/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200219.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 36

                            Headlines

500.COM LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds of March 16 Deadline
AECOM TECHNICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
AEGION CORP: Edgar Challenges Improper Use of Consumer Reports
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: May 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Compelled to Produce Unredacted Docs in Olberg

AMERICAN SECURITY: Jamison Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
AMERICAN WORKERS: Faces Bond TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
AMWARE PALLET: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Soto Says
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Sabel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dimas Claims

AUSTRALIA: Coledale Football Club Mulls Class Action Over Funding
BAILEY'S GYM: Gardenhire Alleges Violation under ADA
BELLA SANTE: Chapoteau Seeks Sunday Premium Pay for Spa Workers
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Martinez Suit Returns to Calif. Central Dist.
BOSTON INTERIORS: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA

BOULEVARD BREWING CO: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
BRAVURA GLASS: Fails to Pay Right Wages, Kuznetsov and Isakov Claim
BUDGET VAN LINES: Caplan Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
C.H. ROBINSON: Court Certifies Class of Account Managers
CARE.COM INC: Kent Securities Suit Balks at Merger Deal With IAC

CASA MEXICANA: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Cruz Says
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Rivera Asserts Breach of FDCPA
CIRCLE K STORES: Dones Sues Over Illegal Background Check
CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Privacy Class Action in Illinois
CLEARVIEW AI: Mutnick Sues Over Collection of Biometric Info

COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over "Just a Tad Sweet" Label
COLLECTION BUREAU: Appel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO: Mata Sues Over Unlawful Booting of Vehicles
CONTRACT CALLERS: Biston Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CONTRACT CALLERS: Landau Asserts Breach FDCPA in New York

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court OKs $3.7MM Settlement Deal in Sheean
CREDIT CORP: Ortiz Files Suit for FDCPA Breach in New York
DINICO'S PIZZA: Cosenza Hits Biometrics Data Collection
EMPIRE MERCHANT: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
EONS - GREEK FOOD: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Perez Claims

EQUIFAX INC: Settles 2017 Data Breach Class Action for $1.38 Bil.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Three Union Workers File Class Action Over Bribery
GEORGETOWN HOSPITAL: Faces Kersey Suit Over Ransomware Attack
GOOGLE INC: Google Users Oppose Motion to Dismiss Class Action
HERMES GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA

HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Pay Final Wages at Termination, Lee Says
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Dannett Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
INFINITY AUTO: Sardinas Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida
INTERSTATE CLEANING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved to N.D. California
IRAN: Class Action Filed on Behalf of Flight 752 Victims

JUUL LABS: Escambia County E-Cigarettes Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
KERRY INC: Arenas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
L'ATRE ENTERPRISES: Restaurant Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
LANDCORP HOSPITALITY: Faces Wilson-Sewell Employment Suit in Cal.
LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA

LOGMEIN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
LUCKY BRAND: Desalvo Sues in C.D. California Over ADA Violations
M&T BANK: Settles Class Action for $20.85 Million
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Court Certifies Class of Banquet Staff
MAYVENN INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under American Disabilities Act

MDL 2913: Ledbetter Suit Over JUUL E-Cigarettes Consolidated
MEDICAL BUSINESS: FCCPA Class & FDCPA Subclass in Gause Certified
MEMPHIS GOODWILL: Bradley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MENARD INC: Court Denies Certificate of Appealability in Astarita
MIDLAND FUNDING: Saul Ewing Attorney Discusses Magistrate Ruling

MILOS HY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mera Claims
MJP HOLDINGS: Faces Landy Suit in Pa. Alleging Violation of TCPA
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 3 Deadline
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Dismissal Order in Guthart
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Filed Over Superannuation "Ripoff"

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces McFadden Suit Over Pay-to-Pay Fees
NATURAL BODY: Gardenhire Files Suit under ADA
NELNET INC: Court Extends Discovery Schedule in Olsen Suit
NEST PLANNER: Menichiello Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
NFI INDUSTRIES: Meegan Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

OPERA LTD: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PAYROLL MADE EASY: Broughton Sues Over Illegal Background Check
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Silver's Class Cert. Bid Denied
PINGER INC: Regan Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
PLAZA FARMERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Martinez Claims

PORCELANA CORONA: March 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
PREMIER PLUMBING: Anderson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAB INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
REALREAL INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit

RETAIL GROUP: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Talmoud Alleges
REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Glanz Alleges Violation under FDCPA
RIPPLE LABS: Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Action Postponed
SASOL LTD: Bronstein Investigates Potential Securities Claims
SHARED IMAGING: Ranger Sues in California Over Employment Issues

SO FLO: Faces Millward TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Text Messages
SOUTH NASSAU: Class Cert. Order in Krobath Suit Partly Affirmed
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Goldman Sues over Accounting Irregularities
STEVENS TANKER: Dispatchers' Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES: McMillan Files FDCPA Suit in New York

TETHER: Launches Yuan-Pegged Stablecoin Amid Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Medeiros Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Rivera Alleges Violation under FDCPA
TRINITY SERVICES: Sims Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages
UNILEVER: Faces Class Action over Rejuveness Anti-Wrinkle Cream

USA WATER POLO: Court Tosses All Pending Motions in Mayall Suit
USCCB: O'Connell Questions Diversion of Peter's Pence Donations
VERDE ENERGY: Laqua Sues in New York Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
VERIZON CONNECT: Badillo Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
VF OUTDOOR: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

VISKASE COMPANIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes
WALGREEN CO: April 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
WAWA INC: Katz Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Issue
ZAYO GROUP: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ZIN MANAGEMENT: Faces Labarbera Suit over Employee Uniform Costs

[*] Cannabis Class Action Lawsuits Rise in 2019
[*] Class Proceedings Fund Names John Brown as Committee Member
[*] Imperfect Meal, Rest Break Policies Don't Support Class Cert.
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Continue Record Pace

                            *********

500.COM LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds of March 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Baxter International Inc. (BAX)
Class Period: 2/21/2019 - 10/23/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-baxter-international-inc-securities-litigation-3

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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-500com-limited-securities-litigation
     

If you purchased shares of the above companies 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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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.

                           About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


AECOM TECHNICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against AECOM
Technical Services, Inc., alleging that the company failed to
lawfully provide meal and rest periods and also failed pay overtime
wages to their California employees. The class action lawsuit
against AECOM Technical Services, Inc., is currently pending in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV44876.

The lawsuit filed against AECOM Technical Services, Inc., alleges
the company failed and continues to fail to accurately calculate
and pay their California non-exempt employees for overtime worked.
Allegedly, AECOM Technical Services, Inc., failed to pay these
employees for all overtime worked, including, work performed in
excess of eight (8) hours in a workday, and/or twelve (12) hours in
a workday, and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek. State law
provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half
times their "regular rate of pay."

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members were also from time to time unable to take off duty
meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods
due to their rigorous work schedules. PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required to perform work as ordered
by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during a shift without
receiving an off-duty meal break.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against AECOM
Technical Services, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to Attorney
Nicholas De Blouw.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages,overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct.

***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]


AEGION CORP: Edgar Challenges Improper Use of Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVONTI EDGAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AEGION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SCHULTZ
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; SCHULTZ
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, Case No. 20CV362163 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants use information from
consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the State of
California.

Aegion is an American multinational company involved in the
construction, maintenance, protection, rehabilitation, engineering
and design of infrastructure projects. Schultz has performed
fabrication, construction, maintenance and turnaround services to
general industrial and energy industries in California.[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


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: May 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Allegiant Travel Company securities (ALGT):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED PUBLICLY TRADED
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY SECURITIES BETWEEN JUNE 8, 2015 AND MAY 9,
2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, that a hearing will be
held on May 14, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Andrew P.
Gordon, United States District Judge of the District of Nevada, 333
Las Vegas Boulevard South, Courtroom 6C, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration
including the sum of $4,000,000 should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the
Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$40,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to each
Plaintiff, or $10,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 27, 2019
(the "Settlement Stipulation"). [GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Compelled to Produce Unredacted Docs in Olberg
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted Plaintiffs' Motion for production of documents
in JEFF OLBERG, an individual et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation et al., Defendants, Case
No. C18-0573-JCC, (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action on behalf of
Washington insureds against Defendants, asserting a variety of
state law claims arising from Defendants' alleged erroneous
valuations of total loss vehicles.

Plaintiffs have served Defendants with two requests for production
seeking documents related to Defendants' valuation of total loss
claims.  

Defendants objected to both requests for production, arguing that
they were overly broad, were not relevant or reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or sought
proprietary business information. Defendants have not asserted a
claim of privilege as to the documents. Ultimately, Defendants
produced heavily redacted documents in response to Plaintiffs'
requests for production. Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with a
redaction log stating the grounds for each redaction.

Defendants assert that they have redacted portions of the documents
that "deal strictly with repairable vehicle claims" or are
"non-responsive, irrelevant, and commercially sensitive as they
pertain to financial information and personnel that have no bearing
on the claims at issue in this suit."

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to produce
unredacted versions of the documents.

Absent a claim of privilege, Defendants' assertion that the
material at issue is irrelevant to this litigation is insufficient
to justify their unilateral redactions of material from otherwise
responsive documents, the District Court opines. Defendants have
not established that the redacted material cannot meet the low bar
of relevance under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of
Plaintiffs' claims in this matter. Further, even assuming the
material does not meet this low bar, the extensive nature of the
redactions deprives the responsive documents of both context and
clarity. Finally, the Court is satisfied that the protective order
entered in this case contains sufficient procedural safeguards to
protect Defendants' confidential information from improper use
beyond this litigation.  

Accordingly, the District Court rules that Plaintiffs' request for
an order compelling Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company to produce unredacted
forms of the responsive documents at issue is GRANTED.  

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

Jeff Olberg, an individual & Cecilia Ana Palao-Vargas, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David L. Woloshin , ASTOR
WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, The Bellevue 200 South Broad Street,
Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102, pro hac vice, Dina S. Ronsayro ,
ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, The Bellevue 200 South Broad
Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102,  pro hac vice, John M.
DeStefano - johnd@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP,
pro hac vice, Marc A. Goldich , AXLER GOLDICH LLC, 1520 Locust
StreetSuite 301Philadelphia, PA 19102, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Carey - rob@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac
vice & Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP.
Michael Clothier, an individual & Jacob Thompson, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman , HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP.

Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Peter J. Valeta  -pvaleta@cozen.com - COZEN
O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Wendy Enerson - wenerson@cozen.com - COZEN
O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Anusha E. Jones - aejones@cozen.com - COZEN
O'CONNOR & William Harrison Walsh - wwalsh@cozen.com - COZEN
O'CONNOR.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anusha E. Jones , COZEN
O'CONNOR & William Harrison Walsh , COZEN O'CONNOR.

CCC Information Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jason R. Burt -jason.burt@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS,
pro hac vice, Kathleen P. Lally - kathleen.lally@lw.com - LATHAM &
WATKINS, pro hac vice, Marguerite M. Sullivan -
marguerite.sullivan@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Steven
J. Pacini - steven.pacini@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, pro hac
vice & Kathleen M. O'Sullivan – KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com -
PERKINS COIE.


AMERICAN SECURITY: Jamison Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JAMISON, and all others similarly situated pursuant to
U.S.C. section 216(b) v. AMERICAN SECURITY GROUP A-1, INC. d/b/a
A-1 LOCK AND KEY, a Florida corporation, and MICHAEL NETTLES, an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-20256-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Florida Statutes by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals' duties
involved being dispatched to assist motorists, who had become
locked out of their vehicles. During their working hours, the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals were required to
be on the road in a vehicle assigned by the Defendants and prepared
to meet stranded motorists when such calls came through, according
to the complaint.

The Plaintiff says he and all similarly situated individuals were
paid a piecemeal rate for each vehicle serviced. In his case, the
Plaintiff's rate was between $3.00-$4.00 per vehicle. This
piecemeal rate of pay never covered minimum wage or the required
overtime pay during the Plaintiff's employment with Defendants,
says the complaint.

American Security provides locksmith services in the Topeka, Kansas
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com


AMERICAN WORKERS: Faces Bond TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BOND and CANDY WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN WORKERS INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing calls unsolicited telephone calls
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to: stop the Defendant's practice of placing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
consent; enjoin the Defendant from continuing to place autodialed
telephone calls to consumers who did not provide their prior
express consent to receive them, or who revoked such consent; stop
the Defendant from calling consumers who are registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain redress for all persons
injured by the Defendant's conduct.

AWIS is a licensed insurance agency that provides health insurance
to tens of thousands of customers in over 40 states. According to
its Web site, AWIS offers limited group insurance benefits to
members of the National Association of Preferred Providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD LLC
          1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 893-9400
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

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


AMWARE PALLET: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Soto Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTEBAN CAMPOS SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMWARE PALLET SERVICES, LLC, a limited
liability corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00227 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 21,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by failing to pay minimum wages, to pay overtime wages, and to
authorize or permit lawful meal periods and rest breaks.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of
which contribute to the Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.

The Plaintiff and the putative class are and were employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees throughout California.

Amware is cargo and freight company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Joseph M. Szilagyi, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  jszilagyi@aegislawfirm.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Sabel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Chaim M. Sabel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00778
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Associated Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dimas Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DIMAS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the general
public v. ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, a limited liability
company; JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, INC., a foreign corporation; SOCAL
CONCESSIONS LLC; a limited liability company; ANGELA VUNA, an
individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02550 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide
meal breaks and rest breaks, and to pay overtime and minimum
wages.

Mr. Dimas and other aggrieved employees worked well in excess of 8
hours per shift, and many times, over 14 hours per shift, and/or
well over 40 hours in a work week, but did not receive overtime
compensation of time and half and/or double time for work over 14
hours a day as required by law, according to the complaint. Before
his shift started, Mr. Dimas and other aggrieved employees were
required to work off-the-clock before their shift started,
including various types of prep work and donning and doffing of
uniforms.

Mr. Dimas contends that he and other aggrieved employees were not
allowed to, and actively discouraged from taking any meal and/or
rest periods. In fact, he avers, the Defendants maintained a policy
and/or practice of disciplining and/or reprimanding employees, who
took meal and/or rest breaks.

In 2016, Mr. Dimas was hired by the Defendants as a nonexempt cook
for Barney's Beanery restaurant located at the Los Angeles
International Airport, Terminal 2.

Atlanta Restaurant functions within the food industry. The Company
specializes in the sale of food and beverage concessionaires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Zamora, Esq.
          THE ZAMORA LAW FIRM
          714 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Telephone: 213 536 5201
          Facsimile: 213 289 4714
          E-mail: adrian@thezamoralawfirm.com


AUSTRALIA: Coledale Football Club Mulls Class Action Over Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that Bridget
McKenzie's controversial $100m sports grants program may be
unconstitutional because the federal government lacks power to hand
out money to sports clubs, a leading constitutional academic has
warned.

Anne Twomey, a professor at the University of Sydney, issued the
warning on Jan. 21 after Scott Morrison asked the attorney general
to "clarify" and "address" legal issues with the program which the
auditor general found was skewed towards marginal seats.

Two leading plaintiff law firms, Slater and Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn, have offered to run a class action or test case against
the program, citing comments by the Australian National Audit
Office that it was "not evident to the ANAO what the legal
authority was" for McKenzie, the former sports minister, to approve
grants.'

Coledale football club -- already the most outspoken critics among
the clubs which missed out on funding -- has already contacted
Maurice Blackburn about launching a case.

Twomey told ABC News Breakfast the commonwealth is "only given
limited powers under the constitution" and "there is no power given
to it in relation to sport".

Twomey cited the case brought by Ron Williams against the federal
government's chaplaincy scheme, in which the high court found the
commonwealth can't spend money unless there is parliamentary
authorisation and "unless there's some support in the constitution
for it".

Twomey suggested the commonwealth could argue the community sport
infrastructure grants program comes under the "nationhood power",
but she doubted that "resurfacing an oval" would constitute a
"national emergency" or something that states are unable to do.

"We know that the states can, and do, give out sports grants.

"So, it doesn't seem to fit either of those, which means there's a
bit of a problem in terms of supporting this program."

Twomey said the lack of ministerial power is a secondary reason the
program may be unlawful.

"That's a power that's been vested by the legislation in Sports
Australia . . . and that means that there are some difficulties
there in terms of working out how it is that the minister could
make the final decision in relation to these grants.

