading
statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to
make the Defendants' statements not misleading, the Plaintiff
asserts.

Leading up to and during the Class Period, the Plaintiff contends,
Aurora engaged in an aggressive expansion strategy, building
production capacity internally and through acquisitions and
investments and launching  operations in jurisdictions around the
world, including most notably the European market.

On January 6, 2020, media reports stated that the Company had
listed its nine-hectare greenhouse in Exeter, Ontario, for sale for
$17 million. Aurora had obtained the greenhouse as part of its $3.2
billion acquisition of MedReleaf Corp. in 2018. Analysts
immediately connected the move as implying that significant
write-downs could be on the horizon.

Following these revelations, the price of Aurora common stock
declined again. On January 6, 2020, Aurora's share price fell $0.19
per share, from an open of $2.02 per share on January 6, 2020, to a
close of $1.83 per share on January 7, 2020, or nearly 10%.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff contends that he and the Class purchased Aurora
securities at artificially inflated prices, suffered significant
losses and were damaged thereby.

Aurora is a manufacturer and distributor of cannabis products based
in Canada. Aurora's common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "ACB." The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973/994-1700
          Facsimile: 973/994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631/367-7100
          Facsimile: 631/367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


AUSTIN STATE: Sexual Assault Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Texas federal judge has recommended not to
allow a suit accusing Austin State Hospital of inadequately dealing
with sexual assault to move forward as a class action, finding that
there wasn't evidence to support certification even though the
claims were "especially egregious and horrific." [GN]


AWP INC: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under OMFWSA, Green Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAYNETTA GREEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. AWP, INC., Case No. CV-20-927947 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga
Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and other drivers for time spent driving AWP vehicles
and transporting the Defendant's tools, equipment, and partners to
and from worksites, in violation to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she was employed by the Defendant and
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks without overtime
pay.

The Defendant provides temporary work zone operations, including
traffic control activities and flagging at worksites throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #:
3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al.,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, and the Houston Municipal Employees
Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 and that as a result the Company's statements
regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its
financial statements, were false and misleading.

On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief, the Company has filed its answering brief and argument in
the appeal from dismissal was held.

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
court decision in the case, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al., remains pending.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that
differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.

On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief and the Company filed its answering brief, on May 8, 2019.

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

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Mineral-Based Sunscreen Label
---------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that the companies behind
the Coppertone line of sunscreens have been hit with a lawsuit
claiming they misled consumers into buying products labeled as
mineral-based that actually contained a significant proportion of
chemical active ingredients.

The lawsuit filed last month in federal court in the Northern
District of California claims that consumers were misled to pay
more for the "mineral-based" products amid growing concern about
the potential adverse health effects of chemical-based sunscreens,
whose active ingredients can penetrate the skin and enter the
bloodstream.

The suit claims that the defendants, including Bayer HealthCare,
skincare company Beiersdorf and parent companies and subsidiaries
affiliated with the two companies, made "a calculated business
decision to put profits over people" in how they marketed
Coppertone WaterBabies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Stick; Coppertone
WaterBabies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; Coppertone Kids
Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; and Coppertone Sport Face
Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion.

"Defendants have done so at the expense of unwitting consumers --
many of whom seek to protect their babies and children -- and
defendants' lawfully acting competitors, over whom defendants have
an unfair competitive advantage," wrote the plaintiffs lawyers at
Los Angeles' Clarkson Law Firm and Palo Alto's Moon Law.

The lawsuit brings claims under the state's unfair competition law,
false advertising law, and consumer remedies act on behalf of a
proposed class of California consumers who've purchased the
products over the past four years. The suit also seeks to certify a
nationwide class and California subclass to pursue claims that the
companies breached an express warranty to provide a mineral-based
product and to pursue claims of unjust enrichment. The suit also
seeks an injunction barring further promotion of the Coppertone
products as "mineral-based."

A representative from Beiersdorf said the company cannot comment on
pending litigation. A from Bayer Healthcare didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment. Shireen Clarkson of the Clarkson
Law Firm wasn't immediately available for comment.

In September 2019, Bayer AG sold the Coppertone brand, including
the accused products, for $550 million to Beiersdorf AG. [GN]


BIOTRADE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over "U-Dream Life" Sleep-Aid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer, writing for BIV, reports that a B.C. truck driver is
suing supplement manufacturer Biotrade Canada Ltd., claiming in a
class action that the company's now-recalled "U-Dream Life"
sleep-aid product gave him a heart attack that put him out of
work.

James Ruckman filed a notice of civil claim under the Class
Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on December 23. According to
the claim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sounded the alarm
about Biotrade's over-the-counter sleep-aid product when lab tests
showed it contained substances "structurally similar" to those
found in prescription sedatives, including zopiclone. Days later,
Health Canada issued an advisory warning consumers that U-Dream
products "may pose serious health risks."

Zopiclone, according to the advisory, can cause dependence and
abuse with side effects including "hallucinations, and abnormal
sleep behaviours while not fully awake including sleep driving."

"The Defendant has advised consumers to avoid U-Dream while it
conducts its own tests, saying it doesn't know how the compound
made its way into samples that were tested," the claim states.

Ruckman, 57, claims he bought U-Dream at a Burnaby Whole Foods in
September 2019, and took it for 10 nights straight until he
suffered a heart attack on September 30, after which he was
hopitalized for 12 days. He claims he has since lost his job as a
truck driver and lost his licence.

"The Defendant caused the drug to be introduced into the stream of
commerce in Canada, and it knew that any dangers of adverse effects
related to the drug would cause foreseeable injury to the Plaintiff
and Class Members," the claim states.

Ruckman seeks class certification and damages for negligence,
failure to warn, unjust enrichment, battery, and violations of the
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and
Biotrade Canada had not filed a response to the claim by press
time. [GN]


BITFINEX: Two Law Firms Seek Interim Co-Lead Counsel Role
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Roche Freedman LLP and Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP told a New York federal court they
should be appointed interim co-lead counsel for a blockbuster
proposed class action against Bitfinex and Tether seeking more than
$1.4 trillion in damages for bitcoin market manipulation claims.
[GN]

BOTANX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almazan Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ANALI ALMAZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOTANX, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01122459-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., Jan. 8, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Almazan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Botanx was founded in 2005. The Company manufactures perfumes,
cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Kelsey L. Kuberka, 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
                  kkuberka@toddflaw.com


BRENNTAG NA: Buescher Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANT BUESCHER; CLARENCE IANNINE; CLARESSA WALLACE; and CRAIG
COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.; MARKUS KLAHN; BRENNTAG INVESTMENT AND
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; DIETER WOEHRLE; DONOVAN MATTOLE; and JOHN DOES
1-30, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00147 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 8, 2020)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that on January 8, 2014 to
the present, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Brenntag USA
Profit Sharing Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by  (1)
failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. To
make matters worse, Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost
share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or
separate accounts (at least for the majority of the Class Period)
as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their
lower fees.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. Their actions were
contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and
its participants millions of dollars.

Brenntag North America, Inc distributes chemicals globally. It
serves adhesives, coatings, elastomers, sealants, ceramics, and
chemical compounding. The Company has subsidiaries across the US.
Brenntag North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Brenntag
AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's Order on Bid for Protection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 25, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's order on its motion for protection filed in
the class action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR

On May 12, 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter. Based on the
investigation of its third-party forensic experts, the company
believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by
the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the
company believes in each case began no earlier than March 21, 2018
and ended no later than April 22, 2018.

The company expects to incur legal and professional services
expenses associated with the cyber security incident in future
periods, which could be material. The company will recognize these
expenses as services are received. Related to this incident,
payment card companies and associations may request the company to
reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace
cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the
cyber security incident, and regulatory authorities may also impose
fines or other remedies against the company.

While the company do not acknowledge responsibility to pay any such
amounts imposed by any third parties, the company may become
obligated to pay such amounts or incur significant related
settlement costs. The company had settled claims from two payment
card companies, and the settlement amounts are included in the
costs. The company will record an estimate for any additional
losses at the time when it is both probable that a loss has been
incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.

To limit the company's exposure to cyber security events, the
company maintains cyber liability insurance coverage. This coverage
and certain other insurance coverage may reduce its exposure for
this incident. The company's cyber liability insurance policy
contains a $2.0 million retention that was fully accrued during
fiscal 2018. Since the incident, through December 25, 2019, the
company had incurred total costs of $4.3 million related to the
cyber security incident.

This includes the $2.0 million retention recorded in fiscal 2018,
an additional $0.4 million during fiscal 2019 for expenses not
believed to be covered by our insurance coverage recorded to Other
(gains) and charges in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive
Income (Unaudited), $1.0 million in costs that have been reimbursed
by our insurance carriers, and $0.9 million of receivable for costs
incurred that we believe are reimbursable and probable of recovery
under the company's insurance coverage.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No.
18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR relating to the cyber security incident.

In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from
the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs. On January 4, 2019, the
company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims
asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the lawsuit
and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.

Following completion of briefing by the parties, the court
conducted a hearing on the company's motion on June 24, 2019. On
August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss
for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as
to the remaining plaintiffs.

The court deferred its ruling on the company's argument that
plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted
pending further briefing. On August 16, 2019, the parties filed
their Joint Notice of Choice of Law Briefing Preference.

The Company represented that it is ready to move forward with
briefing, but plaintiffs claimed that they require a significant
amount of additional discovery before briefing can commence. On
November 11, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Protection
seeking to limit the scope of some of plaintiffs' discovery
requests.

On November 12, 2019, the court issued an order indicating that it
would move forward with its ruling on the company's Motion to
Dismiss without further briefing. It also stayed all pending
discovery and depositions.

Plaintiffs filed their response to the company's Motion for
Protection on December 6, 2019 and the company now awaits the
Court's order.

Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue
defending the Litigation. As such, as of December 25, 2019, we have
concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable,
therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the
Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new
information as it becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: May 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Law Group disclosed that a class action has been
authorized on behalf of all Canadians who took ABILIFY(R) before
February 23, 2017 and developed one or more of the following
alleged Impulse-Control Disorders: PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING,
COMPULSIVE EATING/BINGE EATING, COMPULSIVE SHOPPING OR SPENDING
and/or HYPERSEXUAL BEHAVIOURS/SEXUAL ADDICTION.

The representative plaintiff alleges that ABILIFY(R) causes the
above Impulse-Control Disorders and that the defendants,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. and Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical
Inc., gave inadequate warnings about this risk.

The Court has not yet decided whether the defendants have committed
a fault, and the claims have not yet been proven in court.
However, if you are included in the class action, your rights may
be impacted. If you wish to remain a class member, you have nothing
to do. If you wish to opt out, you have until May 31st, 2020 to
advise Class Counsel (identified below) and the clerk of the
Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, at 1 Notre Dame
Street East, Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6, by registered mail. Please
make sure to include file no. 500-06-000831-160 in your
correspondence.

You may request a copy of the long version of this notice or simply
visit the website below.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Class Counsel

Consumer Law Group Inc.
1030 rue Berri, Suite 102
Montreal (Quebec) H2L 4C3

abilify@clg.org  
(514) 266-7863
1-888-909-7863

www.clg.org
Central Registry of Class Actions
www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/en#

Scheer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. et al., No.
500-06-000831-160 (District of Montreal)

This notice has been authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec.
[GN]


BURFORD CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Withdrawn by Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huw Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that litigation funder
Burford Capital said that a U.S. securities class action lawsuit
against the company filed in August last year has been withdrawn by
the plaintiffs and dismissed.

The lawsuit had been filed by purchasers of securities in the
company, seeking to recover damages under U.S. laws.

"There is no litigation pending against Burford at present other
than ordinary course skirmishing within a small number of ongoing
funded investment schemes," Burford said in a statement.

The company had been accused of misrepresenting or failing to
disclose signs of adverse trading conditions in annual reports
dating back to 2014.

U.S. short-selling firm Muddy Waters took a short position in
Burford Capital in August, its first foray into a London-listed
company. News of the trade saw shares in Burford slip by more than
40%.

It also announced management changes, saying that Aviva Will and
David Perla will become co-chief operating officers, with Craig
Arnott as deputy chief investment officer, with Christopher Bogart
remaining as CEO.

Burford reiterated plans to either add a U.S. listing on the New
York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq -- which would not involve issuing
new equity -- or move its London listing to the main London Stock
Exchange market. [GN]


BURKE WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Minniear Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY MINNIEAR, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other
aggrieved employees, and the general public v. BURKE WILLIAMS,
INC., a California corporation; BW SUPPLIES, LLC, a California
limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV02154 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16,
2020), challenges the Defendants' employment practices of denying
earned wages, including overtime pay, failing to provide legally
compliant meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide necessary
protective gear to their non­exempt hourly workers employed in the
State of California, in violation to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants require their employees
to be present and perform work in excess of eight hours per day
and/or 40 hours per 12 work week, but fail to pay them overtime
wages. The Defendants also fail to pay the non-exempt employees for
all straight time hours that they worked.

The Defendants also require the employees to perform work tasks
during unpaid breaks, fail to provide meal and rest breaks, fail to
timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to
properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned,
hours worked, and wage rates, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff
adds that the Defendants fail to provide and prohibit the use of
gloves by the employees when providing customers with foot
massages, leading to an unhealthy and unsafe work environment.