"So, the grants themselves may well be unlawful."

Martin Smith, a coach and member of the Coledale football club's
infrastructure working group, told Guardian Australia its executive
is still considering launching a case and despite reservations
about the time commitment and potential negative fallout "the early
signal is, yes, we'd like to do it".

The Coledale Waves are a rapidly growing club, which reached 600
registered players by adding more teams for women and men over 18
despite having only one field.

Smith said the club had "expended significant hours" on an
application to upgrade its facilities, because the club's field has
no lights and no space for both storage and women's change rooms.

"We were probably in that group of recommended clubs that missed
out due to the minister's intervention.

"Do we feel angry? Yes, probably -- and disappointed that taxpayer
money was spent in this way.

"The class action -- if it comes to that -- I believe is a worthy
thing. Governments should not be able to act in this reprehensible
manner."

Slater and Gordon practice group leader, Andrew Baker, noted that
one of the "main advantages" of a class action is that any claim
"will automatically cover all groups that fall within the class".

He said this was an "important feature" given clubs "are probably
going to be reluctant" to bring individual claims because they will
need to apply for grant funding in future.

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

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

The attorney general, Christian Porter, told Guardian Australia the
government had noted the comments concerning the legal basis for
ministerial involvement and "given the lack of any conclusive view
offered by the auditor general, the prime minister has sought
further consideration of the issue, which I am attending to".

McKenzie and the prime minister Scott Morrison insist that all
projects granted funding were eligible and no rules were broken in
the administration of the scheme.

On Jan. 20 the sports grants scandal drew in Morrison after
revelations that he had personally handed out grants in his
electorate of Cook, including a $200,000 grant to the Lilli Pilli
Football Club.

The ABC reported that Lilli Pilli Football Club had started works
in October 2018, despite Sports Australia guidelines stipulating
that projects that have already commenced works are not eligible
for funding.

A spokesman for Sports Australia told Guardian Australia the club
has "been making progressive upgrades to [its] facilities" and its
grant application, submitted in September 2018, related to the
second stage of projects.

"The club's second stage projects included the fit-out of
gender-neutral change-rooms and a community room," he said.

"Sport Australia notified the club of their successful grant
application in December 2018, with work commencing on their second
stage projects in January 2019." [GN]


BAILEY'S GYM: Gardenhire Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Bailey's Gym, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lance
Gardenhire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bailey's Gym, Inc., Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00138-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., Feb. 12,
2020).

Bailey's offers a variety of customized membership plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

BELLA SANTE: Chapoteau Seeks Sunday Premium Pay for Spa Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHAPOTEAU, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BELLA SANTE, INC., TIFFANY AMOROSINO, and CARA M.
FINNEGAN, Case No. 2084CV00182A (Mass. Super., Jan. 21, 2020),
alleges that Bella Sante, Inc. failed to pay its spa employees
Sunday Premium Pay, in violation of Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiff and putative class members are current and former
employees of Bella Sante, who worked as massage therapists, hair
stylists, aestheticians, and nail technicians (spa workers). In
October 2007, Bella Sante hired Mr. Chapoteau as a massage
therapist.

Bella Sante is a company providing spa and salon services and
selling beauty products in multiple locations in
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Martinez Suit Returns to Calif. Central Dist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted BMW's motion to transfer the case,
ROLANDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05479-WHO (N.D. Cal.), back to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On Feb. 22, 2015, Martinez purchased a used 2012 BMI 750i from a
CarMax dealership in San Bernadino County.  At that time the car
was still covered by California's emissions warranty.  In February
2016, Martinez took his vehicle to Century West BMW, an authorized
repair facility.  Although BMW had paid for earlier repairs,
Martinez paid $619.47, plus tax out of pocket for the February 2016
repairs.  In October 2016, Martinez returned to Century West BMW
for additional work on his vehicle and paid $1,902.22, plus tax out
of pocket.

Martinez asserts that BMW should have paid for both of these repair
visits under the 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty.
Specifically, pursuant to California Code of Regulations section
2037(c), the parts relating to said repairs should have been
identified by BMW as high-priced warranted parts, due to the costs
associated with the parts and labor relating to diagnosing the
failure and replacing said parts.  Martinez brings claims on behalf
of a proposed class of owners and lessees of BMW vehicles whom BMW
has allegedly injured by failing to identify high-priced warranty
parts properly.

On May 31, 2019, Martinez brought suit against BMW in the Central
District.  On June 11, 2019, the Hon. Percy Anderson dismissed the
complaint sua sponte upon determining that the Plaintiff had failed
to plead the citizenship of one party in order to invoke
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.   Martinez
declined to amend and that case was dismissed without prejudice on
June 27, 2019.

On July 17, 2019, Martinez initiated the case in Alameda County
Superior Court; BMW then removed it to federal court.  BMW filed a
motion to transfer on Oct. 14, 2019.  As agreed by the parties,
Martinez filed an amended complaint on Nov. 12, 2019.

Judge Orrick holds that there is no question that the Central
District is a proper venue for Martinez's case against BMW; indeed,
Martinez initially filed there.  The question before him is whether
the convenience factors and the interest of justice favor transfer.
He holds that application of the Section 1404(a) factors to the
circumstances of the case shows that transfer is appropriate.

First, all of the circumstances demonstrate that the deference to
be shown to Martinez's choice of forum is substantially diminished.
Martinez lives in the Central District.  The conduct giving rise
to Martinez's claim occurred in the Central District.  Martinez
sues on behalf of a putative class.  Finally, Martinez sued in the
Central District prior to filing suit in the district.

Second, the Judge agrees with BMW that cost is not the only
inconvenience associated with witness travel from the Central
District to this one.

Third, the Central District's greater interest in the controversy
favors transfer.  As far as Martinez as an individual, all of the
events giving rise to his cause of action occurred there.  As far
as the class as a whole, there are more than double the number of
authorized repair facilities in the Central District.  Finally, the
circumstances of this case favor transfer in the interest of
justice.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Orrick, with little deference owed to
Martinez's current choice of forum and given that transfer would
serve the interest of justice, granted BMW's motion.  He vacated
the Dec. 17, 2019 hearing and Case Management Conference, and
terminated as moot the stipulation.  The case is transferred to the
Central District of California.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AtY3Bl from Leagle.com.

Rolando Martinez, individually and on behafl of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Starr --
robert@starrlaw.com -- Law Office of Robert L. Starr APC, Ari Yale
Basser -- abasser@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jordan L. Lurie --
jllurie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

BMW of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Y.
Kizirian -- eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith.


BOSTON INTERIORS: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------
Boston Interiors Home Furnishings, LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boston Interiors Home Furnishings,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01255 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Boston Interiors is a specialty home furnishings retailer serving
the New England area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



BOULEVARD BREWING CO: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Boulevard Brewing Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boulevard Brewing Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01257 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Boulevard Brewing Company is a brewery located in Kansas City,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


BRAVURA GLASS: Fails to Pay Right Wages, Kuznetsov and Isakov Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE KUZNETSOV and DANIIAR ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRAVURA GLASS AND MIRROR
CORP. and KONSTANTIN GEYMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00726
(E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2020) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees against the
Defendants' unlawful wage practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by unilaterally reducing
their cash wages to the nearest $20.00 to $50.00 increment,
refusing to pay any overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, and failing to provide notices of pay rate and
accurate wage statements.

Bravura Glass and Mirror Corp. is a glass and mirror fabrication
company, specializing in the installation, servicing, and repair of
glass and mirror objects in residential and commercial properties
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          Patrick J. Collopy, Esq.
          Camilo M. Burr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
                  pcollopy@faruqilaw.com
                  cburr@faruqilaw.com

BUDGET VAN LINES: Caplan Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Caplan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Budget Van Lines Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00130, (D. Nev., January 19, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory and treble damages for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Budget Van Lines provides moving brokerage services. It utilizes
unsolicited autodialed cold call-based marketing scheme, in order
to market its services using pre-recorded voice calls to consumers,
says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
      4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Phone: (702) 435-7968;
      Fax: (702) 825-8071
      Email: attcbf@cox.net

             - and -

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


C.H. ROBINSON: Court Certifies Class of Account Managers
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Taryn Dietrich, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. C.H. Robinson
Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04871 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Ronald A. Guzman entered an order on Feb. 11, 2020, granting
Plaintiff's renewed motion for certification of a class consisting
of:

   "all persons who have been employed in the state of Illinois
   at C.H. Robinson as Assistant Carrier Account Managers,
   Buyers, Carrier Representatives, Carrier Account Managers,
   Senior Carrier Account Managers, Capacity Account Managers,
   and/or other similar positions, and who did not sign a C.H.
   Robinson arbitration agreement, at any time from three years
   before the filing of this action through and including the
   present."

The Court said, "The evidence supporting the class members' primary
duty is common to all class members: job descriptions and titles,
testimony as to job duties and tasks, and compensation structure,
among other things."

The Court further finds that "the proposed class's claims arise
from a common nucleus of operative facts and issues" -- that is,
whether these individuals should have been paid overtime or or
whether their job duties satisfy the requirements of the
administrative exemption. While damages may differ across class
members, "not every issue must be amenable to common resolution;
individual inquiries may be required after the class phase.

The Plaintiff is directed to file a statement indicating how she
intends to proceed with notice to the class.[CC]

CARE.COM INC: Kent Securities Suit Balks at Merger Deal With IAC
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CARE.COM, INC., SHEILA LIRIO MARCELO, GEORGE BELL,
MARLA BLOW, CLARK K. ERVIN, WILLIAM H. HARRIS, CHET KAPOOR, DUNCAN
ROBERTSON, DAN YOO, IAC/INTERACTIVCORP, and BUZZ MERGER SUB INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00088-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
stemming from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Care.com,
Inc. will be acquired by IAC/InterActivCorp and Buzz Merger Sub
Inc.

On Dec. 20, 2019, Care.com's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with IAC. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer to purchase all of Care.com's outstanding common stock for
$15.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to expire on
Feb. 10, 2020.

On January 13, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that 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 Care.com common stock.

Care.com is the world's largest online destination for finding and
managing family care, with 19.8 million families and 14.3 million
caregivers across more than twenty countries, including the United
States, U.K., Canada, and parts of Western Europe, and
approximately 1.7 million employees of corporate clients having
access to the Company's services.[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


CASA MEXICANA: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Cruz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS MARQUEZ CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees v. CASA MEXICANA OF PERKINS POPLAR
INC., MARTIN MUNOZ, and FELIPE GUZMAN, Case No.
2:20-cv-02045-MSN-dkv (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
overtime compensation and the applicable minimum wage.

The Plaintiff has been employed by and worked for the Defendants as
a server since January 2018. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
servers are "tipped employees" within the meaning of the FLSA, says
the complaint.

The Defendant operates a a restaurant located at 535 Perkins Ext.,
in Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Munoz is the owner of the
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          Janelle C. Osowski, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: 901-278-1004
          Facsimile: 901-278-3111
          E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com


CHASE RECEIVABLES: Rivera Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Receivables,
Inc. The case is styled as Yeshica Viquez Rivera, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chase
Receivables, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00774 (E.D., N.Y.,
Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Chase Receivables in a collection agency located in Sonoma,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


CIRCLE K STORES: Dones Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesenia Dones, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Circle K Stores Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00134, (M.D. Fla., January 17, 2020),
seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

Dones applied for employment with Circle K Stores on or around
October, 2018 in Plant City, Florida. Circle K procured a consumer
report on Dones that contained personal, private, and sensitive
information without providing a lawful disclosure before obtaining
a copy of their consumer report, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Privacy Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that artificial
intelligence company Clearview AI was sued by plaintiff David
Mutnick in a class action complaint, which alleges Clearview
violated his and similarly situated individuals' privacy. The suit
was filed in the Illinois Northern District Court on January 22.
Mutnick is represented by Loevy & Loevy.

Clearview's activities came to light four days prior to the suit
when the New York Times published an article that revealed how the
app works. "You take a picture of a person, upload it and get to
see public photos of that person, along with links to where those
photos appeared."  The database is built from Facebook, YouTube,
Venmo, and other websites, comprising a facial recognition database
larger than any US government or Silicon Valley creation.  Federal
and state law enforcement stated they have used the app in a
variety of investigations.

According to the lawsuit, Clearview "used the internet to covertly
gather information on millions of American citizens, collecting
approximately three billion pictures of them, without any reason to
suspect any of them of having done anything wrong, ever. After
obtaining these images, Clearview used artificial intelligence
algorithms to scan the facial geometry of each individual depicted
in the images, a technique that violates multiple privacy laws.
Clearview now furnishes this data to law enforcement agencies in
Illinois, for a fee."

Clearview records being kept by law enforcement agencies,
regardless of an individual's criminal history.  "Clearview's
technology really offers…a massive surveillance state with files
on almost every citizen, despite the presumption of
innocence…[O]ne of Defendant Clearview's financial backers has
conceded that Clearview may be laying the groundwork for a
'dystopian future.' Anyone utilizing the technology could determine
the identities of people as they walked down the street, attended a
political rally or enjoyed time in public with their families."

The complaint also noted that Clearview is the gatekeeper to this
information and "it knows who the police are interested in and,
often, where those people may be." Mutnik argued this practice
poses a threat to individuals' freedoms. Clearview has not only
provided database access to law enforcement but also to
organizations including banks and retail loss-prevention
specialists. Clearview allegedly acquired images by "scraping"
them, a practice which automates the mass downloading of images and
often violates the terms of service of a website. The complaint
argued Clearview "sold, traded, leased and otherwise profited from
those biometric identifiers and information."

According to the complaint, Clearview has violated the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Contracts Clause
of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs also alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA), arguing Clearview did not provide the required written
information nor obtain written releases to its subjects' biometric
information.

In sum, Mutnick argued that Clearview unlawfully gathered biometric
data from citizens without their knowledge or consent and has
profited from selling this information to third parties. He has
sought class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, an
award for damages, as well as the expungement of the records. [GN]


CLEARVIEW AI: Mutnick Sues Over Collection of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others similarly situated v.
CLEARVIEW AI, INC., HOAN TON-THAT and RICHARD SCHWARTZ, Case No.
1:20-cv-00512 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in illegal scheme of collection, disclosure,
redisclosure, sale, lease, trade or otherwise profit off the
Plaintiff's and proposed class members' biometric identifiers and
information.

Without obtaining any consent and without notice, Clearview used
the Internet to covertly gather information on millions of American
citizens, collecting approximately three billion pictures of them,
without any reason to suspect any of them of having done anything
wrong, ever, the Plaintiff says. After obtaining these images,
Clearview used artificial intelligence algorithms to scan the
facial geometry of each individual depicted in the images, a
technique that violates multiple privacy laws. The Plaintiff
alleges that Clearview now furnishes this data to law enforcement
agencies throughout the United States, including law enforcement
agencies in Illinois, for a fee.

The Plaintiff contends that Clearview did not develop its
technology out of a desire for a safer society; rather, Clearview
developed its technology to invade the privacy of the American
public and monetize citizens' rights for its own profit.

Clearview obtains the images that underlie its technology from
millions of Internet-based platforms and Web sites, including on
platforms and Web sites of Illinois companies, who operate servers
in Illinois. Hoan Ton-Thot is a founder of Clearview AI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Scott R. Drury, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: 312 243 5900
          E-mail: arthur@loevy.com
                  mike@loevy.com
                  jon@loevy.com
                  drury@loevy.com


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over "Just a Tad Sweet" Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased
the Honest brand of teas has sued the Coca-Cola company in New York
federal court under various state laws for consumer protection,
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, fraud,
and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs allege to have purchased the
teas believing the beverages were lower in calories based on
front-of-label claims for "Just a Tad Sweet."  According to the
complaint, the products contain sugar as the second most
predominant ingredient and are not "a tad sweet" or low in sugar.

As reported, the "Just a Tad Sweet" claim was noted in a January 9,
2020 letter sent by the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI) to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
at FDA, urging the Agency to "take immediate enforcement action to
prevent unauthorized implied 'low sugar' and 'reduced sugar'
claims.  According to CSPI, and as alleged in the proposed class
action against Coca-Cola, claims such as this expressly or
implicitly characterize the level of sugar and are therefore
prohibited under federal law because "low sugar" is not a defined
or permitted nutrient content claim.