Burke Williams is a luxury day spa with 11 locations throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 221-2800
          Facsimile: (818) 221-2900
          E-mail: armand@kizirianlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com

               - and -

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com


CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING HOLDINGS, LLC; CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE
BREWING PENNSYLVANIA HOLDINGS, LLC; IRON HILL BREWERY, LLC; KEVIN
FINN, MARK EDELSON, KEVIN DAVIES, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02184-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an Order:

   1. granting certification of a proposed Class consisting of:

      "all Servers who work/worked at any one or more of
      Defendants' Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant locations in
      the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23"; and

   2. granting issuance of Notice to all members of the
      proposed Class.

Chesapeake & Delaware was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes holding or owning securities of companies other
than banks.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff are:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brady, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                  mbrady@carlsonlynch.com

CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 'Racist Layoffs' Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nader Issa, writing for the Chicago Sun Times, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a 2012 class action lawsuit against
Chicago Public Schools that alleged discriminatory layoffs, finding
the district's procedures to be "reasonable and practical," not
racist.

The suit was filed more than seven years ago by the Chicago
Teachers Union with class action status on behalf of 630 black
educators who were among 1,470 CPS employees laid off in the summer
of 2011.

The union argued the layoffs disproportionately hurt teachers of
color at schools on the city's South and West sides -- ones with
the steepest declines in enrollment -- since a higher proportion of
the district's black teachers were laid off than white ones.

CPS said it determined layoffs based on falling school enrollment;
if a school lost students, it didn't need as many teachers
regardless of the racial makeup of the school, where in the city it
was located or who worked there, the district argued.

Despite a slight uptick in district-wide enrollment that year, CPS
had lost 7.6% of its students since 2001 and 25.2% of its black
students.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso in throwing out the suit earlier
this month dismissed the notion that there were alternative, less
discriminatory ways to pick the employees who would get pink slips.
And if there were, he said the CTU failed to show any.

"The layoffs were not the product of intentional discrimination;
rather, they were the product of a regular bureaucratic process by
which the number of positions and amount of funding allocated to
particular schools dropped when the schools' enrollment dropped,"
Alonso wrote, describing that process as "reasonable and
practical."

The judge said the layoffs were tied directly to the
enrollment-based system and not at all to a $724-million budget
deficit facing schools officials.

Alonso did, however, acknowledge that the layoffs adversely
impacted the group in question. He disagreed with a CPS argument
that things turned out fine for the 335 black educators who found
full-time jobs at new schools, as well as others who became
substitute teachers or retired, writing that "the fact remains that
their positions were closed and the onus was on them to secure new
ones." He simply decided CPS had no other choice.

CTU Vice President Stacy Davis Gates said the fact that the judge
realized educators of color were hurt by the layoffs but declining
black enrollment gave the district minimal options showed a wider,
citywide problem.

"The mayor has control of economic development, public schools and
public housing," Davis Gates said. "Of course you're going to have
as situation where you won't have black and brown students on the
South and West sides if you tear down all their housing and don't
replace it with something affordable."

CTU spokesman Ronnie Reese added that the union will appeal the
judge's decision, "and we dare Mayor Lori Lightfoot and CPS CEO
Janice Jackson to allow Donald Trump's federal court system to
decide if black educators -- who look just like them -- should be
able to work in Chicago's public schools."

Judge Alonso was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

CPS spokeswoman Emily Bolton said in a statement that "the
district's strength lies in its diversity, and we will continue to
aggressively work to promote teacher and staff diversity in our
schools. After an extensive review of records, facts, and the law,
the Court agreed that the CTU's case lacked merit."

The teaching ranks in CPS are currently 50.4% white, 21.2% Latino
and 20.7% black. [GN]

CITY OF INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreira Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISA MOREIRA, as an Individual, and On Behalf of Herself and
Other Aggrieved Employees, and On Behalf of the General Public as
Private Attorneys General v. CITY OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALITY VENTURE,
LLC, a California business organization; THE SPEARMINT RHINO
COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., a California business organization, and
DOES 1 through 250, Case No. 20STCV02158 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest breaks
and to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and similarly aggrieved employees
were denied their meal and rest breaks and were not paid for
overtime hours worked. She adds that they were also subjected to
inaccurate timekeeping, which resulted in inaccurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed jointly by both Defendants as an
entertainer and began working July 16, 2018, until April 3, 2019.

City of Industry Hospitality Venture operates night clus in
California. Spearmint Rhino is a chain of strip clubs that operates
venues throughout the United States, United Kingdom, and
Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neama Rahmani, Esq.
          Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
          Melineh Kasbarian
          WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 927-3700
          Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
          E-mail: efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                  ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                  melineh@w estcoasttriallawyers.com


COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Insurance Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Horswill, writing for Canstar, reports that a class action
has been filed against Colonial First State Investments Limited,
alleging the Commonwealth Bank subsidiary "tipped" its super
members into an allied provider that charged "excessive" insurance
premiums, eroding away retirement savings in fees. The case could
apply to more than 700,000 customers.

Shine Lawyers filed the action in the Federal Court, alleging that
Colonial First State Investments Limited "tipped its members into
policies with the bank's insurance arm CommInsure", a move they
claim was not in their customers' best interests. Colonial First
State Investments Limited is the superannuation provider to the
country's largest bank, the Commonwealth Bank.

"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," Shine's Class Actions Practice Leader
Rebecca Jancauskas said.

"Many of these people are approaching retirement and now their nest
egg has shrunk as a result of the conduct of Colonial First State
Investments Limited."

Ms. Jancauskas said applying the insurance policies to the
customers' accounts was "not in their best interests as
substantially similar or better policies with cheaper premiums were
available through other providers".

"This appears to have been a mutually beneficial arrangement that
had the effect of putting profits ahead of people," she said.

A Colonial First State spokesperson said that the company was
"reviewing the claim and will provide an update in due course".

One of Shine's clients, David Stuart, said he had "spent hundreds
of dollars" on the insurance as part of his super.

"I haven't seen any money from that insurance when I tried to make
a claim," Mr. Stuart told Shine. "It has taken valuable dollars out
of my superannuation when I am already doing it tough.  In a class
action, we all have a chance at having the money we paid, back in
our pockets. It doesn't belong with the banks."

Woodsford Litigation Funding is funding the action. Charlie Morris,
the organisation's Chief Investment Officer, said a class action
"was the best way to deliver justice for those overcharged for
insurance".

"Many customers may have lost a few thousand dollars, which would
not ordinarily be enough to warrant launching individual court
actions," Mr. Morris said.

Shine Lawyers said the class action, filed in the Federal Court in
Victoria on January 22, was open to members of the following
superannuation funds:

1. FirstChoice Personal Super and Pension
2. FirstChoice Wholesale Personal Super and Pension
3. FirstChoice Employer Super
4. Commonwealth Essential Super

Additionally, members of the above funds must have held life
insurance and/or total and permanent disability insurance with
CommInsure between January 2014 and January 2020.

National Australia Bank's super trustees MLC Nominees and NULIS are
also facing a class action, after Maurice Blackburn filed a lawsuit
today, January 22, alleging they had breached the law by failing to
transfer an estimated 330,000 members into lower-cost MySuper
products in a timely fashion. [GN]

CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Correvio Pharma Corporation ("Correvio" or the "Company")
(CORV) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court, for the Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 19-cv-11361, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Correvio securities between October 23, 2018 and December 5, 2019,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Correvio securities during
the class period, you have until February 10, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Correvio is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in
developing therapeutics worldwide. The Company's portfolio of
marketed brands comprise, among others, vernakalant IV, or
Brinavess, for the rapid conversion of recent onset atrial
fibrillation ("AF") to sinus rhythm.

Earlier during Brinavess's development, safety concerns led the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to decline approval for
Brinavess after a patient with no apparent heart issues had died
after being administered the drug during one of its clinical
trials. The FDA then mandated a clinical hold on the Brinavess
program, which remains in effect in the U.S. Correvio's SEC filings
would later characterize the patient death that precipitated the
clinical hold as "a single unexpected serious adverse event of
cardiogenic shock experienced by a patient with AF who received
vernakalant (IV)."

On October 23, 2018, Correvio announced its intention to resubmit a
New Drug Application ("NDA") for Brinavess to the FDA for recent
onset AF (the "Resubmitted NDA"), which followed additional
purported safety data the Company had accumulated, as well as
discussions with the FDA regarding the drug's potential regulatory
path forward. The Company later announced on July 25, 2019, that
the FDA had accepted the Resubmitted NDA.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data supporting the
Resubmitted NDA for Brinavess did not minimize the significant
health and safety issues observed in connection with the drug's
original NDA; (ii) the foregoing substantially diminished the
likelihood that the FDA would approve the Resubmitted NDA; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 6, 2019, FDA staffers reviewing Brinavess announced
that they did not believe that the drug's benefits outweighed its
risks. Specifically, the FDA noted that Brinavess was associated
with "serious liabilities" including low blood pressure, irregular
heartbeats in the lower heart chambers, and death.

On this news, Correvio's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
39.81%, to close at $1.30 per share on December 6, 2019.

Then, on December 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, the Nasdaq
Stock Market ("NASDAQ") suspended trading in Correvio securities in
anticipation of the FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee's ("RDAC") review and discussion of the Resubmitted NDA.
Finally, just before market-close that day, the RDAC voted 11-2
against approval of the Resubmitted NDA, noting that Brinavess's
benefit-risk profile was not adequate to support approval.

Following this news, and after Correvio shares resumed trading on
the NASDAQ, Correvio's stock price fell $0.94 per share, or 67%, to
close at $0.46 per share on December 11, 2019, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and
Los Angeles, 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 [GN]


COSTCO: Judge Skeptical of Arguments in Seating Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Ninth Circuit judge appeared skeptical on
Jan. 6 of Costco's arguments that a worker who dropped class claims
over unprovided seating can't proceed with her Private Attorneys
General Act claim on behalf of other workers, calling Costco's
arguments circular and very bizarre. [GN]



CULTURAL CARE: Misrepresents Costs of Hosting Au Pair, Ohen Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEREE OHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., Case No. 20-163 (Mass. Super.,
Jan. 16, 2020), seeks damages arising out of Cultural Care's unfair
and deceptive representation relating to the actual cost of hosting
an au pair.

According to the complaint, Cultural Care intentionally mislead its
host families about the actual cost of hosting an au pair to
continue to reap millions of dollars in fees Cultural Care took
from the au pairs and the host families.

Despite pleas from the host families and imploring by the
Massachusetts Attorney General, Cultural Care has refused to take
responsibility for the au pairs' wages and the exorbitant fees it
charged host families, says the complaint.

Between 2015 and 2019, Cultural Care continued to advertise its au
pair program primarily on the selling point that host families
could obtain 45 hours per week of in-home childcare by paying a
$195.75 "stipend" to the au pairs. The Plaintiff alleges that
Cultural Care never advised its host families that they were
responsible for additional wages, or that they may be liable for
back wages and exposure to liability under the Massachusetts Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff was contracted with the Defendant to host an
international au pair.

Cultural Care is one of only fifteen J-1 visa au pair program
sponsors designated by the U.S. Department of State to recruit,
train, place and supervise au pairs for fees charged to host
families in the United States.[BN]


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

If you suffered a loss as a result of CURO's misconduct, visit
https://www.robbinsllp.com/curo-group-holdings-jan-20/

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

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

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

Contact the firm to learn more:

         Leo Kandinov
         Robbins LLP
         Tel: (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click
Here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage
in wrongdoing. [GN]

D&A SERVICES LLC: Bagby Disputes Collection Letter Validity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaniece Bagby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. D&A Services, LLC, Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No 15 LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00237 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2020) seeks actual damages,
statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collectors who attempted to collect an
obligation allegedly incurred by Bagby via collection letter. Bagby
claims that said letter left out the requirement that a consumer
must dispute the debt in writing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1501 Rydal Rd.
      Rydal, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule B

PRE-APPROVAL NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES CANADA INC. (ALSO KNOWN AS TD
AUTO FINANCE SERVICES) LOST DATA TAPE CLASS ACTION

500-06-000615-126

www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca

PROCEEDINGS

On January 19, 2015, the Honourable Louis Lacoursiere of the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action brought by the
Plaintiff Belley on behalf of "all persons in Canada whose personal
information was stored or saved on a DaimlerChrysler Financial
Services Canada Inc. Data Tape which was lost while in transit on
or about March 12, 2008". A Settlement Agreement was recently
reached between the parties, which is subject to the approval of
the Superior Court of Quebec.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Settlement provides that Daimler Financial Services Canada Inc.
now known as TD Auto Finance Services ("TD Auto"), without
admission of liability, will pay a maximum capped amount of
$175,000.00 CAD which will be used to pay those Class Members who
suffered an actual and direct loss caused by the loss of the Data
Tape. The Settlement further provides for the payment of an
indemnity to Class Members for time spent dealing with any type of
Substantiated Loss and who submit a verified and approved
Substantiated Claim up to a maximum of two (2) hours of Lost Time,
calculated at a rate of $20.00 CAD per hour, for each category of
approved Substantiated Claim.

In addition, TD Auto will pay: 1) the fees of the Claims
Administrator up to a maximum total cap of $75,000.00 CAD; 2) the
cost related to the notices sent to Class Members up to a maximum
cap of $75,000.00 CAD; 3) Class Counsel's fees, costs and expenses,
in the amount of $150,000.00 CAD plus taxes, as well as 4) the
Class Plaintiff's claim in the amount of $5,000.00 CAD.  None of
these amounts will affect or reduce the amount payable to Class
Members for Substantiated Claims.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Pre-Approval Order, and
other related documentation is available online at
www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca.

AM I A CLASS MEMBER?