It is yet to be seen how Coca-Cola will respond.  In a recently
settled class action lawsuit over use of the label claims "lightly
sweetened," "healthy," "nutritious," and "wholesome," on select
cereals, Kellogg stated that it had never advertised the cereals as
"low sugar" or "reduced sugar," and that the sugar content was
clearly listed on each product's Nutrition Facts Panel but settled
the class action lawsuit for $20 million. [GN]


COLLECTION BUREAU: Appel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of
America, Ltd. The case is styled as Samuel Appel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collection
Bureau of America, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-01232
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Collection Bureau of America, Ltd. is a debt collection agency in
Hayward, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com



COLORADO SPRINGS, CO: Mata Sues Over Unlawful Booting of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MATA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS; SCOTT LEE, DIRECTOR
(Individually and Officially); COLORADO SPRINGS PARKING SYSTEMS
ENTERPRISE; COLORADO SPRINGS PARKING SYSTEMS ENTERPRISE; COLORADO
SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARKING ENFORCEMENT; JANE AND OR JOHN
DOE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(S); and JANE AND OR JOHN DOE,
SUPERVISOR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00177 (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2020), is
brought on behalf of all persons, who have had their vehicles
unlawfully booted by the Colorado Springs Parking Systems
Enterprise and/or Colorado Springs Police Department between Nov.
8, 2017, and Jan. 21, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that her vehicle was illegally booted by the
Defendants on Jan. 10, 2020. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory
judgment against the Defendants and for an award under the Civil
Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

The Parking Systems Enterprise enforces parking regulations in
Colorado Springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq.
          Ryan Gilman, Esq.
          DICKSON LAW GROUP
          605 S. Tejon Street
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: 719-888-5882


CONTRACT CALLERS: Biston Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers,
Inc. The case is styled as Zalman Biston, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contract
Callers, Inc. and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 7:20-cv-01228 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Contract Callers, Inc. is a business process outsourcing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


CONTRACT CALLERS: Landau Asserts Breach FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers,
Inc. The case is styled as Chaim Landau, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contract Callers,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00767 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 12,
2020).

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

Contract Callers, Inc. is a business process outsourcing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court OKs $3.7MM Settlement Deal in Sheean
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an Order and
Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned Michael Sheean, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-11532-GCS-RSW, (E.D. Mich.).

In May 2018, Michael Sheean filed a class action complaint,
asserting class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  By June
2019, the parties were able to negotiate a class action settlement.
In July 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The Parties now request final approval of the Settlement.

Upon consideration of the facts on the record, the District Court
ruled that the Lawsuit is finally certified, for settlement
purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following
settlement class members with respect to the claims asserted in the
Lawsuit:

     TCPA Class:  All persons throughout the United States (1) to
whom Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a
call, (2) by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from November 11, 2016 through
February 25, 2019, (4) either (i) directed to a number assigned to
a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to the intended
recipient of Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.'s calls, or (ii) directed
to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, to which
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. was previously instructed to stop
placing calls or informed that the number was a wrong number.

     FDCPA Class: All persons throughout the United States (1) to
whom Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a
call, (2) from May 15, 2017 through February 25, 2019, (3) and in
connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (4) after
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. was instructed to stop placing calls
to his or her telephone number or informed that the number was a
wrong number.

Michael Sheean is certified as class representative and Aaron D.
Radbil, Michael L. Greenwald, and James L. Davidson of Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC, as class counsel.

The Court further ruled that the Parties' Agreement is finally
approved and must be consummated in accordance with its terms and
provisions, except as amended by any order issued by the Court.

The material terms of the Agreement include, but are not limited
to, the following:

   * Settlement Funds:  Convergent will establish respective $3.71
million (for the TCPA settlement class) and $40,000 (for the FDCPA
settlement class) funds (Settlement Funds).

   * Deductions:  The following are to be deducted from the
Settlement Funds before any other distributions are made: (A) The
costs and expenses for the administration of the settlement and
class notice, including expenses necessary to identify potential
settlement class members;  (B) Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in the
amount of $1,250,000 (one-third of the Settlement Funds), and the
reimbursement of class counsel's litigation costs and expenses in
the amount of $13,337.49 ($7,271.87 from the TCPA settlement fund,
and $6,065.62 from the FDCPA settlement fund); and (C) The
Incentive Payment to Plaintiff, whereby Michael Sheean will receive
$4,450 from the TCPA settlement fund as acknowledgment of his role
in prosecuting TCPA claims on behalf of settlement class members,
and $50 from the FDCPA settlement fund as acknowledgment of his
role in prosecuting FDCPA claims on behalf of settlement class
members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order
and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/rcsngft from
Leagle.com

Michael Sheean, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. Kruzyk -
akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, Andrew L.
Campbell , Suite B, 1000 Beach St., Suite B
West Entrance, Flint, MI 48502, Michael L. Greenwald -
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC & Aaron
David Radbil - aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bethany S.
Sweeny -abancroft@kotzsangster.com - Kotz Sangster Wysocki P.C.,
Charity A. Olson , Varnum LLP, 39500 High Pointe Boulevardsuit 350
Novi, MI 48375, Nabil G. Foster - nfoster@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw
& Culberston, LLP & Randall J. Groendyk - rjgroendyk@varnumlaw.com
- Varnum, Riddering.


CREDIT CORP: Ortiz Files Suit for FDCPA Breach in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Giovanni Ortiz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. doing business as: Tasman Credit, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00782 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. is a "junk debt buyer" and debt
collector based in Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com




DINICO'S PIZZA: Cosenza Hits Biometrics Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cosenza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dinico's Pizza La Grange, Inc., Berwyn
Pizza, Inc., Nonna's Pizza And New York Subs, Inc., Oak Lawn Pizza,
Inc., D.I.Y. Restaurant Group, Inc. and Joe Piccione, Defendants,
Case No. 2020CH00614 (Ill. Cir., January 16, 2020), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity
related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics,
statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

Defendants co-own and operates at least four pizza restaurant
locations in Cook County where Cosenza worked as a driver from
August 2017 through February 2018 at their location in 42 South La
Grange Road, La Grange. Employees were required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a biometric data reader that scanned
fingerprints. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            mshannon@stephanzouras.com


EMPIRE MERCHANT: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Empire Merchant Group LLC, and Does 1
through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00544 (C.D. Cal., January 17,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Empire is a business finance company. Fabricant claims to have
received auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Empire on his phones
despite being registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EONS - GREEK FOOD: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Perez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CATARINO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. EONS – GREEK FOOD FOR LIFE LLC;
EONS 2 AVE LLC; EONS RESTAURANT HOLDING LLC; EONS FOREVER LLC; EONS
MONTVALE LLC; EONS PARAMUS LLC; KIG NYVA EONS LLC; and GEORGE
GEORGIADES, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01121 (S.D.N.Y., February
10, 2020) is a class action on behalf of all others similarly
situated employees of the Defendant, seeking to pursue compensation
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The case alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated non-exempt employees, including but
not limited to servers, bussers, bartenders, cooks, food preparers,
dishwashers, cleaners, and delivery workers, lawful minimum wage
and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek at
the proper overtime rate of one-and-one-half times the regular rate
of pay.

EONS – Greek Food for Life LLC is a Greek food restaurant founded
by chef George Georgiades. It is a domestic limited-liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a
principal place of business located at 633 Second Avenue, New York,
NY 10016.

EONS 2 Ave LLC is a restaurant operating company with a principal
place of business located at 633 Second Avenue, New York, NY
10016.

EONS Restaurant Holding LLC is a restaurant operator and domestic
limited-liability company organized under the laws of the State of
New York, with a principal place of business located at 633 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

EONS Forever LLC is a domestic limited-liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of
business located at 61-42 188th Street, Fresh Meadows, NY 11365.

EONS Montvale LLC is a domestic limited-liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principle place of
business located at 18A Farm View, Montvale, NJ 07645.

EONS Paramus LLC is a domestic limited-liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principle place of
business located at 501 Route 17, South Paramus, NJ 07652.

KIG NYVA EONS LLC is a domestic limited-liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of
business located at 633 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

EQUIFAX INC: Settles 2017 Data Breach Class Action for $1.38 Bil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Security reports that a class action settlement has been proposed
in a case against Equifax Inc., relating to the data breach that
Equifax announced in September 2017, which affected approximately
147 million U.S. consumers.

According to the settlement, Equifax will pay $380,500,000 into a
fund for class benefits, attorneys' fees, expenses, service awards
and notice and administration costs; up to an additional
$125,000,000 if needed to satisfy claims for certain out-of-pocket
losses; and potentially $2 billion more if all 147 million class
members sign up for credit monitoring. No settlement funds will
revert to Equifax. The specific benefits available to class members
include:

Reimbursement of up to $20,000 for documented, out-of-pocket losses
fairly traceable to the breach, such as the cost of freezing or
unfreezing a credit file; buying credit monitoring services;
out-of-pocket losses from identity theft or fraud, including
professional fees and other remedial expenses; and 25 percent of
any money paid to Equifax for credit monitoring or identity theft
protection subscription products in the year before the breach. If
the $380.5 million fund proves to be insufficient, Equifax will add
another $125 million to pay claims for out-of-pocket losses.

Compensation of up to 20 hours at $25 per hour (subject to a $38
million cap) for time spent taking preventative measures or dealing
with identity theft. Ten hours can be self-certified, requiring no
documentation.

Four years of specially negotiated, three-bureau credit monitoring
and identity protection services through Experian and an additional
six years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity protection
services through Equifax. The Experian monitoring has a comparable
retail value of $24.99 per month and has a number of features that
are typically not available in "free" credit monitoring services
offered to the public. The one-bureau credit monitoring will be
provided separately by Equifax and not paid for from the settlement
fund.

Alternative cash compensation (subject to a $31 million cap) for
class members who already have credit monitoring or protection
services in place and who choose not to enroll in the enhanced
credit monitoring and identity protection services offered in the
settlement.

Identity restoration services through Experian to help class
members who believe they may have been victims of identity theft
for seven years, including access to a U.S. based call center,
assignment of a certified identity theft restoration specialist and
step by step assistance in dealing with credit bureaus, companies
and government agencies.

In addition, Equifax has agreed to entry of a consent order
requiring the company to spend a minimum of $1 billion for data
security and related technology over five years and to comply with
comprehensive data security requirements. Equifax's compliance will
be audited by an experienced, independent assessor and subject to
the Court's enforcement powers. According to cybersecurity expert
Mary Frantz, "[I]mplementation of the proposed business practice
changes should substantially reduce the likelihood that Equifax
will suffer another data breach in the future. These changes
address serious deficiencies in Equifax's information security
environment. Had they been in place on or before 2017 per industry
standards, it is unlikely the Equifax data breach would ever have
been successful. These measures provide a substantial benefit to
the Class Members that far exceeds what has been achieved in any
similar settlements."  [GN]



FIAT CHRYSLER: Three Union Workers File Class Action Over Bribery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Samilton, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that three
union workers at Fiat Chrysler are suing the automaker and the
United Auto Workers over a bribery scheme.

They're seeking class-action status to represent all FCA hourly
workers.

Federal prosecutors say Fiat Chrysler negotiators bribed UAW
negotiators in order to get contract concessions and other
benefits. So far, one former FCA official, Alphons Iacobelli, and
one former UAW official, Virdell King, have pled guilty in the
conspiracy. More indictments are expected.

Attorney Ray Sterling says workers should get at least four years'
worth of union dues back, along with other damages.

"They were paying their officials all these years solely to be
representing their interests," says Sterling, "and they find out
that they're in the other side's pocket."

The lawsuit also alleges that because of the bribes, the union
significantly overpaid FCA when it purchased equity from FCA, after
the automaker emerged from bankruptcy protection.

UAW President Dennis Williams told union members the conspiracy was
limited in scope, and did not corrupt contract negotiations in 2011
and 2015. In a letter to union members, he wrote:

"That collective bargaining agreement passed through many hands,
and its terms were reviewed, negotiated and approved at the highest
level of our union, including the UAW president and ultimately the
membership. In addition, the 2011 agreement – which Iacobelli
suggests was influenced by his criminal actions – was in fact
patterned after the agreements our union negotiated at Ford and
General Motors. The 2015 agreement was among the richest for
workers ever reached, even renegotiating a more generous profit
sharing formula that recently produced $5,500 on average to every
FCA worker. In fact, during bargaining in 2015, Iacobelli was not
employed by FCA and had nothing to do with those contract
negotiations. There's just no truth to the allegation that the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement were compromised by
Iacobelli's crimes." [GN]


GEORGETOWN HOSPITAL: Faces Kersey Suit Over Ransomware Attack
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI KERSEY and STARR COLLISTER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GEORGETOWN HOSPITAL SYSTEM d/b/a
TIDELANDS HEALTH, Case No. 2:20-cv-00208-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 21,
2020), arises out of the recent ransomware attack at TH's medical
facilities that disrupted operations by blocking access to TH's
computer systems and data, including the highly sensitive patient
medical records of thousands of patients.

A ransomware attack is a type of malicious software that blocks
access to a computer system or data, usually by encrypting it,
until the victim pays a fee to the attacker. On December 12, 2019,
TH was impacted by a malware incident.

As a result of the Ransomware Attack, the Plaintiffs assert that
they and the proposed class members suffered ascertainable losses
in the form of disruption of medical services, out-of-pocket
expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack.

The Plaintiffs add that their and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which was entrusted to TH, its officials and
agents--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
Ransomware Attack. Information compromised in the Ransomware Attack
includes names, demographic information, date of birth, Social
Security numbers, driver's license or identification card numbers,
employment information, health insurance information, medical
information, other protected health information as defined by the
HIPAA, and additional personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) that Defendant TH collected and
maintained.

Defendant TH provides hospital services, medical care, treatment,
health services, education, and research to the Carolinas through a
network of providers and facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          PO Box 1483
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: 900 600-5000
          Facsimile: 900 600-5035
          E-mail: harper@wbmllp.com
       
               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202 640.1160
          Facsimile: 202.429.2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dlietz@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773 496 8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Google Users Oppose Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google users are
pressing a judge to allow them to proceed with claims that the
company illegally records conversations that "occur within the
sanctity of consumers' own homes," and discloses snippets to
outside contractors.

Consumers "have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their
confidential and private communications, particularly those that
take place in the sanctity of one's own home -- a historically
protected zone of privacy," lawyers for a group of Google users
write in papers filed on Jan. 17 with U.S. District Court Judge
Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California.

They add that Google's privacy policy "expressly assured" users
that their "confidential and private conversations would not be
listened to, let alone recorded and disseminated to third parties
absent their authorization."

The papers come in response to Google's request that Freeman
dismiss a class-action complaint alleging the company's
voice-activated Assistant violates users' privacy.

The lawsuit was filed last year by five consumers -- Asif Kumandan,
Melissa Spurr and her child, identified only as "B.S.," Loudes
Galvan and Eleeana Galvan -- shortly after Dutch radio broadcaster
VRT reported that Google Home smart speakers and Google Assistant
transmitted consumers' conversations to the company, even when
people hadn't first given the "Hey, Google" or "OK, Google"
commands. (Those "hotwords" signal an intention to interact with
the devices.)

VRT also reported that Google sometimes sends portions of users'
conversations to outside contractors who analyze language patterns.
VRT said it had listened to more than 1,000 excerpts of
conversations -- including 153 where participants hadn't said a
hotword. An outside contractor shared the voice snippets with VRT,
in apparent violation of Google's policies.

In December, Google urged Freeman to dismiss the complaint. The
company argued it shouldn't face a federal lawsuit over
unintentionally misinterpreting words or background noises as
commands to record.

"An inadvertent error in hotword detection does not amount to a
violation of federal or state privacy laws or breach any promise
made to consumers," Google wrote.

The consumers are urging Freeman to reject that argument for
several reasons, including that Google allegedly was aware of flaws
in the voice recognition technology.

"Google knew that at least some of the audio recordings resulted in
error when no hot word was uttered, yet continued the unlawful
conduct without remedying it," lawyers for the consumers write.