You are a Class Member if you are a resident of Canada whose
personal information was stored or saved on the Data Tape that was
lost while in transit on or about March 12, 2008.  You may have
been notified of this incident in writing on or about March 27,
2008, or in February of 2016.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

If you are a Class Member, you have the following two (2) options:

1.  If you do not wish to contest the approval of the Settlement
Agreement you have nothing to do for the time being. If the
Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, you will then have
to submit a valid Claim Form before the expiry of the Claim Period
in order to obtain compensation for your losses which will be
verified by the Claims Administrator; or

2.  Contest or comment on the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
To object to or comment on the Settlement Agreement, you must
deliver a written objection explaining the reasons for your
objection / your comments by no later than February 12, 2020.

Explanations, deadlines and details regarding the process of
objecting to the Settlement are set out in the Settlement Agreement
and on the Settlement Website at
www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRE-APPROVAL HEARING

A hearing during which the Court will be called upon to approve the
Settlement Agreement, has been set on February 27, 2020 at the
Montreal Courthouse, 1 Notre-Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec,
H2Y 1B6, in room 15.07 at 9:30 a.m. EST.

At this hearing, the Court will hear any objection(s)/comments
raised by Class Members with respect to the proposed Settlement
Agreement, in accordance with the deadlines and procedure set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.

If you are a Class Member and do not object to the Settlement, you
do NOT have to do anything and you do NOT have to attend the
Settlement Approval Hearing.

HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM?

If the Settlement is approved, a further Notice will be issued
which will identify and explain how Class Members can submit a
claim.

HOW DO I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION?

For more information, please contact:

Court appointed Claims Administrator
Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
DaimlerChrysler Financial Lost Data Tape
Class Action Settlement
P.O. Box 507 STN B
Ottawa ON K1P 5P6
1-833-414-8040
info@ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca
www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca

Class Counsel

Lex Group Inc.
4101 Sherbrooke Street West
Westmount QC H3Z 1A7
514-451-5500
info@lexgroup.ca
www.lexgroup.ca

Please note that in case of any discrepancy between the terms of
this Notice and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the
Settlement Agreement shall prevail. Any term not defined in this
Pre- Approval Notice shall have the meaning ascribed in the
Settlement Agreement.

The publication of this Notice has been ordered by the Superior
Court of Quebec. [GN]


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Scarantino Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN GRIFFIN,
PHILIP R. HAGERMAN, BENJAMIN WOLIN, REGINA BENJAMIN, DAVID C.
DREYER, KENNETH KLEPPER, SHAWN C. TOMASELLO, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, and DENALI MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00066-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc.
will be acquired by affiliates of OptumRx, Inc.

On December 9, 2019, Diplomat's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"),
and Denali Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of
Diplomat's outstanding common stock for $4.00 per share in cash.
The Tender Offer was set to expire on February 7, 2020.

On January 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading; hence, the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d),
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Solicitation Statement.

The Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Diplomat common stock.

Diplomat, through its specialty pharmacy and infusion services,
helps people with complex and chronic health conditions in all
fifty states and Washington, D.C., partnering with payers,
providers, hospitals, and manufacturers. The Individual Defendants
are directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


EDDIE BAUER: Workplace Class Action Decertified
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
recently decertified a workplace class action, recognizing that
"[e]ven after a certification order is entered," a court "remains
free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the
litigation."

In Heredia v. Eddie Bauer, the plaintiffs were hourly retail store
employees who alleged unpaid wages for time spent in connection
with their employer's policy of performing "bag checks" or
"security inspections" when employees left the store. The court had
previously certified the class under Rule 23, but reversed course
after discovery and an expert "time and motion" study revealed that
"the class members did not experience a uniform policy of
off-the-clock exit inspections."

The plaintiff employee testified at her deposition that all
employees underwent security inspections after they clocked out.
There was no dispute that the employer's written policies were
"silent on whether the employees must clock out before or after
undergoing the required security inspections," and according to the
court, the defendant employer had presented no evidence of security
checks being conducted "on-the-clock." Based on the limited record
available to the court at the time, the court certified a class of
all California hourly retail store employees under Rule 23,
identifying two questions common to the class: whether the employer
had a policy and practice to mandate that security checks be
performed off-the-clock and, if so, whether the time employees
spent undergoing security checks is compensable as wages.

After the court's certification decision, the parties conducted
additional discovery, including expert discovery and representative
discovery from a sample of class members.

Expert evidence: The employer's expert conducted a "time and
motion" study, observing nearly 1,500 hours of video footage of
employees. The expert evidence demonstrated that between 60 and 80
percent of the security inspections took place on the clock.

Testimonial evidence: The parties also stipulated what they agreed
was a representative sample of class members to be deposed. The
defendant employer's summary of those depositions demonstrated that
more than 50 percent of the security inspections took place on the
clock.

Based on the "significantly developed" record, the court concluded
that the security inspections for the majority of class members
took place on the clock. The court found that its prior conclusion
regarding the typicality of the named plaintiff's claims was "no
longer supported by the record." Without a uniform policy, the
court also found that the class was not ascertainable, holding that
"it is impossible to know, without individualized inquiries, which
employees have undergone exit inspections off the clock and were
subjected to uncompensated time."

Thus, the "the question of whether all class members were subject
to off-the-clock exit inspections resulting in uncompensated time
cannot be resolved in one stroke," and decertification was
warranted. Given the variability in the testimony of class members,
the court found that "numerous mini trials" would be necessary to
"decide whether each employee experienced uncompensated exit
inspections," making class treatment inappropriate.

Ultimately, the court held that "based on the current record, the
class as certified does not satisfy the Rule 23 requirements," and
decertified the class. The court noted that had it known there was
no single uniform policy in place mandating security inspections
off the clock, "[i]t is doubtful that the Court would have
certified the class" in the first place.

The Heredia decision is a useful reminder that while significant,
class certification is not necessarily the end of a rigorous class
action defense – especially where a plaintiff moves for class
certification before the conclusion of discovery. Moreover, the
decision reiterates the strategic benefits of expert evidence
(including "time and motion" studies) for defeating class
certification, especially when coupled with a plan to amass
admissions during discovery. [GN]

EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (EXC) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and docketed under 19-cv-08209, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon
securities between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Exelon securities during the
class period, you have until February 14, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy
generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. and Canada.

Exelon owns various "Utility Registrants" that are regulated by
State utility commissions, including, among other entities,
Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"). ComEd's parent company is Exelon
Utilities.

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

On July 15, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon and
ComEd had "received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production
of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of
Illinois."

Then, on October 9, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed
another Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that,
on October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "received a second grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois that requires production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities, including
Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval." That Current Report also
disclosed that, as far back as "[o]n June 21, 2019, the Exelon
Corporation Board formed a Special Oversight Committee, consisting
solely of independent directors, to oversee [Exelon and ComEd's]
cooperation and compliance with the subpoena, any further action
taken by the U.S. Attorney and any resulting actions that may be
required or recommended."

On October 15, 2019, shortly before the market closed, Exelon
issued a press release announcing the abrupt departure of Anne
Pramaggiore ("Pramaggiore"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of
Exelon Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd. The Company's
statement on Pramaggiore's retirement offered no reason for her
departure, but analysts following the Company came to the
conclusion that the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt
resignation were related.

On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%,
to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019.

Then, on October 31, 2019, during intraday trading, Exelon filed a
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, disclosing that "[o]n
October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities."

On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.17 per share, or 2.51%,
to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019.

Finally, on November 1, 2019, after the market opened, the Chicago
Tribune reported that "[a] source with knowledge of the case in
Chicago" confirmed that "Pramaggiore is one focus of the ongoing
federal investigation." According to the same article, "[t]he ComEd
lobbying investigation dates to at least mid-May, when the FBI
executed search warrants at the homes of former lobbyist Mike
McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of House Speaker Michael
Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski" (emphasis
added). Additionally, "[t]he information sought by the FBI included
records of communications among Madigan, McClain and Zalewski about
attempts to obtain ComEd lobbying work for Zalewski."

On this news, Exelon's stock price fell an additional $0.15 per
share to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019--a total
decline of 2.83% since the initial announcement of the SEC
investigation.

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. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Justices Won't Halt $35-Bil. Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2020, denied Facebook's last-ditch
effort to derail a $35 billion class action claiming the company
harvested millions of users' facial data without consent.

The Supreme Court's denial means a trial initially scheduled to
start in July 2018 will soon be placed back on the calendar. The
trial was postponed pending appeal in May 2018.

"For many corporate defendants, justice delayed is justice," class
attorney Paul Gellar, Esq. --PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, said in an emailed statement. "We are pleased
to have cleared yet another hurdle and intend to proceed with
alacrity in this important case at the intersection of technology
and privacy."

Lead plaintiff Nimesh Patel sued Facebook in 2015 in one of three
consolidated class actions, claiming the social network started
mapping users' faces for its "Photo Tag Suggest" function in 2011.
They say Facebook did so without their permission and failed to
inform them how long their data would be stored as required by the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act of 2008.

Facebook had argued users lack standing to sue because they
suffered no "concrete harm," such as a loss of money, as a result
of the alleged violation.

In August 2019, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel rejected those
arguments, finding the loss of control over one's private
information is a real-world injury. Writing for the panel, U.S.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that
"a concrete injury need not be tangible."

The San Francisco-based appeals court later rejected Facebook's
request for an en banc rehearing.

In December, Facebook filed a petition for review with U.S. Supreme
Court, arguing the Ninth Circuit's decision created a circuit split
on two critical issues, for which guidance from the nation's
highest court was needed.

Facebook said the Ninth Circuit's opinion differed from rulings
issued by the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits,
which held plaintiffs must not only show a law protects a "concrete
interest" but also that violation of the law harmed the plaintiff
"in a personal and individual way."

Additionally, Facebook argued the Ninth Circuit wrongly held
plaintiffs could sue based on the risk of future misuse of their
private information. According to Facebook, the First, Third,
Fourth and D.C. Circuits have held the possibility that one's
personal information may be misused does not create standing unless
there is "an imminent risk of injury."

Facebook further agued the Ninth Circuit failed to decide a
critical issue for class certification – whether the alleged the
violation occurred when out-of-state Facebook servers scanned
users' faces or when users uploaded their photos in Illinois.

The social media giant maintains that because facial data was
scanned and stored on servers outside the state, it cannot be sued
for violating Illinois law.

Facebook's petition for review was one of 68 the Supreme Court
denied in an order list filed January 21. The Supreme Court gave no
reasons for the denial.

The case will now go back to U.S. District Judge James Donato's
court in San Francisco. Before the case was stayed pending appeal,
the judge had ordered Facebook to alert millions of users about the
lawsuit through emails, newsfeed posts, and "jewel" notifications,
or Facebook alerts.

Facebook could be liable for $1,000 for each negligent violation
and $5,000 for each knowing violation of the Illinois law. With a
class of potentially 7 million Facebook users, damages could exceed
$35 billion.

The Menlo Park-based tech giant had argued that users should not be
allowed to bring a class action that could make it liable for an
absurd amount of damages. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument
last year, finding no indication that the Illinois Legislature
"intended to place a cap on statutory damages."

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment.

Facebook lawyers Lauren Goldman, Esq. -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com
-- of Mayer Brown and Michael Graham Rhodes of Cooley LLP, did not
immediately return emails requesting comment January 21, morning.
[GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Suit to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of WILLIAM F. DOSHIER; and DOTSTRATEGY,
CO., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Arkansas, County
of Faulkner (Case No. 23CV-18-1018) to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas on January 18, 2019. The clerk of
court for the Eastern District of Arkansas assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00170-JCS. The case is assigned to Judge William Alsup.

Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website. The Company
website allows people to communicate with their family, friends,
and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the
sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos.
Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information
based on their own specific criteria. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: kdunn@bsfllp.com
                  mgoodman@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          435 Tasso Street, Suite 205
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 445-6400
          Facsimile: (650) 329-8507
          E-mail: khartnett@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
          FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP
          3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 695-6049
          Facsimile: (501) 244-5389
          E-mail: mney@fridayfirm.com


FARMERS GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT
VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, the
PLAINTIFFS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No.
1:17-CV-88-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an
order on Jan. 30, 2020 dismissing without prejudice the following
motions:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed on March 12,
    2019; and

-- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the
    Affidavit of Michael Averill filed on May 20,2019; and

On December 16, 2019, the court rendered an order granting
preliminarily approval of class action settlement and direction of
notice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The motions are all dismissed
pursuant to the December 16, 2019 order.

Farmers Group operates as an insurance management and holding
company. The company manages an auto and home insurer, and a
property and casualty insurance group.[CC]

FIRST SAVINGS BANK: Becker Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. First Savings Bank, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00043, (D. N.M., January 14, 2020) seeks monetary damages,
restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief arising from unfair
and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees
resulting from breach of contract and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and for violation of the Electronic
Fund Transfers Act and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Becker owns "Oma's Slice of Heaven," that has a checking account
with FSB.

First Savings is a bank with branch locations in South Dakota, New
Mexico, Nevada, Nebraska, Texas and Arizona.

Becker claims that First Savings charged overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw the account despite
their policy that they will only charge overdraft fees on
transactions when such transactions cause the account to have a
negative balance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas Koluncich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS KOLUNCICH III, LLC
     500 Marquette Ave NW - Suite 1200
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Telephone (505) 881-2228
     Fax: (505) 881-4288

            - and -

     Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
     Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
     KALIEL PLLC
     1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
     Washington, DC 20009
     Tel: (202) 350-4783
     Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
            sgold@kalielpllc.com


FIRST SOLAR: Settles Arizona Class Action for US$350 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Shin, writing for Financial Buzz, reports that First Solar,
Inc. announced the entry into a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle a class action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona -- Smilovitz v. First Solar, Inc.
The lawsuit was filed previously in 2012.  The company has agreed
to settle claims with a payout of USD 350 Million that will be
distributed to the individuals who purchased or acquired shares of
the company between April 30th, 2008 - February 28th, 2012.  The
settlement must be approved by the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona.  