Freeman is expected to hold a hearing in the matter on April 9.
[GN]


HERMES GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Hermes Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hermes Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01262
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

The Hermes Group LLC offers financial advisory services. The
Company provides corporate financial matters, including
restructuring, merger and acquisitions, financial valuations and
litigation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Pay Final Wages at Termination, Lee Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARICHU LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. HOLLYWOOD PARK
CASINO COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCVG2477 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all final
wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation to all
employees in California, in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
employees with accurately itemized wage statements and to pay
premium wages to the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees,
who were denied their meal and rest breaks. She contends that she
and the Defendants' California employees were routinely unable, and
not authorized, to take their 10-minute rest periods for every
shift they worked. Specifically, she says, she and all other
aggrieved employees were forced to continue working through their
rest breaks to finish the assigned work.

Hollywood Park was founded in 2007. The Company's line of business
includes operating coin-operated amusement devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          Facsimile: (818) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Meghan@OLFLA.com


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Dannett Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Dannett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00781
(E.D., N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR) is a BPO (Business Process
Outsourcing) company specializing in consumer-centric,
performance-driven results in the federal, state, healthcare,
education and consumer verticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


INFINITY AUTO: Sardinas Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JORGE SARDINAS v. INFINITY AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-61369 (Filed April 30, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Orlando) on Jan. 22, 2020.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:20-cv-00113-PGB-EJK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron.

The Plaintiff alleges that Infinity does not include sales tax,
title and license plate registration fees, and dealer fees in its
actual cash value payments for first-party, private passenger,
total loss vehicle claims.

Infinity Auto operates as an insurance company. The Company
provides services to auto, fire, marine, auto, and casualty
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com
                  ndiaz@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Alec Schultz, Esq.
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  ckligler@leoncosgrove.com
                  eperez@leoncosgrove.com
                  cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeveslawgroup.com
                  rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Roghburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

Defendant Infinity Auto Insurance Company is represented by:

          Brian A. Dominguez, Esq.
          Scott A. Cole, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          E-mail: Scott.Cole@csklegal.com
                  Brian.Dominguez@csklegal.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
          Kathleen V. Kinsella, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com
                  kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com


INTERSTATE CLEANING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Cleaning Corporation and Juan Navarro removed the case
captioned as ARIATNA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. INTERSTATE CLEANING CORPORATION, a Missouri
corporation; JUAN NAVARRO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG19044719 (Filed Nov. 25, 2019), from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Jan. 21, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00443 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Wage Order by failing to pay all overtime wages; to pay minimum
wages; and to provide meal periods and rest periods.

Interstate Cleaning is a janitorial and maintenance company
servicing shopping centers and lifestyle centers.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William C. Sung, Esq.
          Bryan P. Mercke, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 250 1800
          Facsimile: 213 250 7900
          E-Mail: William.Sung@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Bryan.Mercke@lewisbrisbois.com


IRAN: Class Action Filed on Behalf of Flight 752 Victims
--------------------------------------------------------
Katya Slepian, writing for Peace Arch News, 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]


JUUL LABS: Escambia County E-Cigarettes Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Plaintiff, individually and as representative of other similarly
situated school districts in the State of Florida v. JUUL LABS,
INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, NU MARK LLC, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., AND
JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:19-cv-04967 (Filed Dec. 19,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 22, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No
3:20-cv-00459-WHO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated school districts in Florida that have been
damaged by the Defendants' marketing of e-cigarettes to minors. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, abatement, and damages arising out
of the injuries to its property, students, and employees caused by
Defendants' wrongful conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
teenagers, and has dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes
amongst minors, like the student body in Escambia County School
District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students to
become addicted to the Defendants' e-cigarette products.

The Plaintiff contends that it and similarly situated school
districts in Florida redirected resources to combat the deceptive
marketing scheme of the Defendants and to educate the school
children of the true dangers of e-cigarettes.

Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company, which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. The Company makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq.
          W. Lee Elebash, Esq.
          BEGGS & LANE, RLLP
          501 Commendencia Street
          P.O. Box 12950
          Pensacola, FL 32591-2950
          Telephone: (850) 432-2451
          E-mail: JND@beggslane.com
                  ch@beggslane.com
                  wle@beggslane.com

               - and -

          T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
          FRAZER PLC
          30 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 450
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 647-6464
          Facsimile: (866) 314-2466
          E-mail: roe@frazer.law


KERRY INC: Arenas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Arenas on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kerry Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. RG20050886, Cal. Super., January 17,
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,
failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage
Orders.

Kerry provides food processing services where Arenas worked at its
facility in Union City, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent Chen, Esq.
      Hunter Pyle, Esq.
      HUNTER PYLE LAW
      428 Thirteenth Street, Eleventh Floor
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-4400
      Facsimile: (510) 444-4410
      Emails: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
              vchen@hunterpylelaw.com


L'ATRE ENTERPRISES: Restaurant Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ludovic Frebet, Djibrill Sangare, Kairy Dean, William Wandji, Mike
Ndoba (a/k/a Mike Aimee) and Gregory Roussi, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'atre
Enterprises, Inc., 1590 First Avenue, LLC, Maison Harlem, LLC,
Harlem Sam, Inc., Romain Bonnans, Sebastian Rozec and Ayoub
Sabdalah, Defendants, Case 20-cv-00481 (S.D. N.Y., January 17,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and
statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Romain Bonnans, Sebastian Rozec and Ayoub Sabdalah own/operate
L'atre Enterprises, Inc., 1590 First Avenue, LLC, Maison Harlem,
LLC and Harlem Sam, Inc. are New York city restaurants where
Plaintiffs worked as restaurant staff. They regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
     Michael S. Romero, Esq.
     XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 School Street, Suite 303A
     Glen Cove, NY 11542
     Phone: (516) 595-8887
     Fax: (212) 219-2276


LANDCORP HOSPITALITY: Faces Wilson-Sewell Employment Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landcorp Hospitality,
et al. The case is captioned as Isaac Wilson-Sewell, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. Does 1-100; Landcorp
Hospitality, an unknown business entity; Landcorp Management
Services, LLC, an unknown business entity; Landcorp Staffing
Services, LLC, an unknown business entity; Landcorp Staffing, an
unknown business entity; and Landcorp, an unknown business entity,
Case No. 34-2020-00273937-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 22, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

The Defendants are hospitality and building maintenance
companies.[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


LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01258 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Live Nation is an American events promoter and venue operator based
in Beverly Hills, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


LOGMEIN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Jan. 27
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law
firm on behalf of shareholders of LogMeIn, Inc. (LOGM) ("LogMeIn"
or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct and breach of
fiduciary duty.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews
& Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of LogMeIn and want to
receive additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/logmein-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.


NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On December 17, 2019, LogMeIn and private equity firms Francisco
Partners and Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation ("Evergreen"), an
affiliate of Elliott Management Corporation, announced the signing
of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Francisco
Partners and Evergreen will acquire LogMeIn in a merger worth $4.3
billion (the "Merger). As a result of the Merger, LogMeIn
shareholders are only anticipated to receive $86.05 per share in
cash in exchange for each share of LogMeIn.

A LogMeIn shareholder represented by another law firm has filed a
class action complaint against LogMeIn for federal securities
violations.  The complaint was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 20-cv-00098-UNA, Stein v.
LogMeIn, Inc., et al.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on January 22, 2020,
defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection
with the Merger.

The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger,
which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants
disclose more information to stockholders.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising.

Contact: Craig J. Springer, Esq.
    cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
    Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013
[GN]


LUCKY BRAND: Desalvo Sues in C.D. California Over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Brand Dungarees
USA, LLC. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lucky Brand Dungarees
USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00657-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Lucky Brand was founded in 1990. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of mens and boys trousers and
slacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M&T BANK: Settles Class Action for $20.85 Million
-------------------------------------------------
Ary Rosenbaum, Esq., of The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C., in an article
for JD Supra, reports that plan sponsors with their proprietary
funds have a unique problem. Using proprietary funds will lead to
litigation and not using them, makes them look bad in the eyes of
competitors. A 401(k) plan sponsor not using their funds is like
restaurant workers who order takeout, it looks bad. Yet there is a
price for these proprietary fund plan sponsors for looking good.

As part of a class-action lawsuit, M&T Bank or its insurers will
pay a gross settlement amount of $20,850,000. Also, M&T will have
to hire an independent consultant who will review plan investment
options and opine whether proprietary funds should be retained. If
any proprietary M&T funds are retained, those mutual funds shall
rebate to the plan the same percentage of investment management
fees rebated to other retirement plans (or their recordkeepers)
that hold the same share class of such proprietary funds.

It is my opinion that these types of settlements are the cost of
doing business for a mutual fund company or a company that has
their proprietary mutual funds. [GN]



MARRIOTT HOTEL: Court Certifies Class of Banquet Staff
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SAMEH HANNA v. MARRIOTT HOTEL
SERVICES INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00325 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Eli Richardson Judge entered an order on Feb. 11, 2020:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to
      conditionally certify class; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
      for court-authorized notice.

The Court conditionally certifies a class of:

   "all banquet staff employees of Defendants in Tennessee who:
   (1) worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendants in the
   three-year period preceding the Court's entry of this Order;
   (2) were classified as "exempt" by Defendants pursuant to 29
   U.S.C. section 207(i); and (3) were compensated through the
   fixed hourly rate plus service charge distribution
   (characterized by Plaintiff as the "variable hourly rate")
   compensation plan under which Plaintiff was paid."

The parties are ordered to confer, attempt to come to some
resolution about the Notice, and present a Joint Motion for
Approval to the Court. If they cannot agree, each side shall submit
his/their own Proposed Notice, says the Court.

Marriott is an American multinational diversified hospitality
company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and
related lodging facilities.[CC]

MAYVENN INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under American Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayvenn, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mayvenn, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264 (S.D.
N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Mayvenn, Inc. provides tools to hair stylists to sell hair
extensions directly to clients. The company was founded in 2012 and
is based in Oakland, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MDL 2913: Ledbetter Suit Over JUUL E-Cigarettes Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as REBECCA LEDBETTER, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JUUL Labs Inc., Altria
Group Inc., Fictitious Defendants A-DD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00032
(Filed Jan. 9, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 22,
2020.

The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00460-WHO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged and
continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade
practices in Florida. In particular, the Defendants have knowingly
developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine
levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and
fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to
continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that
aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth
into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising
through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth.

The Plaintiff and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on the Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they
purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers,
according to the complaint. They have sustained damages as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendants' tortious conduct and seek
injunctive relief to prohibit the Defendants from continuing to
engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing
practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The Ledbetter case is being consolidated with MDL 2913, IN RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
selected the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          Bruce J. McKee, Esq.
          Don McKenna, Esq.
          Christopher S. Randolph, Jr., Esq.
          Tempe D. Smith, Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com
                  bruce@hwnn.com
                  chris@hwnn.com
                  don@hwnn.com
                  tempe@hwnn.com

Defendant JUUL Labs, Inc. is represented by:

          William H. Brooks, Esq.
          Lana A. Olson, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Doss, Esq.
          Christopher C. Yearout, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 581-0700
          Facsimile: (205) 581- 0799
          E-mail: wbrooks@lightfootlaw.com
                  lolson@lightfootlaw.com
                  jdoss@lightfootlaw.com
                  cyearout@lightfootlaw.com

               - and -

          Austin Schwing, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8210
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8458
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com

Defendant Altria Group, Inc. is represented by:

          R. Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq.
          Lisa McCrary, Esq.
          BARZE TAYLOR NOLES LOWTHER LLC
          Lakeshore Park Plaza
          2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 330
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 872-1032
          E-mail: bbarze@btnllaw.com
                  lmccrary@btnllaw.com


MEDICAL BUSINESS: FCCPA Class & FDCPA Subclass in Gause Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON GAUSE, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS
CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-1726-EAK-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted Gause's
motion for class certification.

Gause moved to certify a putative class of individuals who received
allegedly unlawful debt collection letters from Defendant Medical
Business Consultants, Inc. ("MBC").

Gause, on behalf of himself and the putative class, sues MBC for
alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
("FCCPA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Of
the claims that remain, Count I of the complaint alleges MBC's
collection letters violate section 559.72(9) of the FCCPA.  Count
II of the complaint alleges the collection letters violate section
1692e of the FDCPA.

Gause requests the Court to certify the following class of
individuals ("FCCPA Class"): All individuals in the State of
Florida who: (1) were sent letters by Medical Business Consultants,
Inc., that are substantially similar or materially identical to the
Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating
to a consumer debt, (3) on or after July 18, 2016.

He further requests the Court to certify the following subclass of
individuals ("FDCPA Subclass"): All individuals in the State of
Florida who: (1) were sent letters by Medical Business Consultants,
Inc., that are substantially similar or materially identical to the
Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating
to a consumer debt, (3) that Defendant acquired after it was in
default, (4) on or after July 18, 2017.

Judge Kovachevich finds that Gause has met the following
requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy.  Gause has also met at least one of the requirements
of Rule 23(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.  With respect to the predominance
prong, the Judge finds that the common questions of law and fact in
the action predominate over individual questions that any putative
class member might present.  With respect to the superiority prong,
he finds that adjudicating this action as a class action is
superior to other available methods.

Accordingly, Judge Kovachevich granted Gause's motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., he certified the following
FCCPA Class: All individuals in the State of Florida who: (1) were
sent letters by Medical Business Consultants, Inc., that are
substantially similar or materially identical to the Collection
Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating to a
consumer debt, (3) on or after July 18, 2016.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., he certified the following
FDCPA Subclass: All individuals in the State of Florida who: (1)
were sent letters by Medical Business Consultants, Inc., that are
substantially similar or materially identical to the Collection
Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating to a
consumer debt, (3) that Defendant acquired after it was in default,
(4) on or after July 18, 2017.

The Judge appointed Gause as the Lead Plaintiff and the
representative of the FCCPA Class and the FDCPA Subclass.  Pursuant
to Rule 23(g), Fed. R. Civ. P., he appointed attorneys Gus M.
Centrone and Brian L. Shrader of Centrone & Shrader, PLLC and
Katherine E. Yanes of Kynes Markman & Felman, PA as the co-lead
counsel of the FCCPA Class and the FDCPA Subclass.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KBmzws from Leagle.com.

Brandon Gause, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Lucas Shrader --
bshrader@centroneshrader.com -- Shrader Law, PLLC, Gus M. Centrone
-- gcentrone@centroneshrader.com -- Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA,
Katherine Earle Yanes -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- Kynes, Markman &
Felman, PA & Alexander Dariusz Licznerski, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
PLLC.

Medical Business Consultants, Inc., doing business as Medical
Business Consultants Settlement Division, Defendant, represented by
Sean P. Cronin -- scronin@sclawyergroup.com -- Stanton Cronin Law
Group, PL.


MEMPHIS GOODWILL: Bradley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jimi Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Memphis Goodwill Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02039 (W.D. Tenn., January 17, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Bradley worked as a donor greeter for Memphis Goodwill, a
non-profit organization targeting the disabled. He claims to have
worked in excess of forty hours per work week without being paid
overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             nbishop@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


MENARD INC: Court Denies Certificate of Appealability in Astarita
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roseann Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri issued an Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's Motion for an Emergency Stay and for Leave to
Appeal in the case captioned ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS,
Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK.
(W.D. Mo.).

The Second Amended Complaint in the case alleges that Defendant
Menard, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state
law by failing to pay employees for participating in its in-home
training program.  In March 2018, Plaintiff Albert Astarita moved
for an injunction seeking to prohibit Menard from imposing
arbitration agreements containing class and collective action
waivers on putative class members.  Astarita subsequently refined
his request, saying "All we're asking for is a notification that
anyone issued an arbitration agreement there is pending
litigation." In opposition, Menard assured the Court that such a
notice was unnecessary at that time because, assuming the Court
were to eventually approve a class notice, "there could be
certainly appropriate explanatory language about the arbitration
issue." Based on Menard's representation, the Court denied
Astarita's request.

However, by May 2018, [when the Supreme Court in Epic Systems
Corporation v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) held that the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not prohibit employers from
enforcing class and collective action waivers in general], Menard
began inserting arbitration clauses containing class and collective
action waivers in its employment agreements for a particular group
of putative class members whose original employment agreements did
not contain waivers.

In doing so, Menard did not give these putative class members
notice of the lawsuit; inform them about the effect of the waiver
on their ability to participate in the case or give them an
opportunity to opt out of the waiver. Menard also did not inform
Plaintiff Diana Owens's (Plaintiff) counsel that it did this until
after the Court issued a class notice that excluded those who
signed waivers from the class definition.

On November 8, 2019, the Court authorized a corrective notice to
inform those who were required to sign revised employment
agreements containing waivers while the case was pending that they
can still join the action. The Court also ordered Menard to produce
a Supplemental Class List within three days.

Shortly thereafter, Menard filed the present motion for an
emergency stay and certification for purposes of filing an
interlocutory appeal. The same day, the Court temporarily stayed
Defendant's deadline to produce the Supplemental Class List in
order to preserve the status quo.

Interlocutory Appeal

To certify an order for interlocutory appeal, the Court must
conclude that such order involves a controlling question of law as
to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.

Here, there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion that
a supplemental class notice is necessary to correct Menard's
improper contacts with putative class members, the District Court
opines.

Menard argues that the District Court was incorrect to issue a
corrective notice because arbitration contracts containing class
and collective action waivers are presumptively enforceable, so
anyone who signed such an agreement, regardless of the
circumstances, should not be allowed to join the case.  Menard
fails to acknowledge, however, that these agreements may be
unenforceable due to the timing and the manner of their imposition,
the District Court notes.

Because there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion
that a corrective notice is necessary in the case, the Court will
deny a certificate of appealability.

Stay

Menard states that it intends to seek a writ from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and it requests a stay pending a
decision on its forthcoming writ petition.

Menard is not likely to succeed on the merits for the reasons
discussed and in the District Court's prior Order, the District
Court notes. However, Menard may be irreparably harmed if a stay is
not entered and Menard receives a favorable ruling from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Without a stay, Plaintiff
would be authorized to immediately issue notice to those on the
Supplemental Class List. This could occur before the Eighth Circuit
has adequate time to address Menard's writ petition. In contrast,
no harm will likely come to Plaintiff or any putative plaintiff
because Menard has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for
the period of the stay.

For these reasons, the District Court will stay its November 8,
2019 Order until the Eighth Circuit rules on Menard's forthcoming
writ petition.

In conclusion, the District Court rules that Menard's motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, a certificate of
appealability is DENIED, but the Court's November 8, 2019 Order is
STAYED pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit on Menard's
forthcoming writ petition.  The Court expects Menard to file its
writ petition promptly to avoid unnecessary delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rtyhr3e from Leagle.com

Albert J. Astarita, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Thomas
Ricke - ricke@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, George
A. Hanson - hanson@stuevesiegel.com - Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP,
Michael James Rahmberg , McClelland Law Firm, P.C. & Ryan L.
McClelland , McClelland Law Firm, P.C., 201 E 1st St, Lees Summit,
MO, 64063-2701

Diana M. Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Thomas Ricke ,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, George A. Hanson , Stueve Siegel Hanson,
LLP & Ryan L. McClelland , McClelland Law Firm, P.C.
Menard, Inc., doing business as Menards, Defendant, represented by
Brian E. Peterson -bpeterson@spencerfane.com - Spencer Fane LLP,
Francis X. Neuner, Jr.-  fneuner@spencerfane.com - Spencer Fane
LLP, James E. Davidson - tonya.toops@icemiller.com - Ice Miller
LLP, pro hac vice, Jenny R. Buchheit - david.young@icemiller.com -
Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice & Paul L. Bittner -
cindy.proshek@icemiller.com - Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Saul Ewing Attorney Discusses Magistrate Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan L. DiClemente, Esq. -- ryan.diclemente@saul.com -- of Saul
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
in 2019, two putative class actions were filed in New York by
plaintiffs seeking to build off the Second Circuit's decision in
Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F. 246 (2d Cir. 2015). The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, who acquired securitized
credit card receivables from national banks, violated New York law
by charging interest amounts that were in excess of New York's
usury cap of 16%. One of these cases, Petersen v. Chase Chard
Funding LLC, 19-cv-0741 (W.D.N.Y.) is now in jeopardy after a
magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff's claims be
dismissed in their entirety.  

In Petersen, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
on the basis that, among other things, his claims were preempted by
the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 24 (the "NBA") and the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12
U.S.C. Sec. 25b. The magistrate judge began his analysis by
considering the Second Circuit's Madden decision, which he found
contained "language favorable to both sides in this case." He noted
that Madden declined to preempt the plaintiff's claims because the
non-bank defendants were not "acting on behalf of the bank," but
were acting on behalf of themselves, "as the owners of the debt."
The magistrate judge found this contention "undercuts" the
defendants' argument that Petersen's claims were preempted.

However, he also noted Madden's treatment of Krispin v. May
Department Stores, 218 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2000), which concluded
that the NBA would preempt state usury laws against a store that
had only purchased a national bank's credit card receivables, as
opposed to the accounts themselves. Madden noted that the
difference in Krispin was that the national bank "retained
substantial interests in the credit card accounts so that the
application of state law to those accounts would have conflicted
with the bank's powers authorized by the NBA."  The magistrate
judge found that the decision in Madden contained language that
supported both sides and ultimately, did not "unequivocally answer
the question of whether Petersen's usury claims are preempted."

Ultimately, the magistrate judgment found that the preemption
analysis "boils down to this: does the application of New York's
usury statutes to these defendants 'prevent' or 'significantly
interfere' with Chase USA's power to sell or assign the receivables
generated by its credit card accounts?" The magistrate judge
ultimately concluded it would and based his decision on Supreme
Court and Second Circuit precedent determining what is necessary to
constitute a "sale" and an "assignment" of the receivables. The
magistrate judge relied upon precedent which held that in order for
a sale to take place the seller's property rights must transfer to
the buyer. He reasoned that "[i]f Chase USA can receive interest
exceeding state usury limits but defendants cannot, then Chase
USA's right of property in the receivables has not passed to them,
and there has been no sale." The magistrate judge held the same is
true for an "assignment," which allows an assignee to take "all of
the rights of the assignor, no greater, no less."  The magistrate
judge held that applying New York's usury cap would prevent Chase
USA's ability to sell or assign the receivables and therefore,
Petersen's claims were preempted.

Petersen had until February 5, 2020 to file his objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendations. Notwithstanding,
this is undoubtedly a good first step for a financial services
industry that is looking to clarify and limit the Second Circuit's
decision in Madden. [GN]


MILOS HY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mera Claims
------------------------------------------------
DANILO MERA, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. MILOS HY, INC.; MILOS INC.; CONSTANTINOS
SPILIADIS; GEORGE SPILIADIS; COSTAS SPILIADIS; EVRIDIKI SPILIADIS;
DAVID DANGOOR; and IOANNA SOURIAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01138 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rates as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated FLSA and NYLL
requirements by failing to pay overtime premium for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, failing to pay wages due to
time-shaving, and failing to provide Class members with notice of
wage rate upon hiring and proper wage statements.

Milos HY, Inc. is a domestic business corporation that operates a
restaurant at 500 West 33rd Street, Unit 508-605 New York, NY
10001.

Milos, Inc. is a restaurant operating company located at 125 West
55th Street New York, NY 10019. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

MJP HOLDINGS: Faces Landy Suit in Pa. Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MJP Holdings, LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as BRENNAN LANDY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MJP HOLDINGS, LLC, doing
business as: THE PROPERTY WHIZ and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00467-WB (E.D. Pa., Jan. 21, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone.

The lawsuit involves Satellite TV-related issues alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

MJP Holdings is a real estate company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          E-mail: czlevin@comcast.net


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Mohawk Industries, Inc.
investors who purchased common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

On July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company announced
disappointing financial results for second quarter 2018, disclosing
that Mohawk "reduced [its] production volumes more than [the
Company] had thought" and that it "came into the year with higher
inventories than [it] wanted to have."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $38.06, or over 17%,
to close at $179.31 per share on July 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
third quarter 2018 financial results that fell below the Company's
guidance, stating that "[t]o improve [its] inventory turns, [Mohawk
was] presently manufacturing fewer units than [it was] selling,
which is negatively impacting [its] costs."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.04 , or nearly
24%, to close at $115.03 per share on October 26, 2018, thereby
injuring investors further.

Then, on July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
that sales in its Flooring NA segment declined 7% year-over-year
and that there was "big buildup in inventory in ceramic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.52, or nearly 18%,
to close at $128.84 per share on July 26, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in deceptive and
unsustainable sales practices to mask declining customer demand for
its Conventional Flooring products; (2) that Mohawk's increasing
inventories was not the result of increasing inflation or the
Company's backward integration, but instead the result of the
Company deliberately stuffing the channels with Conventional
Flooring Products to boost sales; and (3) that as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Mohawk common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 3, 2020 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Tel: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
         Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com  [GN]


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Dismissal Order in Guthart
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK GUTHART, ETC., Appellant, v. NASSAU COUNTY, ET
AL., Respondents, 2017-01672, Index No. 604271/16 (N.Y. App. Div.),
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department, reversed with costs the order of the Supreme Court,
Nassau County, entered Feb. 1, 2017, granting the Defendants'
motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), to dismiss the complaint.

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against Nassau
County and the Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency
seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the imposition of a
driver responsibility fee on a red-light camera violation is
"inconsistent with New York's general law, or is otherwise ultra
vires, preempted, unconstitutional, or void as a matter of law.
Prior to interposing an answer, the County moved, inter alia,
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action.

The Supreme Court, treating that branch of the County's motion as
one for a declaration in the County's favor with respect to the
first cause of action, granted that branch of the motion to the
extent of declaring that the imposition of a driver responsibility
fee on a red-light camera violation was a proper exercise of the
County's power to charge and collect administrative fees and, based
on that declaration, directed dismissal of the remainder of the
complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

The Appellate Division holds that a motion to dismiss a declaratory
judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for
consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for
declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration.  Thus, where a
cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court's power to render
a declaratory judgment mas to the rights and other legal relations
of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss
should be denied.

However, where the court, deeming the material allegations of the
complaint to be true, is nonetheless able to determine, as a matter
of law, that the defendant is entitled to a declaration in his or
her favor, the court may enter the appropriate declaration.  By
contrast, if the record before the motion court is insufficient to
resolve all factual issues such as the rights of the parties cannot
be determined as a matter of law, a declaration upon a motion to
dismiss is not permissible.

The Appellate Division finds that the County failed to demonstrate
the absence of all factual issues so that a determination as to the
rights of the parties could be determined as a matter of law.
Accordingly, it disagrees with the Supreme Court's determination to
make the subject declaration at this stage of the proceedings, and
that branch of the County's motion which was pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint should have been denied.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Division's Dec. 11, 2019 Decision
& Order is available at https://is.gd/mmyLaN from Leagle.com.

Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, New York, NY (Kevin S. Landau --
info@tcllaw.com -- and Brett Cebulash of counsel), and David J.
Raimondo, Lake Grove, NY, for appellant (one brief filed).

Jared Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Andrew R. Scott of
counsel), for respondents.

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Filed Over Superannuation "Ripoff"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that more than 330,000 account
holders at National Australia Bank will be represented in a class
action lawsuit against the banking giant, alleging customers were
paying more than they should have in fees.

The class action, filed in the Victorian Supreme Court by law firm
Maurice Blackburn on Jan. 22, has been launched on behalf of
330,000 MasterKey Business Super and Personal Super account
holders.

The allegations against two NAB group entities, MLC Nominees and
NULIS Nominees, centre around breaches of super trustee duties
which Maurice Blackburn says caused substantial losses to members.

MLC Nominees was the trustee of The Universal Super Scheme, which
in July 2016, merged with others to become the MLC Super Fund, of
which NULIS was trustee.

Maurice Blackburn alleges contraventions of superannuation law,
including that the two defendants left default members idling with
products with higher fees and paying commissions to financial
advisers that were banned in the low-cost MySuper product.

Maurice Blackburn national head of Class Actions Andrew Watson says
NAB failed to transition in excess of $6.3 billion of accrued
default amounts over to the lower-cost MySuper product in a timely
way.

"The contraventions at the heart of this case resulted in NAB's
default MasterKey super members paying higher fees and commissions
and receiving lower investment returns for periods of time, when
they could have been in a cheaper, better overall MySuper product,"
says Watson.

"This is another regrettable case of mismanagement in the
superannuation sector. The whole point of the MySuper reforms was
to make sure that millions of everyday Australians who hadn't made
an active decision about their super were not losing money on
higher fees and unnecessary or unused services.

"MySuper was introduced to protect the retirement outcomes of
Australians. MLC Nominees and NULIS's job was to move default
member balances into MySuper at the time that best met their
members' needs, not the needs of NAB or financial advisers."

The class action follows the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission's (ASIC) decision to take NAB to court over alleged fees
for no service conduct, uncovered initially during the Royal
Commission into the banking and finance sector.

ASIC has cited thousands of instances of the bank allegedly
breaching the law - including misleading and unconscionable
conduct, meaning it potentially faces billions of dollars in
fines.

NAB has already began to remediate customers for the allegations
detailed by ASIC to the tune of $37.8 million to 27,500 financial
planning customers so far.

The bank says that from February 2019, it began switching off fees
for all clients with ongoing fee arrangements and determined to
refund all ongoing fees paid by clients after May 31, 2019 until
the client entered into a new advice arrangement.

The bank announced in November that its executive bonuses would be
cut following poor performance in FY19 and the damage the fees for
no service scandal has had on its reputation. [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces McFadden Suit Over Pay-to-Pay Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACKERLY MCFADDEN and CASSANDRA WILSON, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR.
COOPER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00166 (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges
that Nationstar routinely violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and state law, and breaches the uniform terms of
borrowers' mortgages by charging and collecting illegal processing
fees when borrowers pay their monthly mortgage by phone, the
Pay-to-Pay Fees.

Nationstar illegally charges homeowners fees between up to $14 and
$19 for each telephone payment, the Plaintiffs aver. Despite its
uniform contractual obligations to charge only fees explicitly
allowed under the Uniform Mortgages and applicable law, and for FHA
mortgages, only those fees approved by the HUD Secretary,
Nationstar leverages its position of power over homeowners and
demands exorbitant Pay-to-Pay Fees. Even if some fee were allowed,
the mortgage uniform covenants and applicable law only allow Cooper
to pass along the actual costs of fees incurred to it by the
borrowers--here, only a few cents per transaction, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs paid these Pay-to-Pay Fees and they bring this class
action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
putative class members. The Plaintiffs allege breaches of contract
and violations of the FDCPA, Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, District of
Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and District of
Columbia Mortgage Broker Lender Act against the Defendant.

Nationstar is one of the largest servicers of residential mortgages
in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          V. Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: vprentice@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          James L. Kauffman
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


NATURAL BODY: Gardenhire Files Suit under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Natural Body International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Lance Gardenhire, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Natural Body International,
Inc., Georgia Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00139-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2020).

Natural Body International, Inc. is categorized under the
cosmetology and personal hygiene salon business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

NELNET INC: Court Extends Discovery Schedule in Olsen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA OLSEN, and TERI R. SMITH, on behalf of
themselves and the Class Members described herein; Plaintiffs, v.
NELNET, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; and NELNET SERVICING,
LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; Defendants, Case No.
4:18CV3081 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery Schedule.

A telephone conference was held on Dec. 10, 2019 with the counsel
for the parties concerning the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend.  In
accordance with the matters discussed during the conference,
Magistrate Judge Nelson finds good cause to grant the requested
extensions.

Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend, and
amended the final progression order as follows:

     1) The deadline for the completion of initial discovery was
Jan. 31, 2020.

     2) The deadline to complete one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
the Defendants is Feb. 21, 2020.

     3) A status conference to further discuss case progression
will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on Feb. 28,
2020, at 10:00 a.m. by telephone.  The counsel will use the
conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in
the conference.

     4) The deadlines to complete expert disclosures for all
experts on class certification issues, (both the retained experts
and the non-retained experts), are:

        For the plaintiffs: March 10, 2020;
        For the Defendants: May 11, 2020;
        For the Plaintiff's rebuttal: May 29, 2020

     5) Motion to Certify a Class Action.

          a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action will
be filed by May 11, 2020, in the absence of which any claim in the
pleadings that it is a class action will be deemed abandoned, and
the case will proceed, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as if a
motion for class certification had been filed and denied by the
Court.

          b. The Defendants will file their response to the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion by Aug. 12, 2020.

     6) The deposition deadline for class certification expert
witnesses is July 13, 2020.

     7) The parties will comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not
inconsistent with the Order.

     8) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings
established herein will be directed to the Magistrate Judge,
including all requests for changes of trial dates.  Such requests
will not be considered absent a showing of due diligence in the
timely progression of the case and the recent development of
circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion,
which require that additional time be allowed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/GISlr4 from Leagle.com.