"We are confident that resolving this matter is the right business
decision for First Solar and its shareholders," said Mark Widmar,
Chief Executive Officer of First Solar. "While we are confident in
the facts and the merits of our position, we believe it is prudent
to end this protracted and uncertain class action litigation
process, and focus on driving the business forward.  We remain in a
strong financial position, are pleased with our progress with
Series 6 and our contracted customer pipeline, and are focused on
executing our global strategy and serving our customers."

The company anticipated that the USD 350 Million will be utilized
in the results of operations and financial condition of the company
for the fiscal year ended December 31st, 2019. [GN]



FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: March 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the publicly-traded company
Forescout Technologies, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the
court. Further details about the case can be found at the link
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)

FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019
- October 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=5165&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Forescout Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout
was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals
and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the
Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa; (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

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

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of March 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under
20-cv-00076, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout securities between
February 7, 2019, and October 9, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

FRANKLIN LOAN: Berengut Seeks Fines Under PAGA Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BERENGUT, individually and on behalf of himself and other
aggrieved employees v. FRANKLIN LOAN CORPORATION, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20VECV00068
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California
Labor Code, arising from the Defendants' failure to pay aggrieved
employees all wages, including minimum and regular wages for all
hours worked and premium wages for overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
off-duty meal and rest periods, to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and to timely pay all wages due during and upon
separation of employment.

From Aug. 19, 2018, until April 18, 2018, Mr. Berengut was an
employee of Franklin Loan with the position and/or title of
"Mortgage Banker." He contends that he and all other Mortgage
Bankers were uniformly and systematically misclassified as "outside
sales" exempt employees, and were paid purely on commissions from
loans generated and funded.

The Defendants have operated banking operations in every major
County in California accumulating customers and lead through their
banking operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARROW HEALTH: Gaukel Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Harrow Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 28, 2019, that
the class action suit initiated by Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence
Gaukel had been dismissed.

In June 2019, Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence Gaukel served Harrow
Health, Inc. with a lawsuit filed in state court in Idaho against
the Company asserting class action allegations and product
liability claims related to Mrs. Gaukel's doctor's use of a
compounded drug injection in each of her eyes. The case was
subsequently removed to Federal Court.

On January 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs and the Company filed a joint
stipulation, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. No
economic consideration was exchanged between the parties related to
the filing of the joint stipulation.

This formally resolved all disputes between the parties as
connected to this matter.

Harrow Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
produces, and sells medications for unmet needs primarily in the
United States. The company primarily provides ophthalmology based
formulations to physicians and patients; and sterile and
non-sterile compounded medications. The company was formerly known
as Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Harrow
Health, Inc. in December 2018. Harrow Health, Inc. was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Spam Calls for $2.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that
following several years of litigation, HSBC Bank has agreed to pay
$2.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit from consumers who
said they received spam phone calls from the company.

Originally filed in 2015, the suit claimed that HSBC violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection ACT (TCPA) by using an automatic
dialing system to call plaintiffs on their cell phones. The law,
which was passed in 1991, protects consumers from calls using these
systems, as well as fax, SMS, and pre-recorded voice messages.

Over 160,000 class members were sent notices of the judgment in the
mail, and another 70,000 have received emails about the suit. The
judgment notes that class members would have received around $60
each when preliminary approval was granted for the settlement.
However, that number has now bumped up to approximately $92 for
each class member who submitted a claim form.

"The court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate
and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and
informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class fairly,"
the settlement order states. [GN]



JAKARTA: Lawyers, Flood Survivors Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Lenny Tristia Tambun, writing for Jakarta Globe, reports that
Jakarta's provincial government is facing the prospect of a class
action lawsuit from residents impacted by the disastrous New Year's
Day floods that have so far killed 67 people.

A group of lawyers and flood victims, who call themselves the
Jakarta Flood Victims Advocacy Team, announced on Jan. 5 their
intention to bring the city administration to court for "negligence
and inability to prevent and overcome floods."

"We've assessed the problems that have occured [because of the
negligence] and the losses suffered by the community thanks to that
negligence, [which is] against the law. We invite other [flood
victims] to bring this class action suit together," Alvon Kurnia
Palma, the advocacy team's spokesperson, said on Jan. 5.

This will be the second class action the Jakarta administration
will have to deal with for its inadequate handling of disasters. A
group of flood victims also brought the administration to court in
2007 but lost the lawsuit.

Yayan Yuhanah, the head of the city's legal department, said it has
not received any notice of a new lawsuit. But, he said the city is
ready to go to court if necessary.  

"Yes, we will face the suit. We won't be running away from it,"
Yayan said.

Jakarta suffered its worst flood in five years. Torrential rains --
the worst in more than two decades according to the weather agency
-- put more than half of the city's subdistricts and many areas in
the capital's satellite cities under water.

The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) has updated the
death toll from the floods in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and
Bekasi to 67.

Prasetio Edi Marsudi, the Jakarta city council (DPRD Jakarta)
speaker, said he supported the flood victims' class action against
the provincial government.

"That's their right. Everyone who feels aggrieved by the flood can
file a lawsuit," Prasetio said.

"Some of these residents think the severity of the flood was due to
the provincial government's inadequate response. The city lacked
preparation [against floods]. Its flood management was practically
non-existent," Prasetio said. [GN]


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Scavone Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tatyana Scavone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00287
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's allegation that the
Plaintiff owed $1,158.06, when the Plaintiff did not owe this
amount to the entity on whose behalf the Defendant was seeking to
collect, is a false representation made by the Defendant in
connection with its collection of the alleged Debt.

The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of the Plaintiff to pay
money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property,
insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Jefferson Capital provides financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


JEROME H MEYER: Faces McNeil Suit Over Violation of Chicago RLTO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine McNeil, Individually And As Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons v. JEROME H. MEYER & CO. & 525 WEST
DEMING, L.L.C., Case No. 2020CH01443 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 4,
2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance in connection with the Plaintiff's
tenancy with the Defendants.

The Deming building is a large residential apartment building in
Chicago containing over 50 residential rental dwelling units, with
tenants currently living there. The Deming Building was owned by
525 West Deming, L.L.C. The Defendant, Jerome H. Meyer & Co.,
was/is the lessor, manager, authorized agent for the Owner, and
landlord of the Deming Building during the Plaintiff's tenancy. As
part of their manager responsibilities with all buildings owned or
managed by JHM, supervised, prepared and offered rental agreements
and renewals, with disclosures, to Chicago tenants and prospective
tenants.

On October 1, 2018, JHM initially offered the Plaintiff a 31-page
rental agreement for her dwelling unit. The Plaintiff contends that
JHM failed to provide her with an updated RLTO Summary from the
Commissioner of the Department of Housing when her rental agreement
was initially offered. She notes that JHM provides/provided its
own, "copy and paste version" of the RLTO Summary, which was not
directly from the City of Chicago.

Ms. McNeil alleges that the unofficial RLTO Summary version
provided omits 1 of the 4 pages of the RLTO Summary (the Chicago
Rents Rights cover page) which contains the phone number
"312-742-RENT (7368) for further "information" about Chicago
renters rights.

The Plaintiff, as the representative party, seeks adjudication in
her favor and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the Class. The Plaintiff fully understands her rights and other
class members' rights under the Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-170, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Kristine McNeil was a tenant at 525 W. Deming, Unit #321,
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron A. Krolik, Esq.
          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          225 W. Washington St., suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 924-0278
          Fax: (312) 650-8241
          Email: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com

              - and -

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 775-1015
          Fax: (312) 256-2055
          Email: mark@depositlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
OPHELIA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-2174-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla., Filed June 25, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order on Feb.
5, 2020:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Fair Labor Standards
      Act Conditional Certification and Notice:

      "all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by
      Defendant as exempt classified "Investigators,"
      "Investigations Specialists," and other similar
      investigation employees in similar job titles in Chase's
      Fraud Compliance Operations and Investigations ("FCOI")
      Division within the United States at any time during the
      last three years through the entry of judgment in this case
      and who did not sign a valid and enforceable arbitration
      agreement;

   2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, within 14 days
      of the concerning date potential of this opt-in Order, the
      plaintiff information; and

   3. directing the Parties to meet and confer with respect
      to any remaining objections to certain provisions of the
      notice (to the extent not already addressed by the
      Court). After consulting with defense counsel, Plaintiff's
      counsel shall file a motion for approval of the revised
      proposed notice within 14 days of the date of this Order,
      noting any objections to the proposed notice which have not
      been resolved by the parties.

The Court said, "To the extent Chase tenders competing
declarations, the Court declines to engage in a credibility
analysis. The Court finds that Hawkins has met her fairly lenient
burden at this stage of showing that there are similarly situated
FCOI Investigators who wish to opt into this litigation."

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank headquartered in Manhattan that constitutes the
consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S.
multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[CC]

KRAFT FOOD: Must Face Commodities Traders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Kraft Food
Group Inc. must face a certified class action by commodities
traders alleging a long-running scheme by the processed foods giant
to manipulate the wheat futures market, a Chicago federal judge
ruled.

The antitrust suit accuses Kraft of buying $90 million in wheat
futures in late 2011--well more than it legitimately needed--and
maintaining its position for months while ceasing all cash
purchases. The move misled traders into believing that the company,
a major bulk buyer, was meeting its wheat needs solely through
futures, according to the suit. [GN]



LEADDOG MARKETING: Davies Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Davies, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. Leaddog Marketing Group and CSM Sport & Entertainment LLP,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00351 (S.D. N.Y., January 15, 2020),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and
the New York Minimum Wage Act.

LeadDog Marketing Group is a provider of advertising and marketing
services. CSM Sport & Entertainment acquired ownership of Leaddog
in or about 2016. Davies was jointly employed by the defendants as
a Senior Account Coordinator up to June 2017 at their New York City
offices. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without overtime pay including those hours he when he worked
through his break times. She also claims to not receiving any wage
statement.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S. Hoffmann, Esq.
      HOFFMANN & ASSOCIATES
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 679-0400
      Fax: (212) 679-1080


LENNAR INC: Treasure Island Residents File $2 Billion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for SF News, reports that 47 named residents
of Treasure Island are suing the developers, contractors, and city
and state entities involved in the redevelopment of the island,
claiming among other things that they were misled about radioactive
contamination levels on the island.

The lawsuit, filed January 21, 2020, in San Francisco Superior
Court, seeks to halt the development project slated to bring 8,000
new residential units to the island, and seeks $2 billion in
damages for as many as 2,000 current residents of Treasure Island.
As the SF Business Times reports, named defendants include the
developer Lennar Inc., its offshoot Five Point Holdings, and two
Navy contractors Tetra Tech, the company implicated in falsifying
soil samples in the cleanup of the Naval shipyard at Hunters Point
in San Francisco. Also named in the suit are the Treasure Island
Development Authority, the Treasure Island Homeless Development
Initiative, and San Francisco's Department of Public Health.

After the U.S. Navy ceased operations on the island in the 1990s
and civilians -- including the formerly homeless -- began moving
into rehabbed housing units there, the lawsuit alleges that the
Navy did not adequately measure "the levels of cesium-137, a
fission byproduct, in soil samples dating back to the 1970s." And
the suit says that "In reality, contamination levels are some three
times higher than the Navy reported, and 60 percent higher than the
Navy's own safety guidelines."

Dustups over the contaminated soil on the island date back several
years, and as the Examiner reported last May, residents were
battling displacement even as they were complaining about the
potential toxic effects of the land they've been living on. One
former resident, Andre Patterson, claims he was retaliated against
and "thrown off the island" for complaining that he had been
diagnosed with cancer and spoke out about it.

Ground was ostensibly broken on the mega-project on Treasure Island
in 2016, with evictions of some existing residents dating back to
the fall of 2015. But there has been plenty of controversy ever
since about the relocation of residents on the island, with a
report in October 2019 detailing how those residents who had lived
there since 2011, when an agreement was signed for the
redevelopment project, have more relocation benefit options than
those who have been there for less time. The first new residential
units, which some residents will be eligible to inhabit, are set to
be complete as soon as May 2021, with the entire redevelopment
project extending in phases for 15 years, to 2035.

But now this lawsuit may further stymie the process, with existing
residents now seeking monetary compensation for the contamination
they've been living with.

In September 2019, as Curbed reported, the Navy disclosed that it
had found a "basketball-sized" chunk of "low-level radioactive dirt
buried beneath the front door of a Treasure Island home." This was
after earlier soil remediation efforts had purportedly taken place,
but the Navy insists that Treasure Island poses "no health risk to
local residents or the public."

Assessing that risk and any ongoing radioactivity will apparently
be key in how far the class-action suit gets. [GN]

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Gaston Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELORIS GASTON, and LEONARD GASTON, Plaintiffs, v.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and POLICEREPORTS.US, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-009-KDB-DCK (W.D. N.C.),
Magistrate Judge David S. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division,
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses.

The Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit with the filing of a Class
Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2016.  They then filed a Class Action
Amended Complaint on May 12, 2016.  The Complaint asserts a cause
of action against LexisNexis and PoliceReports for violation of the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants obtained Putative Class
Representatives' and Class Members' Personal Information from Motor
Vehicle Records ("MVRs") maintained by the State Motor Vehicle
Department, for purposes that violate the DPPA including:
processing, re-disclosing, reselling personal information.