Jessica Olsen, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members
described herein & Teri R. Smith, on behalf of themselves and the
Class Members described herein, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony
J. Fiorentino -- anthony@fiorentinolaw.com -- FIORENTINO LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice, Cassandra P. Miller, EDELMAN, COMBS LAW FIRM, pro
hac
vice, Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN, COMBS
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & David A. Domina -- DAD@dominalaw.com --
DOMINA LAW GROUP.

Nelnet, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Nelnet Diversified
Solutions,
LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company & Nelnet Servicing, LLC,
a Nebraska limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Charles F. Kaplan -- ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com -- PERRY, GUTHERY
LAW
FIRM.


NEST PLANNER: Menichiello Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEST PLANNER LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:20-cv-00135 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market
their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants contacted or attempted
to contact the Plaintiff from telephone number (714) 697-7998,
confirmed to be the Defendants' number. The Defendants' calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The
Defendants did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone, says the
complaint.

Nest Planner provides funding source for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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


NFI INDUSTRIES: Meegan Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dawn Meegan, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NFI Industries
Inc., Case No. 2019CH14479, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court, Cook County, to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) on Jan. 21, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00465 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas M. Durkin.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

NFI Industries is represented by:

          Gregory P Abrams, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 356-5047
          E-mail: gregory.abrams@faegrebd.com


OPERA LTD: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Opera Limited (NASDAQ: OPRA): (i)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering");
and/or (ii) Opera securities between July 27, 2018 and January 15,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Opera investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Opera class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1755.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents and defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Opera's sustainable growth and
market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (2) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects, especially with respect to its lending
applications' continued availability on the Google Play Store; and
(4) as a result, the Offering Documents and defendants' statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1755.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm – http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action
Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017.
The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


PAYROLL MADE EASY: Broughton Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Broughton, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Payroll Made Easy, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00041, (M.D. Fla., January 17, 2020),
seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

Payroll Made Easy is an employee leasing company and uses consumer
reports for employment purposes. It allegedly procured consumer
reports on Broughton for employment purposes, without providing a
lawful disclosure before obtaining a copy of their consumer report.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Silver's Class Cert. Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NEIL SILVER v. PENNSYLVANIA
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Case No. 4:14-cv-00652-PJH
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and terminating
Defendant's motion to decertify as moot.

The Court said, "the plaintiff repeatedly acknowledges that
defendant has adopted a new policy that would cease autodialed
calls upon a broader set of commands from recipients. While
plaintiff cites the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness
doctrine, he fails to show how Defendant's changed policy falls
within that exception. Because the injunctive relief requested is
itself moot with respect to Defendant's existing use of the
challenged systems, the court concludes that the certification
under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b)(2) is separately improper on this
ground."

The Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of:

   "all persons within the United States who received a telephone
   call from PHEAA between February 2010 and February 2014 on
   their cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic
   telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
   after having requested PHEAA to refrain from further telephonic

   communications."

The Putative Class Challenged in Defendant's Motion to decertify:

   "all persons within the United States who received any calls
   from Defendant, or its agent(s) and/or employee(s), to said
   person's cellular telephone, through the use of any automatic
   telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded or artificial
   voice, within the four years prior to the filling of the
   Complaint."

On September 23, 2019, the Plaintiff and Defendant respectively
filed a motion for class certification and motion to decertify.

On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed his initial complaint
against the Defendant arising out of Defendant's alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

PINGER INC: Regan Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS REGAN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PINGER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00486 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Founded in 2005, Pinger creates and markets applications for
cellular telephones. One such application is known as "Sideline."
Sideline is a paid, subscription-based application that allows
users to create a virtual, second telephone line for their cellular
telephones.

In March 2019, the Plaintiff cancelled his subscription to Sideline
and terminated his account. Pinger subsequently engaged in a
win-back campaign aimed at former customers. On March 20, 2019,
Pinger simultaneously sent via a computer-based dialing system
approximately 10-15 identical text messages from (408) 479-6048--at
midnight--urging him to sign up for Sideline service. The Plaintiff
responded to these text messages with a stop  request.

Despite knowing that it lacked consent to send the initial text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number as it did not
have signed prior express written consent, Pinger again
simultaneously sent another 10-15 identical text messages from
(408) 800-4361 on March 24, 2019, the Plaintiff asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAZA FARMERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Martinez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISABELLA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PLAZA FARMERS MARKET, LLC, d/b/a GREEN FARMERS MARKET,
and KENNY S. KO, individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-00694 (D.N.J., Jan.
21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing
to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated--non-exempt cashiers, as well as other grocery
store workers, who suffered damages for damages as a result of the
Defendants' violations of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff performed cashier duties for the Defendants from
Sept. 2011 through Aug. 2019.

The Defendants own and/or maintain a grocery store that provides
products for persons located throughout the State of New Jersey, as
well as neighboring states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          33 State Road, Suite A-1
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


PORCELANA CORONA: March 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
This case is Cone v. Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
Case. No. 4:17-00001, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

WHO IS AFFECTED

You are affected by this class action settlement if, you are a
Texas owner (or previous owner) of a Vortens™ tank model 3412 or
3464 manufactured at the Benito Juarez plant (with a 3-digit stamp
that begins with number 5) between January 1, 2007 - December 31,
2010. A description of how to determine whether you own an affected
tank is included on the website www.VortensSettlement.com/cone.

This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see
www.VortensSettlement.com/cone or contact the Claim Administrator
at the telephone number or address below.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE

This settlement provides a program extending warranty protections
to Texas owners of Affected Tanks.  The settlement (1) extends the
warranty period for Affected Tanks until December 31, 2020; (2)
establishes an audit of previously denied Affected Tank warranty
claims; (3) permits submission of new warranty claims of Affected
Tanks for prior fractures; (4) defines available warranty remedies
for Affected Tanks; and (5) provides a reimbursement schedule for
prior replacement costs.

If you make a valid claim for reimbursement in the settlement and
provide acceptable proof of tank ownership and replacement costs,
you will receive product replacement costs (product and
installation only) with recovery capped at $300 per tank/toilet.

HOW TO GET THE REFUND

To get your refund, visit the settlement website
www.VortensSettlement.com/cone and download or complete a claim
form. You can also obtain a claim form by contacting the Claim
Administrator.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

You can object to the settlement.  For details on how to object,
please visit www.VortensSettlement.com/cone or contact the Claim
Administrator.

COURT HEARING AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

The Court will hold a hearing on March 2, 2020 to consider whether
to approve the settlement. The attorneys for the class will ask the
court to award them fees and expenses in securing the settlement
class benefits and $7,500.00 in incentives to the designated
individual representatives who pursued the suit, but such award
does not diminish the recovery available to class participants.
Note that the hearing date may change without further notice to
you. Consult the settlement website at
www.VortensSettlement.com/cone or updated information on the
hearing date and time.

For further information, please visit the settlement website:
www.VortensSettlement.com/cone. You may contact the Claim
Administrator by phone at 1-833-991-1524 or by writing to Cone v.
Vortens, Claims Administrator, PO Box 4290, Portland, OR
97208-4290.  You may also contact class counsel at Carpenter &
Schumacher, P.C., or access the Court docket on PACER available at
https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov. [GN]


PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 16, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=portola-pharmaceuticals-inc&id=2155
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to:  (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. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         Tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


PREMIER PLUMBING: Anderson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Moon, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00020 (N.D.
Fla., January 17, 2020), seeks to recover nominal relief, unpaid
wages and lost fringe benefits, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorney fees and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kenneth Moon owns/operates Premier Plumbing and Leak, LLC and
Florite Plumbing & Leak Detection, LLC, with principal addresses in
Gainesville Florida. It provides plumbing services in the Northern
District of Florida where Anderson worked as a plumber's assistant.
Moon claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, usually
for off-the-clock work.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      Email: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


RAB INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RAB INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00662 (C.D. Cal., Jan 22, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part,
by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Beginning Oct. 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 and -0058, in
an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase their services.

The Defendants used automatic telephone dialing system to place the
calls, which were not for emergency purposes, says the complaint.

RAB is a debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REALREAL INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against The RealReal, Inc. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
RealReal securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2019
initial public offering. Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/real.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company's employees received little training on
how to spot fake items; (2) that the Company's strict quotas on its
employees exacerbated product authentication issues; (3) that
consequently, the potential for counterfeit or mislabeled items to
make it through Company's authentication process was higher than
disclosed; and (4) that, as a result, defendants' statements about
RealReal's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/real or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in RealReal you have until January 24, 2020 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact:
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein
         Tel: (212) 697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


RETAIL GROUP: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Talmoud Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA TALMOUD, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. RETAIL GROUP OF AMERICA LLC,
an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 20CV362101 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara, Jan. 22, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing
to pay overtime wages, to pay meal and rest premiums, and to pay
minimum wages.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid non-exempt employees, and failed to
compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and
rest breaks, says the complaint.

Retail Group of America is a franchise retailing company.[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


REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Glanz Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revenue Management
Services Corp. The case is styled as Sarah Glanz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Revenue
Management Services Corp, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-01229 (S.D.,
N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Revenue Management Services Corp. offers debt recovery of
delinquent accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



RIPPLE LABS: Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Action Postponed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lubomir Tassev, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that a prolonged
legal battle, which may hold the key to XRP's future, has been
extended again. The class action lawsuit alleges that Ripple issued
and sold the coin, one of the largest by market cap, as an
unregistered security. The decision on the defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit has been postponed. But even a victory for
Ripple in the case might not bring an end to its troubles with
XRP.

Judge Takes Under Submission Ripple's Motion to Dismiss the Case

A ruling was expected from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California at a hearing on Wednesday, Jan. 15. However,
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton took the motion under submission and
there's no fixed date for her announcement. Ripple's legal
representatives asked the district judge to dismiss the case on
Dec. 4, 2019.

Lawsuit Against Ripple May Decide the Fate of XRP but Regulators
Have the Final Say

The first lawsuits against Ripple Labs Inc., developer of the
Ripple payment protocol, were filed by investors about two years
ago. The current class-action suit accuses the blockchain company
of misleading investors and selling them XRP in violation of U.S.
federal law. The plaintiffs claim they lost money and insist they
should be compensated by Ripple, its subsidiary XRPII LLC, and
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.

Ripple has maintained XRP is not a security but its latest
arguments relate only indirectly to the substance of the case. The
company's defense now insists that even if the coin were a
security, the plaintiffs did not file the case on time -- within
three years of its first offering -- as Ripple sold the coin to the
public between 2013 and 2015. In the filing, Ripple's lawyers claim
that the case is not relevant as the statute of repose had expired
and state:

Plaintiff's Complaint is self-defeating: his own allegations as to
when XRP was first offered for sale and how he purchased XRP
require dismissal of his claims.

Referring to the lead plaintiff, Bradley Sostack, the company notes
that he "purchased XRP on an exchange in January 2018 from an
unknown third party, at a time when Defendant Ripple's sales
accounted for less than one-tenth of one percent of all
exchange-based XRP sales," and also that the "Plaintiff filed the
instant Complaint in 2019." The case was taken to court in 2018 and
the consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 5, 2019. Sostack and
his legal team maintain, however, that Ripple is nevertheless
liable due to ongoing sales of the XRP coins.

Regulators to Determine If XRP Is a Security or Commodity

The outcome of the lawsuit is likely to determine the fate of the
cryptocurrency to a great but not full extent. If Ripple's motion
to dismiss is eventually accepted by the court in California, the
company shouldn't have issues with other private plaintiffs in the
future. And if it's rejected, Ripple can either try to reach a
settlement with the plaintiffs or continue the legal battle to
prove XRP is not a security. However, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission can always argue its own case. The SEC can
still file a lawsuit with the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, like it did in the case with Telegram's sale
of the Gram tokens.

Lawsuit Against Ripple May Decide the Fate of XRP but Regulators
Have the Final Say

And that's not the end of it as cryptocurrencies in the U.S. can
also fall under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC). In a recent interview with Cheddar, CFTC
Chairman Heath Tarbert emphasized that his organization is creating
a market for the digital assets within its jurisdiction such as BTC
and ETH. But when asked if more cryptocurrencies like XRP will fall
under the commission's purview this year, Tarbert replied "It's
unclear, stay tuned." Part of the issue, he elaborated, is that
"our jurisdiction we share with the SEC. If it's a security, it
falls under their jurisdiction. If it's a commodity, it falls under
ours."

If the district court in California rejects the motion to dismiss
the lawsuit and eventually decides that Ripple has been breaking
the law by selling an unregistered security, the price of the
third-largest cryptocurrency will be at risk. Allowing Sostack to
challenge the classification of XRP, "would not only threaten to
eliminate XRP's utility as a currency, but it would upend and
threaten to destroy the established XRP market more broadly — a
market involving over $500 billion in trading over the last two
years," the company's legal team warned in the motion. However,
even if Judge Hamilton dismisses the lawsuit, XRP's fate will still
ultimately depend on the decisions taken by U.S. regulators SEC and
CFTC. [GN]


SASOL LTD: Bronstein Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers of Sasol Limited ("Sasol" or the
Company") (SSL). Investors who purchased Sasol securities are
encouraged to obtain additional information and assist the
investigation by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ssl.

The investigation concerns whether Sasol and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws.

On January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release confirming that
on January 13, 2020, the Company "experienced an explosion and fire
at its LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE) unit" of its Lake
Charles chemicals project in Louisiana. Sasol stated that "[t]he
unit was in the final stages of commissioning and startup when the
incident occurred" and "has been shut down and an investigation is
underway to determine the cause of the incident, the extent of the
damage and resulting impact on the LDPE unit's [beneficial
operation] schedule." On this news, Sasol's American depositary
receipt price fell $1.70 per share, or 7.84%, over the following
two trading days, closing at $19.99 per share on January 15, 2020.

If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or
purchased Sasol shares, you can assist this investigation by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ssl. You can also contact
Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-697-6484.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


SHARED IMAGING: Ranger Sues in California Over Employment Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shared Imaging, et
al. The case is captioned as Monica Ranger, On behalf of those
similarly situated v. Shared Imaging and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00273765-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Shared Imaging provides healthcare services. The Company offers
diagnostic imaging including CT, MRI, PET, DR, and clinical support
solutions. Shared Imaging operates in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren Guez, Esq.
          THE DARREN GUEZ LAW FIRM
          930 Tahoe Blvd., Suite 802 No. 44
          Incline Village, NV 89451-9488
          Telephone: (916) 520-0988
          E-mail: darren@guezlaw.com


SO FLO: Faces Millward TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MILLWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SO FLO REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60127-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending telemarketing text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is a real estate brokerage. To promote its services,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands
of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff contends.

On Oct. 9, 2019, and Dec. 11, 2019, the Defendant sent
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 4309.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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


SOUTH NASSAU: Class Cert. Order in Krobath Suit Partly Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC KROBATH, ETC., Respondent, v. SOUTH NASSAU
COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, ETC., Appellant, ET AL., Defendants,
2017-02583, Index No. 602113/15 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department,
partly modified and partly affirmed the order of the Supreme Court,
Nassau County, entered March 6, 2017, denying the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

In 2015, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action
challenging the billing practices of South Nassau Communities
Hospital, specifically with respect to self-pay patients who
received emergency treatment.  He asserted causes of action, inter
alia, to recover damages for negligent concealment (first cause of
action) and violations of General Business Law Section 349 (third
cause of action), and he also sought a declaratory judgment (fourth
cause of action).  After joinder of issue, the hospital moved for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted
against it.  The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the hospital
appeals.

The gravamen of the Plaintiff's allegations are that the hospital
negligently failed to disclose material facts to him concerning the
hospital's billing practices. This is a species of negligent
misrepresentation based on the omission to disclose material facts.
The Appellate Division holds that the liability for negligent
misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who
possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special
position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that
reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified.  Contrary
to the Plaintiff's contention, the fact that the parties are in a
contractual relationship, without more, is insufficient to support
the imposition of a duty to speak with care.