On June 7, 2016, the Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Class Action Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).  The Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. summarily denied their
motion on Sept. 13, 2017.  The Defendants then filed a Motion For
Certification Of An Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) on Oct. 11, 2017.  Judge Cogburn denied their
motion for an interlocutory appeal on Nov. 13, 2017, stating that
it was clear that the Plaintiffs had stated a cognizable cause of
action.

The Court issued a "Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan" on
March 6, 2018.  The "Case Management Plan" included the following
deadlines: discovery completion – Oct. 1, 2019; mediation report
– Oct. 15, 2019; dispositive motions – Nov. 1, 2019, and a
trial ready date – Feb. 17, 2020.

The case was reassigned to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell on June
14, 2019.

The Plaintiffs' first Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And
Sanctions and Extend Discovery By 90 Days was filed Aug. 22, 2019.
On Sept. 18, 2019, at the Plaintiffs' request, Magistrate Judge
Keesler held a telephone conference to discuss the pending
discovery dispute(s) raised in the Plaintiffs' motion, as well as
Keith Clinic Estramonte Chiropractic, P.A.'s Motion To Quash.  At
the conclusion of that telephone conference, the Magistrate Judge
directed the counsel for both sides to further confer in an attempt
to resolve their disputes, and encouraged the Plaintiffs' counsel
to narrow the discovery requests while advising the Defendants'
counsel that they were going to have to respond more fully to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

Keith Clinic Estramonte Chiropractic, P.A.'s Motion To Quash was
withdrawn on Oct. 1, 2019.  In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel
provided email updates to the undersigned's staff indicating that
the issues in their pending motion to compel were being
substantially narrowed or resolved.  The Plaintiffs' counsel failed
to provide an update the next week, or the week after, and on Nov.
4, 2019, the Court denied the motion to compel, without prejudice.


On Nov. 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its
denial of the motion to compel and to issue a new order compelling
the Defendants to respond fully and completely to all of their
First and Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
and to comply with a 30(b)(6) notice of deposition.  Contrary to
the parties' purported progress resolving their disputes, the
counsel have not only failed to resolve or narrow the issues, but
have now expanded their dispute to include all of the Plaintiffs'
discovery requests.

The Plaintiffs argue that they only discovered on Nov. 1, 2019,
that the Defendants had repeatedly provided improper/incomplete
responses to Interrogatory No. 1 by identifying four entities that
purchased the Gaston accident report as an individual report, and
not identifying many other entities that purchased the report as
"monthly subscription users" or "monthly subscription holders."
The Plaintiffs contend that by withholding the information, the
Defendants misled the Plaintiffs and delayed discovery for months.


They further argue that they need documents from the Defendant that
show all the entities that received the Gastons', and other class
members, accident reports.  They need records of the Defendants'
payments to the law enforcement agencies to confirm that the
Plaintiffs have received records of all the disclosed accident
reports, and to measure the amount that the Defendants profited
from the activity.

Judge Keesler denied the Motion For Reconsideration Of Order On
Motion To Compel, but allowed the Plaintiffs an extension of time
to file a new motion -- following a final attempt by the counsel to
resolve their discovery disputes.

Now pending is the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses
filed on Nov. 15, 2019.  They request that the Court compels the
Defendants to: respond completely with respect to their First Set
of Interrogatories dated Oct. 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs' Second Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents served
on May 3, 2019, and their Notices of Depositions.  The Plaintiffs
contend that despite months of meet and confers between the
parties, the Defendants still refuse to answer significant parts of
their discovery requests.

Magistrate Judge Keesler holds that it is unfortunate that the
capable counsel on both sides of this lawsuit have failed to at
least narrow the issues in the discovery dispute, even after
multiple conversations and correspondence with each other and a
telephone conference with the Court.  After careful consideration
of the record and the parties' briefs and attachments, as well as
arguments during the Court's telephone conference, the Magistrate
Judge finds that the motion to compel should be granted.  The rules
of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction, and
the undersigned finds that much of the information sought by the
Plaintiffs is proportional to the needs of the case, and thus
discoverable.  The admissibility of that information will be a
decision for another day.

The Defendants will provide full responses or amend/supplement
their responses to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests as follows:

      A. The Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories: (i) No. 1 -
Defendants will supplement response to include requested
identification information for all monthly subscription
users/subscribers who could have accessed any of the Gastons'
accident reports; (ii) No. 2 - Defendants will supplement response;
(iii) No. 3 - Defendants will provide supplemental response
confirming position; (iv) No. 4 - Defendants will provide
supplemental response confirming position; (v) No. 5 - Defendants
will provide the total number of accident reports the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) transmitted to
PoliceReports.US (PRUS) from Jan. 1, 2012 to present; (vi) f. No. 6
- Defendants will supplement response, to the extent the
information is not already provided in their supplement to No. 1;
(vii) No. 9 - Defendants will supplement response; and (viii) No.
10 - Defendants will supplement response with organizational charts
with employees names and positions -- as offered by the
Defendants.

      B. Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (i) No. 15 - The
undersigned finds this request to be overly broad; however, the
Defendants will amend/supplement response to identify persons who
have knowledge of the policies, practices and procedures they
employed concerning the manner of assessing whether or not their
customers or users of their accident data were 'permitted users' as
defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq.  To the extent the Defendants
contend responsive information is privileged, they will provide a
privilege log; (ii) No. 16 - Further supplementation not required;
(iii) No. 17 - The Defendants will amend/supplement response to
identify all policies, practices or procedures they used, at any
time during the relevant time period, to assess whether or not your
customers or users of your accident data were 'permitted users' as
defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq.  The response to the request
should include a description of any proposed or implemented changes
to that policy, practice, or procedures used during that time
frame.

      C. Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents: (i) No. 2 - The undersigned finds this request to be
overly broad; further supplementation not required; (ii) No. 4 -
Defendants will supplement response to the extent necessary to
provide requested documents as to the Gastons; (iii) No. 5 -
Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time
period; (iv) No. 6 - Defendants will produce responsive documents
from the relevant time period; (v) No. 7 - Defendants will produce
documents as they have indicated they will; (vi) No. 8 - Defendants
will produce documents as they have indicated they will; (vii) No.
9 - Defendants will produce responsive, non-privileged documents
from the relevant time period, including: all correspondence of any
kind between the Defendants and a third-party or customer regarding
permissive use as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq, or any other
statute, including all correspondence between CMPD and the
Defendants; (viii) No. 10 - Defendants will produce responsive
documents from the relevant time period; (ix) No. 11 - Defendants
will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period;
(x) No. 12 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the
relevant time period; (xi) No. 14 - Defendants will produce
responsive, non-privileged documents from the relevant time period;
(xii) No. 15 - Defendants will produce responsive, non-privileged
documents from the relevant time period; (xiii) No. 17 - No further
response required; (xiv) No. 18 - Defendants will respond to the
extent there are commercial agreements for the purchase or sale of
accident reports between the Defendants and third parties, that the
Defendants have not already produced.  The Court declines to compel
all related documents and ESI.  (xv) No. 19 - Defendants will
produce copies of all contracts between the Defendants and CMPD and
all law enforcement agencies in New York.  The Court declines to
compel all related documents and ESI; (xvi) No. 20 - Defendants
will produce responsive documents including correspondence with
CMPD and law enforcement agencies in New York regarding the DPPA;
(xvii) No. 21 - Defendants will produce documents showing sales and
revenue from the sale of accident reports from CMPD and law
enforcement agencies in New York; (xviii) No. 22 - Defendants will
provide responsive documents, including organizational charts for
both the Defendants, as requested; (xix) No. 27 - It appears the
request is currently off the table. No further action required at
this time; (xx) No. 28 - Defendants will supplement response as
proposed. See (Document No. 76, p. 18); (xxi) No. 29 - No
production required at this time; and (xxii) No. 30 - No production
required at this time; (xxiii) No. 31 - No production required at
this time.  

To the extent necessary, the parties will work together to clarify
search terms and appropriately deal with confidential and/or
privileged documents consistent with the Rules and the Joint
Stipulated Protective Order in a good faith effort to provide
responses consistent with the directions stated.  The Defendants
will also make representatives available for Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Defendants will pay the
Plaintiffs' reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees,
associated with preparing and filing Document Nos. 72 and 77.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Keesler granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses.  The Defendants
was to provide full and complete discovery responses as directed on
Jan. 13, 2020.  The Defendants' counsel was to confer with the
Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or in person, on Jan. 20, 2020, in
a good faith attempt to arrange the Defendants' payment of
reasonable expenses and attorney's fees as directed.  If the
counsel for the parties was unable to resolve the issue of expenses
and fees without further Court intervention, the Plaintiffs'
counsel may file a motion with appropriate supporting documentation
that seeks such relief on Jan. 24, 2020.  

The case deadlines are revised as follows:

   (i) discovery completion - March 13, 2020;
  (ii) mediation report - March 27, 2020;
(iii) dispositive motions - April 10, 2020;
  (iv) trial - Sept. 21, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/S8bwSp from Leagle.com.

Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The
Van Winkle Law Firm.

Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene Clark Covington,
Jr., Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac
vice, Heather Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry
S. McDevitt -- --lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- -- The Van Winkle Law
Firm.

Leonard Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The
Van Winkle Law Firm, Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., Covington,
Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac vice, Heather
Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry S. McDevitt,
The Van Winkle Law Firm.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis
Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP,
Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao -- mark.mao@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr. --
ron.raether@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice.

PoliceReports.US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle Deak,
Troutman Sanders, LLP, Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao, Troutman Sanders LLP,
pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Troutman Sanders, pro hac
vice.


LIBERTY INSURANCE: Dismissal of Roof Coverage Class Action Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Sixth Circuit on Jan. 6 upheld the
dismissal of a homeowner's proposed class action accusing Liberty
Insurance Corp. of defrauding policyholders by refusing to pay the
full cost to replace roofs damaged by wind or hail, saying
Liberty's policies clearly limited coverage in such circumstances.
[GN]

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Smith v.
LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D. Conn., filed Jan. 24,
2018).

In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification. On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a
stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the
Federal District Court for Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in Utah.

As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case).

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's
Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a
reply brief on January 10, 2019. The Court ruled on the motion on
December 5, 2019, dismissing three of the Plaintiff's four claims,
including the antitrust claim, unjust enrichment claim, and the
securities claim for the sale of unregistered securities.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment. The Company's
response is due on January 28, 2020.

LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution
of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial
conditions."

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skin care products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.


LONGFIN CORP: Investors Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that investors in shuttered cryptocurrency company
Longfin Corp. asked a New York federal judge last month to certify
their class so they can seek default judgment in their private
securities class action accusing the company of inflating its
investor numbers on the heels of a 2017 offering. [GN]

LUSAMERICA FOODS: Brooke Seeks Unpaid OT and Final Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Brooke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lusamerica Foods, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV361692 (Cal. Super.,
January 14, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brooke was employed by Lusamerica Foods as a non-exempt driver,
receiving a "piece-rate" compensation based on distance traveled.
He claims to be unpaid for non-driving and/or non-mileage related
work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      Email: msinger@ckslaw.com
             kdelarosa@ckslaw.com


MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Gatica Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Gatica, on behalf of themselves, and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Manfredini
Landscaping and Design Co., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00260, (N.D.
Ill., January 14, 2020), seeks liquidated damages equal to the
amount of all unpaid compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred and additional relief for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Manfredini is engaged in landscaping where Gatica worked as a
landscaper. He claims to have been denied time and one-half his
regular or effective hourly rate for work performed in excess of
forty hours within a statutory workweek. Gatica also claims that
Defendant took out unauthorized deductions from his paycheck.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel. (312) 853-1450
      Website: www.billhornlaw.com



MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN: $25K Attorneys' Fees in Pentel Suit Awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDOLPH PENTEL, KIM POVOLNY, MICHELLE POVOLNY,
MICHAEL POVOLNY, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL SHEPARD and CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1447 (NEB/TNL) (D. Minn.),
Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Settling
Plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as
modified.

Together with Pentel and Michael Povolny ("Non-Settling
Plaintiffs"), Michelle Povolny and Kim Povolny ("Settling
Plaintiffs") brought the putative class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act ("DPPA"), and the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act ("MGDPA").  The Settling Plaintiffs claimed that
Shepard, a police officer, wrongfully accessed their driver's
license information.

On March 15, 2019, the Defendants served offers of judgment on the
Settling Plaintiffs under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Settling Plaintiffs accepted those offers on April
1, 2019.  According to the terms of the offers, each Defendant
agreed to pay each Settling Plaintiff $2,550.  The Defendants also
agreed that the Settling Plaintiffs could petition the Court for an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

After the Settling Plaintiffs' acceptance of the Rule 68 offers in
April 2019, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs have continued to litigate
their own claims and those of the remaining members of the putative
class.  The Court has yet to issue a final judgment on the
Non-Settling Plaintiffs' claims or those they assert on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 12, 2019, the Settling Plaintiffs filed their Motion, then
seeking $60,475 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs.  The
Defendants jointly opposed the request.

In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Tony N.
Leung recommended that the Motion be granted in part and denied in
part.  The Settling Plaintiffs filed an objection to the R&R.  The
R&R agrees that the fees sought are unreasonable and recommends
that they be reduced.  Although Plaintiffs agree that the requested
$60,475 inadvertently included $216.50 for time spent on the
Non-Settling Plaintiffs' claims, they object to the R&R on various
other grounds, maintaining that they are entitled to the remaining
$60,258.50.  The City of Mendota Heights and Michael Shepard filed
a joint response to that objection.

Judge Brasel finds no merit in the Settling Plaintiffs' argument
that it would be proper to award attorneys' fees for time spent
litigating claims asserted on behalf of the putative class at this
stage of the litigation.  Even they do not dispute that it is too
early to ascertain whether those claims will be successful.  Thus,
it would be unreasonable to award attorneys' fees for time expended
class-related issues at this time.  The Judge excludes the 34.225
hours spent on class-related issues from the lodestar calculation.

Next, Judge Brasel agrees with the R&R that the case involves
issues that are neither factually nor legally complex.  Factually,
it focuses narrowly on the frequency and circumstances of one
individual's accesses of driver's license information.  And, as the
case follows years of DPPA litigation in the District, the legal
issues it raises are banal.  

In these circumstances, Judge Brasel agrees with the R&R that the
following entries indicate overstaffing that resulted in excessive
and redundant hours: preparing the complaint (five timekeepers,
31.8 hours); preparing the Rule 26(f) report (two timekeepers, 8.3
hours); drafting discovery requests (three timekeepers, 12.7
hours); drafting discovery responses (four timekeepers, 9.45
hours), clerical and secretarial work (two timekeepers, 1.65
hours).  While some of these entries include tasks that were
properly assigned to a paralegal, Judge Brasel does not believe the
time spent on those tasks reflects the efficiency it expects from a
paralegal instructed by attorneys with years of experience
litigating DPPA cases.  Thus, the Judge reduces the time spent on
these tasks by 40%.

It is the Court's view that the hourly rates used in the lodestar
calculation should be the same as in other DPPA cases litigated by
the same counsel, and the Court is not persuaded by the Settling
Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary.  No expert affidavits from
the Defendants are necessary for the Court to conclude that the
hourly rates sought by the Settling Plaintiffs are unreasonable
based on the counsel's skill and experience and the Court's
knowledge and experience of prevailing market rates.  The Court's
conclusion is bolstered by the undisputed fact that the same
counsel were awarded lower rates in the many comparable cases they
have litigated in the District.  The Court sees no basis for
increasing counsel's rates in the particular case.

Finally, the Court does not find the Settling Plaintiffs' arguments
on the 20% reduction for partial success persuasive.  The Settling
Plaintiffs have obtained only $5,100 in liquidated damages each
after seeking $100,000 and cannot be considered more successful.
It is the Court's view that a 20% reduction in light of the
Settling Plaintiffs' partial success is warranted.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brasel adopted the R&R as modified.
The Settling Plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs is granted in part and denied in part.  The Movants are
awarded $25,247.60 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs against
Defendants the City of Mendota Heights and Michael Shepard.  These
Defendants are ordered to remit to the Settling Plaintiffs
$25,247.60 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/AMpxkl from Leagle.com.

Randolph Pentel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Kim Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Michelle Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated & Michael Povolny, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles V. Firth , Engelmeier & Umanah, PA,
Jonathan
A. Strauss , Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Lorenz F. Fett, Jr. ,
Sapientia Law Group, Robin M. Wolpert -- robinw@sapientialaw.com
--
Sapientia Law Group PLLC & Sonia L. Miller-Van Oort --
SoniaMV@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law Group.

Michael Shepard, in his individual capacity as an employee of the
City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Peppin
Ridley -- eridley@heleyduncan.com -- Heley, Duncan & Melander,
PLLP
& Mark P. Hodkinson -- mhodkinson@heleyduncan.com -- Heley Duncan
&
Melander, PLLP.

City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Jon K. Iverson
-- jon@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon, Stephanie A.
Angolkar
-- stephanie@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon & Susan M.
Tindal -- susan@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon.

Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Respondent, represented by
Oliver J. Larson, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Moussouris Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the denial of class
certification in Moussouris v. Microsoft.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017.
Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert
report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and
promotions between similarly situated men and women.

In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the denial of class certification.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MINDGEEK HOLDING: Web Sites Not Accessible to Deaf, Suris Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YAROSLAV SURIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MINDGEEK HOLDING SARL d/b/a PORNHUB.COM d/b/a
REDTUBE.COM d/b/a YOUPORN.COM, MINDGEEK LOS ANGELES d/b/a
PORNHUB.COM d/b/a REDTUBE.COM d/b/a YOUPORN.COM, JOHN DOE CORPS.
AND LLC'S 1-100, Case No. 1:20-cv-00284-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16,
2020), is brought for retribution for the Defendants' actions
against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in New York
and within the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have denied the
Plaintiff, who is deaf, and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals'
access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals
through its Web site, http://www.pornhub.com/,as well as its Web
sites, http://www.redtube.com/and http://www.youporn.com/,and in
conjunction with its physical locations of offices, video studios,
advertising offices and hosting locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the
Defendants to correct the barriers, which prevent access for deaf
and hard of hearing individuals so that they can enjoy the
Defendants' Web sites as non-deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
are able to do.

MindGeek Holding is a privately held Canadian company that focuses
primarily on Internet pornography.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 415 0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706 6631


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rory O'Neill, writing for Life Sciences Intellectual Property
Review, reports that a US federal judge has given preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement in the class action suit led by
Nashville General Hospital against Momenta Pharmaceuticals and
Sandoz over their alleged manipulation of drug testing protocols.
[GN]


MYLAN NV: Bernstein Informs Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (MYL) between May 9, 2018 and
May 6, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mylan's
Morgantown facility was in significant violation of the FDA's
Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations; (2) Mylan would
need to engage in a massive restructuring and remediation program;
(3) Mylan's North American Segment would be substantially impacted
by said program, which would in turn materially impact Mylan's
financial health; (3) Mylan lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

The truth began to emerge with a series of disclosures (and
subsequent stock drops) beginning on August 8, 2018. Finally, on
May 7, 2019, before the market opened, Mylan issued a press release
announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the
first fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019. The press release
disclosed, among other information, that "North America segment net
sales . . . [were] down 6% on an actual and constant currency
basis, primarily driven by changes in the competitive environment
and the impact of the Morgantown plant remediation activities."

On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined
$6.73, from a close on May 6, 2019 of $28.26 per share, to a close
on May 7, 2019 of $21.53 per share, a drop of approximately 23.81
percent.

If you purchased MYL securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/mylannv-myl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-234/apply
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 14, 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. [GN]


NATIONAL PLAN: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC., a Florida corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00122-DJH (D. Ariz., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by
placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff received a phone call from (925)
204-6325, which is owned or operated by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
consent; to stop the Defendant from calling consumers who are
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain
redress, including statutory damages, for all persons injured by
the Defendant's conduct.

The Plaintiff also seeks an award of pre- and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

National Plan Advisors, Inc. is an insurance agency that offers
supplemental insurance plans, referred to as Medicare supplements
or "Medigap" policies, to seniors, who are insured through
Medicare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone (480) 833-1001
          E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

               - and -

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


NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Smith Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide
Agribusiness Ins. Co. The case is captioned as Abra Smith,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00108-SO (N.D.
Ohio, Jan. 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.

The suit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.

Nationwide Agribusiness operates as an insurance company. The
company provides agricultural insurance services throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEXUS HOLIDAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NYLL, Zhang Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHASHA ZHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated v. NEXUS HOLIDAYS NEW YORK INC., and NEXUS
HOLIDAYS GROUP INC., SHANGHAI YILIAN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AGENCY
LTD., LINGMIN ZHANG a/k/a MARC ZHANG, MATTHEW WANG, and John Doe
and Jane Doe, Case No. 2:20-cv-00275 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees,
including the Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew that the nonpayment
of overtime pays, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, and failure to
provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would
financially injure the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
and violate state and federal laws.

From June 1, 2015 to 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants as a travel counselor at their corporations at 41-60
Main Street, Suite 215, in Flushing, New York.

Nexus Holidays is a leisure-travel tour operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu


NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related Exforge.

Since 2018, Novartis Group companies as well as other
pharmaceutical companies have been sued by various direct and
indirect purchasers of Exforge in multiple US individual and
putative class action complaints.

They claim that Novartis made a reverse payment in the form of an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic, alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection
and common laws, and seeking damages as well as injunctive relief.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the claims are being vigorously
contested.

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.


NOVARTIS AG: Enoxaparin-Related Class Suits Resolved
----------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suits
against Sandoz Inc. related to its alleged engagement in
anticompetitive and unfair business conduct with regard to sales of
enoxaparin have been resolved.

In 2015, Sandoz Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals were sued in a
putative antitrust class action in federal court in Tennessee
alleging that Momenta and Sandoz engaged in anticompetitive and
unfair business conduct with regard to sales of enoxaparin.

The same allegations were made by Amphastar in a lawsuit filed in
federal court in California and subsequently moved to federal court
in Massachusetts. In 2019, Sandoz resolved both matters, with
Sandoz agreeing to pay USD 85 million to resolve the Tennessee
class action and paying Amphastar approximately USD 39 million to
resolve the Massachusetts case.

The class action settlement is contingent upon, among other
conditions, court approval and the class participants not exceeding
an opt-out threshold. Sandoz, Momenta and Amphastar were also
engaged in patent litigation concerning enoxaparin that concluded
in June 2019.

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.


NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sandoz Inc. and Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc. continue to defend multiple class action
suits
related to the price fixing of generic drugs.

Since 2016, Sandoz Inc. has received grand jury subpoenas and a
civil investigative demand and interrogatories from the Antitrust
and Civil Divisions of the US Department of Justice (DoJ), and a
subpoena and interrogatories from the Attorney General of the State
of Connecticut in connection with alleged price fixing and market
allocation of generic drugs in the US market as well as alleged FCA
violations.

The requests are for documents related to the marketing and pricing
of generic pharmaceutical products sold by Sandoz Inc. and its
subsidiary, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fougera), and related
communications with competitors. Sandoz Inc. is cooperating with
these investigations, which it believes to be part of a broader
inquiry into industry practice.

Since the third quarter of 2016, Sandoz Inc. and Fougera have been
sued alongside other generic pharmaceutical companies in numerous
individual and putative class action complaints by direct and
indirect purchasers and Attorneys General for 54 states and
territories. Plaintiffs claim that defendants, including Sandoz,
engaged in price fixing and market allocation of generic drugs in
the US market, and seek damages and injunctive relief.

The actions contain product-specific complaints as well as
complaints alleging the existence of an overarching industry
conspiracy, and assert violations of federal and state antitrust
laws as well as consumer protection laws. The cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in the USDC for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.), and the claims are being
vigorously contested.

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

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.


NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sandoz Inc and other
pharmaceutical companies continue to defend class action suits in
Canada and a Multidistrict Litigation in New Jersey related to
valsartan and valsartan/HCT product liability.

Since 2018, claims have been brought against Sandoz Inc. and other
pharmaceutical companies alleging injury from carcinogenic
impurities found in valsartan and valsartan/HCT film-coated tablets
and/or losartan marketed or manufactured by Sandoz, including
several putative class actions in Canada and a Multidistrict
Litigation in New Jersey.

Claims have also been brought alleging injury from carcinogenic
impurities in ranitidine-containing medicines, including several
putative class actions in Canada.

All of these claims are being vigorously contested.

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.


OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Rejects Second Amended Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Ohio federal judge on Jan. 6 rejected a
second amended class action complaint from a group of alleged
sexual assault victims of a former Ohio State University sports
doctor, at least for now, again demanding the sides focus on
ongoing mediation. [GN]



OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD KNAAK, the Plaintiff,
v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01036-JPS
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order on
Feb. 5, 2020 granting Plaintiff's placeholder motion for class
certification.

The Court has neglected to address a preliminary motion filed by
Plaintiff seeking class certification. The motion was intended only
as a placeholder to ensure that Defendant could not pick Plaintiff
off as a potential class representative. See Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Court will grant the motion, inasmuch as it will permit the
motion to serve the placeholder function envisioned by Damasco. The
Plaintiff will be permitted to pursue a fulsome class certification
if and when he decides to file one.

Optio Solutions is a national debt collection agency.[CC]

PATTERN ENERGY: Krieger Files Suit Over Canada Pension Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Krieger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pattern Energy Group Inc., Alan R. Batkin,
Michael Morgan Garland, Edmund John Philip Browne, Patricia M.
Newson, Mona K. Sutphen, Richard A. Goodman and Douglas G. Hall,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08437 (N.D. Cal., December 27, 2019)
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed
merger between Pattern and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Pattern Energy shareholders stand to receive $26.75 in cash for
each share of Pattern stock they own.

According to the complaint, the registration statement for the
merger failed to include critical financial forecasts performed by
Evercore Group LLC, including the line items used to calculate
these non-GAAP metrics or a reconciliation of these non-GAAP
projections to the most comparable GAAP measures and failed to
define Adjusted EBITDA, reconcile Adjusted EBITDA to its most
comparable GAAP measure, or disclose the line items used to
calculate Adjusted EBITDA that should support the fairness opinions
in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the
shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal.

Pattern is a vertically integrated renewable energy company with
interests in 24 renewable energy projects in the United States,
Canada and Japan.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

              - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Mar. 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA). Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the
court. Further details about the case can be found at the link
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA)

PTLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2019
- January 9, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portola-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=5312&wire=1

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

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

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

Contact:

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

QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CLAYTON SALTER, individually,
and On behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALITY CARRIERS,
INC., an Illinois Corporation; QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV35275 (Filed Oct. 3, 2019), was removed from the California
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Jan. 16, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:2020cv00479 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid
wages earned and due, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and
illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest
period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses in violation to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants under employment
agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly
implied.