While it cannot be doubted that the relationship between a
physician and a patient is one of confidence and trust regarding
matters of medical treatment, the Appellate Division declines to
hold that such relationship, and any duty to speak with care that
may come with it, also extends to matters of billing having nothing
to do with the rendition of medical treatment.  The Plaintiff's
allegations with respect to the hospital's billing practices can
adequately be resolved by reference to the basic principles of
contract and statutory law that undergird the third and fourth
causes of action, without the need to superimpose an independent
tort duty on the hospital.  

Therefore, the Appellate Division finds that the hospital
established, prima facie, the absence of a special relationship
with the Plaintiff with respect to its billing practices, and the
Plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of
the hospital's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the
first cause of action, alleging negligent concealment, insofar as
asserted against it.

The Plaintiff's third cause of action alleges violations of General
Business Law Section 349, which declares unlawful all deceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce
or in the furnishing of any service in the state.  The Appellate
Division agrees with the Supreme Court's determination that the
hospital was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the
General Business Law Section 349 cause of action insofar as
asserted against it.  First, contrary to the hospital's contention,
it was engaged in consumer-oriented activity.  Second, it is
possible to engage in deceptive trade practices through omissions
as well as affirmative representations.  Third, contrary to the
hospital's contention, there is a triable issue of fact as to
whether the Plaintiff suffered an injury under General Business Law
Section 349.

The fourth cause of action seeks a declaration regarding the
interpretation of the form contract the Plaintiff was asked to sign
upon his admission to the hospital's emergency room.  In moving for
summary judgment dismissing that cause of action, the hospital
failed to establish the absence of a justiciable controversy.

The hospital's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division agrees with the Supreme Court's
determination denying those branches of the hospital's motion which
were for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of
action insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the
sufficiency of the Plaintiff's opposition papers.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/UbgXKw from Leagle.com.

Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Roy W. Breitenbach --
rbreitenbach@garfunkelwild.com -- and Samantha N. Tomey --
stomey@garfunkelwild.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, New York, NY (Oren S. Giskan --
ogiskan@gslawny.com -- and Aliaksandra Ramanenka --
aramanenka@outtengolden.com -- of counsel), for respondent.

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Goldman Sues over Accounting Irregularities
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB GOLDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS C.
GENTILE III, JOSE GARCIA, and JOHN GILSON, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00054 (N.D. Okla., February 10, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Spirit securities from October 31, 2019
through January 29, 2020, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Spirit filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC
on October 31, 2019, which provided its financial results and
position for the fiscal quarter ended September 26, 2019. However,
the statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

Additionally, the Company's shares fell $2.56 per share or
approximately 4% on unusually high volume to close at $65.08 per
share as a result of the press release issued by the Company on
January 30, 2020 announcing its failure to comply with its
accounting procedures and the resignation of Defendants Garcia, the
Company's SVP and CFO, and Gilson, its vice president, controller
and principal accounting officer.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities have caused significant losses and damages to Plaintiff
and other Class members.

Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc. purports to design, manufacture,
and supply commercial aero structures in the U.S. and
internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Tel: (405)235-1560
          Fax: (405)239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

                -and-

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212)686-1060
          Fax: (212)202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


STEVENS TANKER: Dispatchers' Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Cook, Jr., Nora Gonzalez, Jesse Odlozelik and Carlos Lawton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC and Stevens Transport,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00067, (W.D. Tex., January 17,
2020) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result
of Defendants' failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants provide oilfield, trucking and hauling services where
Plaintiffs worked as dispatchers and sand coordinators. They claim
to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      MORELAND VERRETT, PC
      2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Phone: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES: McMillan Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tate & Kirlin
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Tyhessia McMillan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00777 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Tate & Kirlin Associates Inc or TKA is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com




TETHER: Launches Yuan-Pegged Stablecoin Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Selva Ozelli, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that despite
concerns from G-7 and G-20 regulators, Tether recently launched an
offshore yuan-pegged stablecoin dubbed CNHT after launching a
stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar, which is blamed for causing
the world's largest cryptocurrency bubble during 2017 by several
class action attorneys in the U.S. who are suing the company for
trillions of dollars in damages. Steven Mnuchin, secretary of the
U.S. Treasury, supports the launch of stablecoins, including
Facebook's Libra -- as long as U.S. financial regulations are
followed. EU finance ministers, on the other hand, banned the
launch of stablecoins in the region until the bloc has a common
approach to regulation, since the EU parliament acknowledged in its
latest report on "Financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance"
that cross-border cryptocurrency transactions remained a very high
risk in terms of money laundering, financing of terrorism and tax
evasion in the EU.

Users all over the world are able to earn stablecoins by mining.
[GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Medeiros Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MEDEIROS and NANCY BENNETT-HAUSER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION;
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00683 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that
Toyota's design and manufacture of 2010-2015 Prius and Prius PHV,
2012-2015 Prius V, 11 2012-2014 Camry Hybrid, and 2013-2015 Avalon
Hybrid vehicles contain significant design and/or manufacturing
defect in their braking systems.

The Plaintiffs allege that Toyota defectively designed and/or
manufactured defective break booster pump assemblies in the Class
Vehicles, which cause the Class Vehicles' braking systems to fail.
They contend that the Toyota Brake Defect poses an obvious and
material safety risk to the operator and passengers of all Class
Vehicles. The dangers of a defective brake system are manifest,
including increased risk of injury or death, says the complaint.

As a result of the Toyota Brake Defect, the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members have suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and
have otherwise been harmed by Toyota's conduct.

The complaint seeks damages against Toyota for breach of the
manufacturer's warranty and for unfair or deceptive acts or
practices pertaining to "Toyota Brake Defect."

Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Aichi, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com
                  sah@mccunewright.com
                  mir@mccunewright.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Rivera Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Yeshica Viquez Rivera, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00776 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12,
2020).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education,
financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com



TRINITY SERVICES: Sims Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCILLE SIMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; SHELLY ROBERTS, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., an unknown business
entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00260
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against
their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the state of
California by failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime
wages earned.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
employees for missed meal periods and rest breaks, in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee from Oct. 2017 to March 2018, in the State of California,
County of Fresno.

Trinity Services provides correctional food services. The Company
specializes in the management and delivery of customized food,
commissary, and vending services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


UNILEVER: Faces Class Action over Rejuveness Anti-Wrinkle Cream
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nelson, writing for Informa Pharma Intelligence, reports that
according to the plaintiff, Unilever's Pond's Rejuveness
Anti-Wrinkle Cream is defective insofar as tested product has been
found to contain unlabeled mercury, constituting negligence that
has resulted in user injuries. The plaintiff seeks certification of
a transnational class and compensatory and punitive damages, among
other relief. [GN]




USA WATER POLO: Court Tosses All Pending Motions in Mayall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Alice Mayall v. USA Water
Polo, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00171-JFW-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John F. Walter entered an order on Feb. 7, 2020, vacating
dates and denying without prejudice all pending motions.

This action has been transferred to the Central District of
California Court pursuant to the Order of the Chief Judge issued
February 5, 2020. All dates previously set in this action are
vacated. All pending motions are denied without prejudice to
re-filing in  accordance with the Court's Standing Order and
Scheduling and Case Management Order (which will be filed after the
scheduling conference), according to the Civil Minutes - General.

The Court will file an Order setting a scheduling conference and a
deadline to file a Rule 26(f) Joint Report.[CC]

USCCB: O'Connell Questions Diversion of Peter's Pence Donations
---------------------------------------------------------------
David O'Connell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Case No.
1:20-cv-00031-WES-PAS (D.R.I., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that USCCB's
"Peter's Pence" collection intended for charitable purposes has
been diverted into various suspicious investment funds.

For years, USCCB has solicited and collected hundreds of millions
of dollars in donations from parishioners of Catholic churches
throughout Rhode Island and the United States as part of its
"Peter's Pence" collection. USCCB consistently promotes this
specific collection as necessary for helping those suffering the
effects of war, oppression, natural disaster, or disease throughout
the world, and who are thus in need of immediate relief.

Regrettably and tragically, only a very small portion of this
money--as little as 10%--has found its way to the needy for whom it
was given, according to the complaint. The rest of the
money--hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several
years--has been diverted into various suspicious investment funds,
which in turn have funneled the money into such diverse ventures as
luxury condominium developments and Hollywood movies while paying
fund managers hefty, multi-million dollar commissions.

At the urging of USCCB, Plaintiff David O'Connell says he gave to
Peter's Pence at Sacred Heart Church in East Providence, Rhode
Island, in order to help those in disaster-stricken parts of the
world in immediate need of assistance. On behalf of himself and
everyone else in Rhode Island and the United States, he now asks
USCCB to come clean.

Having collected hundreds of millions of dollars from faithful and
well-meaning donors for the poor in immediate need of assistance,
USCCB must now account for itself and the money with which it was
entrusted, and, in the interests of justice, it must disgorge the
funds that were not spent as it promised, Mr. O'Connell contends.
He asserts that he and the members of the Class have sustained
damage because they contributed money for specific charitable
purposes which USCCB did not spend in accordance with its
promises.

Plaintiff David O'Connell resides in East Providence, Rhode Island.
He made a donation to Peter's Pence at Sacred Heart Church in East
Providence, Rhode Island.

USCCB is the episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in the
United States. USCCB is composed of all active and retired members
of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States. USCCB is served by
a staff of approximately 315 lay people, priests, deacons, and
others located at its headquarters in Washington, DC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: 401 831 7730
          Facsimile: 401 861 6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214 443 4300
          Facsimile: 214 443 0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com


VERDE ENERGY: Laqua Sues in New York Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMINA LAQUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VERDE ENERGY USA NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00326
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020), seeks redress for the alleged deceptive
and bad faith pricing practices of the Defendant that have caused
at least tens of thousands of consumers to pay considerably more
for their electricity than they should otherwise have paid.

Verde, an independent energy company or "ESCO," has exploited the
deregulation of the retail electricity market by luring consumers
into switching electricity suppliers using a bait-and-switch scheme
designed to deceive reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff avers. The
Plaintiff contends that Verde lures its customers into switching to
its electricity supply services by offering, for a limited period
of time, initial low teaser rates for electricity.

Once the initial rate expires, however, Verde automatically
switches its customers over to its Variable Rate, according to the
complaint. Verde represents that its Variable Rate each month is
based on "market conditions." A reasonable consumer, thus, expects
that after the teaser rate expires, he or she will pay a Variable
Rate that reflects (or changes with) the wholesale cost of
electricity and local competitors' rates--the two primary
components of any market.

As a result of its breach, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff
and other Class members for actual damages in an amount to be
determined at trial and attorney's fees, says the complaint.

Jermina LaQua is a resident and citizen of Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
          Telephone: 215-238-1700
          Facsimile: 215-238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: 919-600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                 harper@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0090
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  Lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


VERIZON CONNECT: Badillo Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Badillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verizon Connect, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00480 (S.D. N.Y., January 17, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Verizon Connect attempted to contact Badillo on his cellphone to
promote its fleet management services. Badillo never consented in
writing, or otherwise, to receive autodialed telephone calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10014
     Telephone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


VF OUTDOOR: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------
VF Outdoor, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VF Outdoor, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01253
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

VF Corporation is an American worldwide apparel and footwear
company founded in 1899.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


VISKASE COMPANIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMIE THOMAS and ARGUSTER
WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. VISKASE COMPANIES, INC., the DEFENDANT,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00330-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge D.P.
Marshall entered an order on Feb. 4, 2020, conditionally certifying
two classes:

   Group 1:

   "all hourly paid workers at the Osceola plant employed after 15
   November 2016"; and

   Group 2:

   "all salaried shift supervisors at the Osceola plant employed
   after 15 November 2016."

The Court conditionally certifies the two groups, but only for
employees at the Defendant's Osceola plant. Viskase has other
plants, and Thomas and Williams allege that Viskase used the same
pay policies in all of them.  In its ruling, the Court notes that
Thomas and Williams only worked at the Osceola plant, and their key
allegations concern only that plant.

The Court also approves (in general) the proposed forms and
overrules Viskase' s objections.

Viskase manufactures food packaging products. Thomas and Williams
worked at the Viskase plant in Osceola. Thomas was paid
hourly and Williams was a salaried shift supervisor.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: April 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
          Plaintiff,
     v.
WALGREEN CO., et al.,
          Defendants.


Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-3187-SJC-GAF


Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
WALGREEN CO. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 25, 2014 AND AUGUST 5,
2014, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, that the above-captioned
action ("Action") against Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens"), former
Walgreens Chief Executive Officer Gregory D. Wasson, and former
Walgreens Chief Financial Officer Wade D. Miquelon (collectively,
"Defendants"), has been certified as a class action on behalf of
the Class, except for certain persons and entities that are
excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"). Lead
Plaintiff Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S has been appointed by
the Court to represent the Class.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LAWSUIT. The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class members. If you have not yet received a full printed
Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for the Action,
www.WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the
Administrator:

         Walgreens Securities Litigation
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173092
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
        (866) 963-9976

If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you are a member of
the Class, please send your name and address to the Administrator
so if any future notices are disseminated in connection with the
Action, you will receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:

         Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
         One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 400-3000
         Facsimile: (415) 400-3001

                 - and -

         Johnston de F. Whitman, Esq.
         Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         info@ktmc.com
         www.ktmc.com

If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in Walgreens
common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and
you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all
past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class member and do
not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to
exclude yourself from the Class.

If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. If
you exclude yourself from the Class, please note however that you
may be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action
by a statute of repose. Class Counsel offers no advice and no
opinion on whether you will be able to maintain such claims. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion postmarked no later than April 20, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed
Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a
second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be
allowed if there is a settlement or judgment in the Action;
accordingly, this may be the only opportunity to request exclusion
from the Class.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
as set forth above or by visiting the website
www.WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions.

DATED:  January 27, 2020                                        
BY ORDER OF THE COURT [GN]


WAWA INC: Katz Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is captioned as NANETTE KATZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00385-GEKP (E.D.
Pa., Jan. 22, 2020).

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

The lawsuit involves fraud-related issues.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK
          One South Broad St., Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com


ZAYO GROUP: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZAYO GROUP, LLC and ZAYO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-00081 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks to recover overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but
was not paid lawfully for doing so because the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiff and other employees as independent
contractors and only paid them a day rate--failing to pay overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Office Administrator,
and her primary responsibilities included document review and other
clerical tasks.

The Defendants are involved in the telecommunications industry. The
Defendants provide communications infrastructure services,
including fiber and bandwidth connectivity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909


ZIN MANAGEMENT: Faces Labarbera Suit over Employee Uniform Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VICTORIA LABARBERA, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals v. ZIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60283 (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay lawful minimum wages to the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated restaurant servers as mandated by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant required the Plaintiff and
other class members to purchase and wear uniform in the restaurant
during their training period but refused to reimburse them for all
expenses paid, which resulted to the reduction of their applicable
wages well below the federal minimum wage.

Zin Management Services, LLC is a restaurant operator with at least
18 separate locations throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301          
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

[*] Cannabis Class Action Lawsuits Rise in 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Debra Borchardt, writing for Green Market Report, reports that the
NERA Economic Consulting (www.nera.com) recently published a report
that noted a trend in cannabis class action lawsuits being filed
for 2019. The report wrote, "Between July and December 2019, six
cases were filed on behalf of investors in the cannabis industry
alleging either (1) failure to disclose weak demand for the product
or the expected decline in revenue and profits or (2)
misrepresentations related to quality of the product, the status of
inventory, or markup on biological assets."

These are the companies in which cases were filed in the 2nd
Circuit Court:

India Globalization Capital, Inc.     Filed on: 02 Nov 18 Pending
CannTrust Holdings Inc.               Filed on: 10 Jul 19 Pending
Sundial Growers Inc.                  Filed on: 25 Sep 19 Pending
HEXO Corp.                            Filed on: 26 Nov 19 Pending
Trulieve Cannabis Corp.               Filed on: 30 Dec 19 Pending

In the 3rd Circuit Court were:

Canopy Growth Corporation             Filed on: 20 Nov 19 Pending
Aurora Cannabis Inc.                  Filed on: 21 Nov 19 Pending

In addition to the suite that NERA mentioned, Charlotte's Web
Holdings Inc. and Infinite Product Co. are both dealing with
proposed consumer class suits in California. These cases are
alleging the companies improperly marketed products made from CBD.
The suits were sparked by Warning Letters published by the FDA in
November. They allege that products made by both Charlotte's Web
and Infinite did not abide by the FDA regulations and, as such,
violate California law.