Quality Carriers was founded in 2002. The company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395 2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com
                  Daniel@kicklawfirm.com


RAPID LOGISTICS: Faces Gonzales Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Logistics, et
al. The case is captioned as Dominique Gonzales and other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Does 1-100, Rapid
Logistics, Rapid Logistics Courier LLC, and Rapid Logistics LLC,
Case No. 34-2020-00273567-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 16, 2020).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Rapid Logistics was founded in 2005. The company's line of business
includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave., Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


RBC BANK: April 22 Settlement Hearing Set in Overdraft Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division disclosed that a Settlement has been reached in a
class action lawsuit claiming that RBC Bank (USA) ("RBC")
improperly posted Debit Card Transactions from highest to lowest
dollar amount to increase the number of Overdraft Fees charged to
Account holders ("High-to-Low Posting"). The Settlement was reached
with PNC Bank, N.A. ("PNC"), successor in interest to RBC when the
two banks merged. PNC maintains that there was nothing wrong about
the posting process used by RBC and that no laws were violated. The
Court has not decided which side is right.

Who's Included?

The Settlement Class includes all holders of an RBC Account who,
from October 10, 2007 through and including March 1, 2012, incurred
one or more Overdraft Fees as a result of RBC's High-to-Low
Posting.

What Are the Settlement Terms?

PNC has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $7.5 million.
Individuals who remain in the Settlement Class, and if the Court
approves the Settlement, will automatically receive a payment or
Account credit for their pro rata portion of eligible Overdraft
Fees they paid during the period covered by the Settlement.

What Are My Other Options?

Members of the Settlement Class who do not want to remain in the
Settlement Class and be bound by the Settlement, must exclude
themselves by March 18, 2020. Members of the Settlement Class who
do not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class will
release their claims against PNC and RBC. Alternatively, members of
the Settlement Class may object to the Settlement by March 18,
2020. The Detailed Notice available at
www.RBCBankOverdraftSettlement.com explains how to exclude yourself
from or object to the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing on
April 22, 2020 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a
request for attorneys' fees up to 35% of the Settlement Fund and a
$10,000 Service Award.  Settlement Class Members may appear at the
hearing, but are not required to do so.  Settlement Class Members
are not required to hire a lawyer to appear or speak for them at
the hearing, but may do so if they choose, at their own expense.
For Detailed information visit www.RBCBankOverdraftSettlement.com
or call toll-free 1-855-958-0544. [GN]


RESCARE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Diaz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANA DIAZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. RESCARE INC., a Kentucky Corporation;
RSCR CALIFORNIA INC., a Kentucky Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20582235 (Cal. Super., Jan. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide the Plaintiff
and others with meal and rest periods, and to pay premium wages for
missed meal and/or rest periods.

Ms. Diaz also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and all
other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, to provide
them with accurate written wage statements, and to timely pay them
all of their final wages following separation of employment
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from August 26, 2018, through December 9, 2018.

ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job
seekers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehlaw.com


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Sabatini Suit Over ECI Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS INC., KIM S. FENNEBRESQUE, BRUNS
H. GRAYSON, BEATRIZ V. INFANTE, RICHARD J. LYNCH, KENT J. MATHY,
SCOTT E. SCHUBERT, and RICK W. SMITH, Case No. 1:20-cv-00069-UNA
(D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the Company's acquisition of ECI
Telecom Group Ltd.

On November 14, 2019, Ribbon Communications Inc.'s Board of
Directors caused Ribbon to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Eclipse Communications Ltd., Ribbon Communications
Israel Ltd., ECI Telecom Group Ltd., and ECI Holding (Hungary)
Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, all ECI equity
securities will be converted into the right to receive $324 million
in cash and 32.5 million shares of Ribbon common stock, and Merger
Sub will be merged with and into ECI, with ECI continuing as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ribbon.

On January 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Ribbon's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed
Transaction at a special meeting scheduled on Jan. 27, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

The disclosure of projected financial information is material
because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Ribbon common stock.

Ribbon delivers market-leading software solutions that secure and
power many of the world's leading service provider and enterprise
communications environments.[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
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


RING: Faces Class Action Over Home Security Camera Hacking
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Sonnemaker, writing for Business Insider, reports that two
couples who allege that their Ring home security cameras were
recently hacked filed a lawsuit seeking class action status against
the Amazon-owned company, accusing it of negligence, breach of
implied contract, and invasion of privacy, among other claims.

One couple, Ashley LeMay and Dylan Blakely, was at the center of an
incident in December where hackers spied on and taunted their
eight-year-old daughter after accessing an indoor camera they had
installed.

The other couple named in the lawsuit, Todd Craig and Tania Amador,
were allegedly harassed by hackers who accessed their doorbell
camera and told them "I'm outside your front door" as well as
threatened them with "termination" if they did not pay a ransom of
50 bitcoin, according to their attorneys.

The couples' attorneys said the lawsuit was filed "to hold Ring
responsible for its defective devices and systems, require that
Ring take all necessary measures to secure the privacy of user
accounts and devices, and compensate Plaintiffs and the Class
members for the damage that its acts and omissions have caused."

In recent months, Ring has faced growing criticism over its
security practices after hackers repeatedly accessed Ring cameras,
with multiple cases involving spying on children and one leading to
a separate lawsuit against the company.

The lawsuit, which was filed in US federal court in the Central
District of California on Jan. 3, must win class action
certification before it can proceed as a class action. The
plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Stueve Siegel & Hanson,
and Tycko & Zavareei. [GN]


RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action in NY Over Massive Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law LLC disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against a towing company which the complaint claims has
overcharged thousands of consumers who required towing services
from a towing company that is the exclusive towing company
authorized by the New York City Police Department to tow vehicles
on seven (7) highways with a daily vehicle volume of 1.2 million
cars per day (Abbey, et.al. v. Runway Towing Corp., et.al., Case
No. 19-cv-7116 (FB/SB).

According to the Complaint, instead of charging New York's
consumers and businesses $125 to have their cars towed up to 10
miles off of the seven (7) New York highways, parkway and
expressways, including the BQE, Gowanus Expressway, Prospect
Expressway, Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, Staten Island
Expressway and 3 other Staten Island highways, Runway Towing Corp
was charging up to $400 for the tow that they are only permitted to
charge $125 for. The complaint states that thousands of motorists
were overcharged between April 1, 2017 and the present date. The
amount of overcharges are estimated to be millions of dollars from
April 1, 2017 to the present date. It is alleged in the complaint,
that numerous insurance companies, including Progressive Insurance
Company and Geico Insurance as well as the American Automobile
Association have been victims of the overcharges.

It is alleged in the complaint that the New York City Police
Department and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
knew that Runway Towing Corp. was overcharging consumers and
businesses, but Runway Towing Corp. was permitted to continue their
scheme to overcharge.

It is alleged in the complaint that Runway Towing Corp. was given a
monopoly in towing services since April 1, 2017 by the New York
City Police Department, damaging consumers and businesses who
transport goods in interstate commerce on New York City roadways.

The complaint alleges that Runway Towing Corp. engaged in
racketeering activity and is being sued under Civil Racketeering
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which was used to
prosecute organized crime figures.

Plaintiff Timothy Abbey is represented by Gary Rosen, Esq., Rosen
Law LLC in Great Neck, New York – 516-437-3400 x223. [GN]


SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SUSAN SAVAGE, on Behalf of
Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. SETERUS, INC. and
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (as successor in interest to Seterus,
Inc.), Case No 2:19-cv-14256 (Filed July 25, 2019), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft.
Myers) on Jan. 16, 2020.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-
cv-00032-SPC-NPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

The case is a consumer protection action brought by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated to obtain redress from Seterus'
systematic use of unlawful and unfair false ultimatums in its
attempts to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans
alleged to be in default, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Seterus is regularly engaged in the business of collecting debt in
the State of Florida. Nationstar, doing business as Mr. Cooper,
offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brittney Lauren Difato, Esq.
          Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3463
          E-mail: bbell@mcguirewoods.com
                  sfhollad@mcguirewoods.com


SITE WORKS: Underpays Laborers, Cerda Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------
JAIME CERDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SITE WORKS CONTRACTING CORP.; SITE-TECH
CONSTRUCTION CORP.; PATRICIA ROSSI; and ARTIE ROSSI, Defendants,
Case No. 600301/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 8, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiff Cerda was employed by the Defendants as laborer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550


SM LAW PC: Debesay Hits Collection Letter Validity
--------------------------------------------------
Biniam Debesay, individually and on behalf of other
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SM Law, PC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00109 (D. Ariz., January 14, 2020), seeks actual
damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Defendant is a debt collector who attempted to collect, via
collection letter, an obligation allegedly incurred by Debesay who
allegedly fell behind in the payments. Plaintiff disputed the
validity of this alleged debt since the notice required a dispute
to be in writing in order to dispute the validity of the debt.
Debesay also alleges that SM Law is not a licensed debt-collector
in Arizona. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
      Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (SBN 032001)
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: david@kazlg.com
             ryan@kazlg.com


STADION MONEY: Davis ERISA Suit Venue Moved to Nebraska District
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY DAVIS, individually and as The representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. STADION
MONEY MANAGEMENT, LLC and UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19CV119 (M.D. N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina (i) declined to resolve the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, and (ii)
granted United's Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of
Nebraska.

The action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  Plaintiff Davis lives in
Greensboro, North Carolina, where she worked for Festival Fun
Parks, LLC, doing business as Palace Entertainment.  Palace
Entertainment is a California-based company.  Davis was
automatically enrolled by her employer in the "Palace Plan," Palace
Entertainment's QDIA.  The Palace Plan was managed by Stadion.
Stadion canceled Davis' service when she received a distribution of
benefits in March 2013.

Defendant Stadion is a registered investment adviser based in
Watkinsville, Georgia.  It provides managed account services to
participants in ERISA-covered plans throughout the United States.
In return for its investing services, Stadion receives a fee agreed
to by the plan's sponsor.  Defendant United is an insurance company
based in Omaha, Nebraska.  It issues group variable annuity
contracts to employer-sponsored retirement plans and provides
attendant administrative and investment services.

According to the Plaintiff, Stadion's managed account service has
consistently delivered underwhelming results.  Given the poor
performance, Stadion could only expand by establishing new
marketing relationships with insurance companies, like United, who
could pitch Stadion's managed account service to the participants
in the group variable annuities they managed.  In exchange for
these managed account services, Stadion receives a managed account
fee which it splits with United.

The Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit on behalf of all participants
and beneficiaries whose accounts were enrolled in Stadion's managed
account service within a retirement plan administered by United of
Omaha for any period of time after Jan. 25, 2013.

At its core, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Stadion
selected investment options that generated higher fees for United
and, in exchange, United kept referring Stadion to provide managed
account services despite Stadion's lackluster track record.  In
Count One, the Plaintiff alleges Stadion violated its fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence by investing in investment options
affiliated with Defendants when unaffiliated options would have
provided better performance at lower costs.  In Count Two, she
alleges United wrongfully and knowingly profited from Stadion's
ERISA violations.  In Count Three, the Plaintiff alleges Stadion
engaged in prohibited transactions with a party in interest,
United.  Finally, in Count Four, she  alleges Stadion engaged in
prohibited transactions with itself.

Before the Court are motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint filed by the Defendants, as well as
United's Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is suing under ERISA in her home state of North
Carolina.  While courts should be hesitant to disrupt such a
plaintiff's choice of forum, the Plaintiff's decision to sue in the
District should be afforded less than the usual deference for two
reasons.  First, she is the representative of a broad class that is
not intimately tied to any state and that is, in fact, more closely
connected with Nebraska than North Carolina.  Second, the
Plaintiff's choice of forum is owed less than the usual deference
because of the limited connection between North Carolina and her
cause of action.  In sum, the first discretionary factor -- the
Plaintiff's initial choice of forum -- is accorded substantially
less weight here as she chose to litigate an ERISA case in her home
state while serving as the head of a putative, diffuse class in an
action that has little to do with North Carolina.

While the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the physical
location of documents should be of little importance in the age of
digitized documents, Judge Biggs holds that the fact remains that
Omaha is the epicenter of United's retirement service business and
the location where all of the executive and management activities,
decision-making, and strategy takes place.  Thus, it is likely that
most of the critical witnesses are located there.  North Carolina,
by contrast, is home only to Davis, who would likely suffer less
personal inconvenience from transferring the case, particularly as
United has offered to depose her in North Carolina.  Therefore, it
appears that Nebraska would be far more convenient for the great
majority of the witnesses in the case -- a factor that weighs
heavily in favor of transfer.

Next, there is no indication that any witness will be unwilling to
participate in the litigation, the Court notes.  Thus, the Judge's
analysis of the third discretionary factor -- the cost of obtaining
attendance of willing and unwilling witnesses -- folds into the
analysis related to ease of access to proof, further bolstering the
Defendant's case for transfer.

The Defendant offers statistics indicating that in 2018, the median
civil case advanced from filing to disposition in 10.4 months in
this District and in 7.4 months in Nebraska.  This is consistent
with data going back to 2013 indicating that Nebraska handles cases
slightly faster than the Middle District does.  Judge Biggs does
not find the three-month difference to be so sizable as to weigh
more than slightly in favor of transfer.

The ninth factor -- the local interest in having localized
controversies settled at home -- reflects the judgment of the
federal courts that litigation should take place in the federal
judicial district or division with the closest relationship to the
operative events.  Nebraska has a closer relationship with the
operative events because -- while both states are home to a party
and to putative class members -- only Nebraska has a substantial
connection with the heart of the matter: whether the Defendants
engaged in impermissible self-dealing.  Thus, the factor weighs in
favor of transfer.