The cases are Dasilva v. Infinite Product Co., C.D. Cal., No.
2:19-cv-10148, complaint 11/27/19; McCarthy v. Charlotte's Web
Holdings, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:19-cv-07836, complaint 11/30/19.

Charlottes Web had labeled their products as dietary supplements,
which seems to be what the FDA took issue with. The FDA has
written, "Based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that THC
and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement
definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C.
§ 321(ff)(3)(B)]. Under that provision, if a substance (such as
THC or CBD) is an active ingredient in a drug product that has been
approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 355], or
has been authorized for investigation as a new drug for which
substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for
which the existence of such investigations has been made public,
then products containing that substance are excluded from the
definition of a dietary supplement."

The Infinite Products situation is a little different. That company
included marketing statements like "CBD can alleviate some symptoms
of autism, that cannabinoids have been found to inhibit the growth
of cancer cells, and that, because of opiods' addictiveness and
painful withdrawal symptoms, people have moved to using CBD."

According to NERA, in all class action cases, the median settlement
value was $12.4 million, the highest since 2012, indicating that
more cases are settling for higher values than in previous years.
"The Aggregate NERA-defined Investor Losses for filed cases
decreased from 2018's record high of $929 billion to $519 billion,
largely due to a decline in cases with Investor Losses of $5
billion or more. However, aggregate Investor Losses for cases with
losses of $5 billion or less was $173 billion, the highest this
decade." [GN]


[*] Class Proceedings Fund Names John Brown as Committee Member
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Law Times, reports that The Class
Proceedings Fund named McCarthy Tetrault LLP lawyer John Brown as
its newest committee member.

The committee, which decides whether class action plaintiffs should
be granted financial support and indemnification for costs from the
class proceedings fund, welcomed Brown in a news release dated Jan.
15.

With a practice centred on representing domestic and international
corporations and institutions in complex class actions, Brown was,
until recently, a senior partner member of McCarthy Tétrault's
national class action group. He is still active in the firm as its
legal and strategic advisor for Indigenous initiatives, guiding its
lawyers in delivering culturally sensitive legal services to
Indigenous clients.

He is also chairman of the firm's reconciliation subcommittee, as
well as a mentor for its mentorship program for Indigenous
students, a project the firm collaborated on with the Martin Family
Initiative.

For the International Bar Association, he has co-chaired its
multi-jurisdictional class action/collective redress working group
and has chaired its task force on international procedures and
protocols for class actions.

He also holds memberships in the Giiwedin Anang Council of
Aboriginal Legal Services, the advisory board of LEAP | Pecault
Centre for Social Impact, the Canadian Bar Association's
‎Indigenous advisory group and the Indigenous Bar Association.

According to the news release, Brown's "extended Indigenous family
on his father's side are Sto:lo whose traditional territory is the
Fraser River Valley in British Columbia." [GN]


[*] Imperfect Meal, Rest Break Policies Don't Support Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia A. Luster, Esq. -- julia.luster@ogletree.com -- and Jennifer
Katz, Esq. -- jennifer.katz@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for JDSupra, reports
that in a favorable opinion for employers, the California Court of
Appeal for the Second District concluded the following on December
4, 2019, in David Cacho v. Eurostar, Inc.:

An employer's meal break policy that is silent as to certain
requirements but is otherwise compliant with California law does
not support class certification in the absence of evidence of a
uniform unlawful policy or practice.

A claim for failure to provide rest breaks is not suitable for
class certification where the employer has a uniform written rest
break policy that is unlawful on its face but has not been applied
to employees in practice.

Written Policies Alone Did Not Support Class Certification

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs David Cacho and Regina Silva moved
to certify eight subclasses on behalf of allegedly similarly
situated current and former nonexempt Eurostar employees in
California. In pertinent part, this included four meal break
subclasses and a rest break subclass, as well as an off-the-clock
subclass. In large part, the plaintiffs supported their motion in
this respect by relying on certain versions of Eurostar's employee
handbook, which included the company's written policies on meal and
rest breaks.

The plaintiffs argued that Eurostar's 2007 and 2013 meal break
policies did not include language confirming that employees were
entitled to take their first meal period within their first five
hours of work and a second meal period before their tenth hour of
work, as required under the Supreme Court of California's 2012
Brinker decision and California law.

The plaintiffs also argued that Eurostar's 2007 rest break policy
was unlawful on its face because it said employees were entitled to
a first rest break after four hours (instead of three-and-a-half
hours) and because it did not explicitly authorize a third rest
break for shifts over ten hours. The rest break policy also stated
that if a rest break was taken at a work station, "a professional
atmosphere must be maintained at all times." The plaintiffs argued
that this condoned rest break interruptions.

No Common Evidence of Policy Application in Practice

The trial court denied class certification, finding that the
plaintiffs had not demonstrated that common questions of law or
fact predominated over individual inquiries. In sum, the trial
court found that Eurostar's written policies, without additional
evidence of their application to the putative class in practice,
did not evidence a uniform policy that violated California law,
rendering class treatment inappropriate. Additionally, although
Eurostar's 2007 rest break policy was facially defective, the trial
court observed that the plaintiffs had failed to present evidence
that Eurostar, which had corrected the rest break policy in its
2013 handbook, actually applied the unlawful written policy in a
manner that resulted in failing to provide legally compliant rest
breaks on a class-wide basis.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's
decision.

Trial Courts May Consider Evidence of Wage and Hour Violations at
Class Certification

In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeal noted
that, following Brinker, appellate courts have emphasized that in
assessing whether common issues predominate for purposes of class
certification, the focus of a trial court should be on a
plaintiff's theory of liability, rather than on the case's merits
or defenses. It noted, however, that "[i]n cases where there is a
dispute as to whether there is a uniform unlawful policy . . . it
may be necessary for the trial court to weigh the evidence at the
certification stage for the purpose of making the threshold
determination whether there is substantial evidence of a uniform
policy or practice for the purpose of determining whether common
issues predominate." This is true "[e]ven if the existence of a
uniform policy is not in dispute," because a "trial court may
consider the evidence to determine whether a defendant's liability
under the policy is susceptible to common proof."

As such, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not
improperly reach its determination by prematurely considering the
merits of the case. Instead, the trial court acted properly when it
considered evidence, such as the parties' "testimony and
statistical evidence," to determine whether the plaintiffs' attempt
to prove Eurostar's liability at trial would involve either "common
or individual issues." Because the evidence submitted by the
plaintiffs to support their motion for class certification showed
that individual questions predominated when considering liability,
class certification was not appropriate.

The Allegations of Off-the-Clock Work Were Not Suited for Class
Treatment

Aside from the meal and rest break issues that formed the heart of
the Court of Appeal's ruling, the court also held that the
plaintiffs' off-the-clock subclass was not suitable for class
treatment. Unlike the meal and rest break claims, Eurostar's
employee handbooks expressly prohibited off-the-clock work, and the
plaintiffs acknowledged that they were aware of this policy.
Instead, the plaintiffs based their off-the-clock claim on an
alleged practice by Eurostar of chronic understaffing and
resistance to authorizing overtime—allegations that were not
corroborated by other witnesses or evidence. In light of the
employer's compliant written policy and the evidence submitted by
the parties, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs had
failed to present substantial evidence that off-the-clock liability
could be established through common proof, rendering class
treatment inappropriate. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that
individual issues predominated over common issues for the purposes
of class certification.

Key Takeaways

While regularly auditing policies to ensure compliance with
California and federal laws may be helpful, employers may want to
keep in mind that meal and rest break policies that are silent as
to certain legal strictures, or even contravene the law in some
respects, are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to certify a
class of current and former employees, in the absence of common
evidence showing that the policies have actually been implemented
in an unlawful manner. Thus, the onus will be placed more heavily
on plaintiffs to demonstrate, based on common evidence, that the
employer actually applied these policies unlawfully in practice to
satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements for class
certification. [GN]


[*] Securities Class Action Filings Continue Record Pace
--------------------------------------------------------
Several securities litigation trends over recent years show no
signs of abating in 2020. Federal securities class action filings
seem likely to remain at elevated levels. Last year, for the third
consecutive year, more than 400 securities class actions were filed
in federal court. Given the high volume of filings and the fact
that the number of publicly listed companies has decreased by
nearly two-thirds since 2000, the chance of a public company being
named in a securities class action has grown exponentially.

Although filings in 2019 reflected a moderate drop in the number of
federal merger objection suits, this decline was offset by an
increase in more traditional class action cases — i.e., those
seeking relief under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. These
statistics also do not account for the increased number of
Securities Act suits filed in state court due to the Supreme
Court's decision in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, which held that Securities Act cases were not removable to
federal court. Technology and health care/life sciences companies
continued to be targeted as a result of their more volatile stock
price performance, a trait unlikely to change in 2020.

Against this backdrop, the impact of several recently decided cases
and one pending U.S. Supreme Court case will become clearer in
2020. Companies should understand the potential impact these and
other trends are likely to have on the securities litigation
landscape.

Event-Driven Cases Are Likely To Remain a Focus

We expect plaintiffs firms will continue to gravitate toward
so-called event-driven litigations — cases where the catalyst is
the disclosure or occurrence of a significant event. These
triggering events tend to reflect general risks that cut across
multiple industries, such as data breaches or other cybersecurity
incidents; environmental accidents; natural disasters; allegations
of sexual harassment; and alleged regulatory violations, such as
those arising under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. With
numerous cases at the pleading stage, we may soon get more insight
into how likely event-driven lawsuits are to survive motions to
dismiss and thus gain traction at the district court level.

This decisional law, as it develops, will shed light on the
viability of different allegations and theories of recovery. One
typical pleading tactic, for example, is to claim on the heels of
an alleged regulatory violation that the company misled investors
regarding its compliance with an internal code of conduct or
governing law. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit in Singh v. Cigna Corp. affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of a putative class action, holding that alleged
violations of generic statements included in Cigna's code of ethics
could not support a claim for alleged securities fraud. The Cigna
decision, however, did not prevent claims from moving forward
against Signet Jewelers Ltd., where, following public reports of
alleged sexual harassment, the plaintiffs alleged that the company
violated its internal corporate policies prohibiting such behavior.
Taken together, these cases suggest that courts will not hesitate
to dismiss claims premised on vague or generic corporate statements
but will permit them to move forward if plaintiffs provide strong
and detailed factual allegations.

Supreme Court Decision in Cyan Will Continue To Shape Securities
Litigation
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Cyan is expected to
continue to impact Securities Act litigation, as plaintiffs' firms
have increased the number of Securities Act filings in both federal
and state courts, requiring the courts to wrestle with several
thorny issues relating to stays, transfer and coordination. In
Cyan, the Supreme Court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 did not authorize federal courts to remove
cases brought solely under the Securities Act, and that state
courts may exercise jurisdiction over such cases.

In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, we predicted that
plaintiffs' firms, emboldened by the decision, would file cases in
state courts with greater frequency — including in jurisdictions,
such as New York, that previously refused to hear these suits. (See
"Supreme Court Holds That Class Actions Brought Under Securities
Act in State Court Are Not Removable.") Last year, more Section 11
cases were filed in state court than in 2018, with a substantial
number landing in New York state court. According to data compiled
by the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, more than 75%
of these post-Cyan suits were filed in state court alone or in both
state and federal court. Conversely, less than 25% of Section 11
cases were filed in federal court alone. By way of comparison, in
the three years before Cyan — roughly seven out of every 10
Section 11 cases (or 67%) were brought in federal court on a
stand-alone basis, making it possible for defense counsel to
consolidate or coordinate parallel filings through the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, motions to transfer or
otherwise.

The post-Cyan migration of cases to state court, by contrast, has
complicated case management efforts. For example, in 2019, nearly
half (48%) of all new Securities Act matters included parallel
state and federal filings (as compared to 16% in the three years
before Cyan). Because no procedural mechanism exists for
consolidating — or even coordinating — these overlapping suits,
corporate defendants have been forced to seek discretionary stays
and other alternative forms of relief. These efforts have led to
several inconsistent rulings at the state court level. For
instance, on two occasions in 2019, the Commercial Division of the
New York Supreme Court denied a stay even though the federal cases
included Exchange Act claims that could only have been brought in
federal court. In contrast, at least one Massachusetts state court,
several in California and even one New York court granted stays in
favor of federal cases. One factor that appears to have favored
stays is whether the federal case was filed first. State courts
also have disagreed as to whether the automatic discovery stay
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
apply to Securities Act claims brought in state court.

As these examples suggest, the law surrounding Cyan remains
unsettled. With multiple Securities Act cases pending in New York,
California and elsewhere, the new year may provide more clarity as
to how state courts are resolving these procedural issues. Equally
important, we hope to learn more in 2020 about how different state
courts are applying the substantive elements of Securities Act
claims at the motion to dismiss stage. In 2019, defendants won
several important victories in this regard. Rulings this year may
provide more insight into whether trends are developing within or
among states.

Supreme Court May Address Whether Plaintiffs Can Use ERISA
Stock-Drop Suits To Plead Around the Securities Laws
In Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, the U.S. Supreme
Court remanded to the Second Circuit a closely watched case
regarding whether plaintiffs can effectively use ERISA to plead
around the federal securities laws. In Jander, the plaintiffs
accused plan administrators, all of whom were company insiders, of
violating ERISA by failing to disclose allegedly negative
information about IBM's microelectronics business. The plaintiffs
claimed that during the relevant time period, plan administrators
should have understood that the disclosure of this nonpublic
information (along with a corresponding drop in the price of IBM
stock) was inevitable. As a result, the plaintiffs alleged, any
prudent fiduciary would have concluded that silence — that is,
waiting to reveal the adverse information — would do more harm
than good. In reversing the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint,
the Second Circuit largely agreed with this framing of the "more
harm than good" standard first enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

Before the Supreme Court, the IBM fiduciaries argued, in a position
supported by the U.S. solicitor general, that when ERISA
fiduciaries learn of inside information that may negatively affect
the company's stock price, courts must evaluate a duty to disclose
that information by looking solely to the federal securities laws.
Reasoning from this premise, IBM has claimed that the Second
Circuit's "inevitable disclosure" standard sweeps far more broadly
— and is appreciably more lenient from a pleading perspective —
than Dudenhoeffer permits. Indeed, IBM argued that the Second
Circuit's test could, in some cases, require disclosure in
situations where the federal securities laws do not. (See "2019-20
Supreme Court Update.")

The Supreme Court's decision leaves the issue unsettled as the case
goes back to the Second Circuit for further proceedings because
petitioners and the federal government had focused on the
consistency between the securities laws and ERISA, arguments the
Second Circuit never had the chance to address. (See "Supreme Court
Declines To Rule on ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Pleading
Standard for ESOP Cases.")

Other Issues To Look for in 2020
District and appellate courts likely will have an opportunity to
consider two of the Supreme Court's more notable securities rulings
from 2019: Lorenzo v. SEC and Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian. In
Lorenzo, the Court held that Francis Lorenzo, an investment banker,
was liable under Subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 10b-5 for emailing
clients a false and misleading investment solicitation that had
been prepared by Mr. Lorenzo's boss. The Court's decision meant, in
practical terms, that Mr. Lorenzo could be held responsible as a
primary violator of Section 10(b) despite not having "made" the
underlying statement. In 2020, Lorenzo may lead to an increase in
private securities claims against disseminators who themselves did
not make false and misleading statements, based on the theory that
these defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors.

We also will be tracking any fallout from Emulex Corp. vs.
Varjabedian, a merger objection suit that was dismissed by the
Court after oral argument and, crucially, before any decision was
issued. The complaint had asserted violations of Section 14(e) of
the Exchange Act, a provision that is routinely invoked by private
plaintiffs in challenging the accuracy of tender offer materials.
However, this long-recognized private right of action, may be in
jeopardy: During oral argument, several justices questioned whether
it was even appropriate for a private plaintiff to proceed under
Section 14(e). Taking their cues from the Supreme Court, defendants
in Section 14(e) suits are likely to challenge the very right of
private investors to sue under this section of the Exchange Act. If
one of these cases survives long enough, it may well serve as a
vehicle for the Court to revisit whether a private right of action
exists under Section 14(e).

This year will mark the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which was
intended to curtail securities class action filings. Despite those
intentions, we anticipate another year of record or near-record
filing levels and will be closely watching a number of potential
decisions that will continue to shape the securities litigation
landscape. [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 ***