Finally, Judge Biggs holds that the remaining factors are not
germane to her inquiry.  United has carried its burden of
persuading the Court that more than a bare balance of convenience
is in its favor and that a transfer would further the interests of
justice by doing more than "merely shifting the inconvenience" from
the Defendant to the Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion to transfer will be granted.

Judge Biggs concludes that it would further the interests of
justice and the convenience of the parties and potential witnesses
to transfer this matter to the District of Nebraska.  The
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is thus granted, the Court
rules.  The Clerk of Court will transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska.  The North Carolina
Court declined to resolve the Defendants' motions to dismiss, which
will be transferred, as part of the action, to the District of
Nebraska.

A full-text copy of the North Carolina Court's Dec. 20, 2019
Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/mNL4iX
from Leagle.com.

KIMBERLY DAVIS, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by BRANDON T.
MCDONOUGH -- bmcdonough@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, BROCK J.
SPECHT -- bspecht@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, CARL F. ENGSTROM
-- cengstrom@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, KAI H. RICHTER --
krichter@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, PAUL JOSEPH LUKAS --
lukas@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & F. HILL ALLEN, IV --
hallen@tharringtonsmith.com -- THARRINGTON SMITH.

STADION MONEY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER
K. VAN ZANT -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, JAMES O. FLECKNER -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com
-- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP & MATTHEW L. RIFFEE --
mriffee@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP.

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, ABBEY M. GLENN,
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, CHRISTOPHER J. BORAN, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP & JEREMY P. BLUMENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP.


STAR SNACKS: Class Action Says Cashew Nut Mix is Mostly Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Farron Cousins, writing for trofire.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Star Snacks Company by a
consumer who claims that the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix made by
the defendant is made up of mostly peanut pieces. Gregory Lowery
says he purchased three packages of the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack
Mix expecting the package to contain mostly cashews based on the
product's name. But when he opened the bag, he allegedly found out
that it contained a plethora of peanuts instead. Ring of Fire's
Farron Cousins discusses this with Scott Hardy, the President of
Top Class Actions.

Transcript:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription
software company, so please excuse any typos.

Farron Cousins: As I have said repeatedly, American consumers are
not complicated. We're not asking for too much either. All we want
is that if you advertise something and we go and buy it, we want
the thing that you're selling us to actually be the thing that
we're getting. But unfortunately, we are seeing far too often in
this country what is being advertised to us and what is the actual
product, sometimes they're two completely different things and
that's actually what we're seeing right now with Imperial Nuts.
Joining me to talk about this is Scott Hardy with Top Class
Actions, and Scott, if you buy, you know, a bag of mixed nuts, you
know, cashew mixed nuts, whatever it is, you expect it to actually
contain mixed nuts, which is a mix, a variety. But this new class
action says, yeah, that's not happening with this product, is it?

Scott Hardy: No, the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix class action
alleges that this customer went in there, bought the snack mix.
They say, hey, I like cashews. Let's have some cashews. Here's my
cashew snack mix, crack open that little bag, start taking out
those yummy, nutty goodness and lo and behold, it's mostly peanuts,
very few cashews and not just peanuts, you know, nice whole little
peanuts. No, they're all just peanut bits that have been all broken
and cracked. So this class, class action actually mentions two
things. One, they're saying, hey, if you're selling me a cashew
snack mix, give me my dog on cashews. This is what I want. You
know, I understand if you're putting a couple of peanuts in there,
that's fine. But I expect the majority of what I get will be
cashews. Second, if you're going to show on this bag, these pretty
pictures of these nice looking cashews and even some peanuts,
because I know I'm going to get some peanuts in this yummy snack
mix.

Make sure they're not just peanut bits. They're not just crumpled
and crunched and, you know, I'm not even getting any whole peanuts
in here either. So it's twofold. But the main thing is all of us
have gotten a snack and gone and gotten some, you know, a bag of
nuts at the gas station as you're going on a road trip, hoping that
you're going to get those yummy cashews or pistachios or whatever
you're getting and then get short changed. Well, these lawyers are
trying to fight for you to make sure you don't get short changed
for those cashews or other, what I would term premium nuts, that
you buy.

Farron Cousins: Well, and, you know I, I think it's funny too
because people need to understand this isn't just anger, a guy's
mad because he didn't have enough cashews in the bag. On the back
of the bag, on the ingredients label, which has to list the
ingredients in descending order from most to least, cashews is
number one. But you open up the package and that's not true. So,
so, so there is a pretty big labeling problem here with this and
that's what this, essentially what this lawsuit is predicated upon.
You're telling us on this package that there are more cashews in
this bag than anything else and you can open the bag for yourself
and see that this is totally a false claim here.

Scott Hardy: Yeah, it's, you know, you open it up. If you're buying
a cashew snack mix, you're expecting a whole lot of cashews. You're
not expecting mostly peanuts. And so that's what they're trying to
fix here is if you're going to label a product as cashews or
pistachios or whatever the case is, make sure the majority of what
you're putting in there are, you know, is that actual star
ingredient. Is that premium nut that yumminess that people are
buying, that people are paying extra for. If somebody wanted a bag
of peanuts, they'll buy a bag of peanuts, but if they are looking
for a cashew or something like that, then just, just help us out.
Put more of that in there than anything else. That's all we're
asking.

Farron Cousins: Right, and that, that's part of the thing too is,
you know the reason they, they name it cashew is because that, that
catches your eye. If you're a big cashew fan, that's what you're
going after. Instead of just calling it, you know, they, it's
called cashew snack mix. They could call it nut snack mix then
okay, you, you know, you're getting nuts. You don't know what kind,
you don't know how many of each, but okay, you're just buying nuts.
So whatever you get, you're happy with. You advertised it as
cashew, you got only a couple in there and then a bunch of broken
peanut pieces, this isn't even close to what you're claiming it is.
So can you just do the right thing for once, either change your
label to say pieces of nuts in a bag or throw some extra cashews in
there and give us what we're paying for.

Scott Hardy: Right, right. If I just want to get, you know, broken
nuts in a zip lock bag, I'm pretty sure that'll be a lot less
expensive than a fancy, Imperial Nuts sounds very, you know, it's
super Royal here. Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix, give me my
cashews. I don't want, I don't want sad peanut pieces snack mix,
like you said, that wouldn't sell very well.

Farron Cousins: No, it wouldn't. For more information about this
issue. You can follow the link in the description of this video,
head on over to Top Class Actions, and of course while you're
there, if you have not already done so, please subscribe to their
weekly newsletter. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions, thank you
very much for talking with us.

Scott Hardy:  You're welcome. Thanks for your time, Farron.
[GN]


STATE FARM: Settles Homeowners' Insurance Class Action for $8.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co.'s $8.5 million settlement of a class action,
which claimed the company breached the terms of its homeowner's
insurance contracts in Arkansas, was given preliminary approval by
a federal court Jan. 3.

The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm, in calculating the actual
cash value of covered losses, depreciated labor costs contrary to
Arkansas law.

State Farm agreed to settle after six years of litigation, although
it told the court it "remains confident in its view that it would
ultimately prevail in the litigation" and that the plaintiffs "were
fully and appropriately compensated for their losses." [GN]




STRANGE HONEY: Consumers File Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Citizen Tribune reports that two Knoxville honey consumers who
claim to represent hundreds of others have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Cocke County-based Strange Honey Farm, alleging
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Strange Honey is a
limited-liability company owned by Gary Strange and his wife, Fonda
Strange.

Strange Honey markets and sells its produce as being 100% raw honey
from Tennessee.

Eight analysis reports of Strange Honey, which were filed as
exhibits to the lawsuit, indicate the honey the Del Rio company
came from Vietnam. Bruker Biospin, a German company with an office
in Massachusetts, analyzed Strange honey products in 2018 and
2019.

The federal lawsuit, which was filed by Knoxville attorney Al
Holifield on behalf of Knoxville honey consumers Robert Greer and
James Reimer as representatives of the class, maintains there's a
good reason Strange Honey sells honey harvested in Southeast Asia
and other places.

"Strange Honey cannot collect enough honey from its own hives and
other Tennessee hives to keep up with demand," the lawsuit states.

The alleged false marketing about "raw" honey relates to science
and honey's reputed health benefits.

Honey processors frequently heat the viscous substance to make it
easier to pour into containers. When raw honey is heated above 105
degrees Fahrenheit, however, the warmth destroys beneficial
compounds, including enzymes, for which raw honey is prized,
according to the lawsuit. Determining whether honey has been
excessively heated isn't rocket science. It's easy to know by
testing its so-called 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, or HMF value.

"The scientific community has long recognized that an HMF value
over 40 milligrams per kilogram is strong evidence that raw honey
was heated to a high enough temperature for a long enough period of
time to break down the enzymes contained in the honey," the lawsuit
states.

Strange Honey samples that were tested measured HMF values between
57 mg/kg and 109 mg/kg, according to the lawsuit.

The federal lawsuit alleges the amount of honey involved exceeds $5
million in value, but concedes it's impossible to quantify the lost
heath benefits. The plaintiffs want Strange Honey to establish a
five-year, court-supervised testing system to ensure the honey
advertised as coming from Tennessee originates in Tennessee, and
that the product has not been excessively heated.

The plaintiffs are also asking for attorneys' fees and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. [GN]


TIME WARNER CABLE: Wage & Hour Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports a group of Time
Warner Cable customer service and call center employees submitted
enough evidence to support their wage and hour claims, but can't
proceed as a class action, a California federal court ruled.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted TWC's motion to deny certification of the proposed class,
which comprises nearly 900 employees based in TWC's San Diego and
Ontario, Calif., offices. The court also partially granted TWC's
motion to dismiss.

Laurence Gibbs, Carmen Fuller, and three other TWC employees filed
a proposed class action against TWC Administration LLC. [GN]



TJX COMPANIES: Faces Migyanko ADA Suit Over Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD J. MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a/ MARSHALLS,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00077-MJH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and expenses for
the Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied full and
equal access to the Defendant's stores as a result of accessibility
barriers existing in interior paths of travel. These access
barriers include merchandise displays, stocking carts, boxes,
and/or other items, positioned so that they impermissibly block or
narrow the aisle pathways. The Plaintiff contends that these
conditions violate the ADA and deny the Plaintiff's equal access to
the goods and services offered at the Defendant's stores.

TJX Companies is an American multinational off-price department
store corporation, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh PA, 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com


TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Settles Caterers' Class Action Over Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Gen.medium.com reports that the Trump Organization is paying up
after a class-action lawsuit claimed his company stiffed caterers
out of their tips.

Andrew Redlawsk thinks it's bizarre he kicked off the new year by
receiving a check for $944.72 from the Trump Organization. "When
you find out that a guy worth billions is stealing tips from people
who are just trying to feed their kids and put food on the table,
it's unreal honestly," he said. "And then the other part of that is
like it's not just a billionaire -- it's the president."

Donald Trump has been long famous for his ongoing legal troubles.
(As of June 2016, he had been involved in at least 3,500 legal
actions over three decades.) Among them was a lawsuit by a former
catering staffer named Deborah Garcia, who in 2015 sued Trump and
his children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka, claiming the Trump
Organization stiffed her and other service workers out of tips.

Garcia said the company pocketed a mandatory 22% service fee on
events at the hotel Trump SoHo -- a charge customers likely assumed
was meant as gratuity. She alleged she was paid $15 an hour, but
never received any tips. New York law prohibits employers from
retaining workers' tips or fees "purported to be a gratuity." The
state also requires businesses to clearly disclose on invoices,
menus, and bills when a service charge is not a tip, which Garcia
claimed the Trump Organization never did. The lawsuit also named
the Sapir Organization and the Bayrock Group as defendants. The
companies owned the hotel until it was foreclosed on in 2014, while
the Trump Organization was managing it and had licensed out the
family name.

In November 2017, the Trumps finally cut ties with the hotel, which
has since been renamed The Dominick. The lawsuit was eventually
settled for an undisclosed amount and a judge signed off on it in
August 2019. The firm that represented Garcia declined GEN's
request for comment because it would be in violation of the
agreement's terms.

Redlawsk, a 33-year-old based in Arlington, Virginia, received a
letter in May 2019 notifying him of the lawsuit and that he
qualified for the class action. [GN]


UKRAINIAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Firm File Suit Over Iran Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katya Slepian, writing for Aldergrove Star, reports that a Canadian
law firm has launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
families of the 176 people who died when Iran shot down a Ukrainian
plane on Jan. 8.

Himelfarb Proszanski, a law firm based in Toronto, said New York
litigation funding company Galactic Litigation Partners LLC will
fund the legal effort.

Ukrainian International Airline flight 752 crashed just after
taking off from Tehran on Jan. 8. Initially, the Iranian government
claimed technical failures were to blame but it has since admitted
its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. mistakenly shot down the
plane, killing all 176 on board.

Canada, which lost 57 of its own in the crash, and the
international community have called for Iran to complete a thorough
investigation and compensate the victims' families.

The law firm said the flight took off despite the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration banning civilian flights over Iran.
Although the Ukrainian airline is not subject to U.S. flight bans,
the law firm said many airlines respect such FAA notices, and that
other airlines rerouted their flights due to general unrest in the
region after the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

"Flight PS752 departed despite the known risks," the law firm
said.

The class action has not yet been certified by the courts and none
of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]




[*] Court Stays Class Action Against CBD Company Pending FDA Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
J. R. Pegg, writing for IEG Policy Agribusiness, reports that
resolution of a class action targeting a Florida-based CBD company
for allegedly misleading consumers about the potency of its
products must wait until FDA issues rules governing use of the
non-psychoactive cannabis ingredient, a federal judge ruled. [GN]




                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***