/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200221.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 38

                            Headlines

2 KREW INC: Bergad Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claim
AARON'S INC: Faces Cardenas Labor Suit in Sacramento
ABC PEST CONTROL: Underpays Termite/Rodent Technicians, Suit Says
AIRBNB INC: 'Double Ticketing' Lawsuit Certified as Class Action
ALL-IN STAFFING LTD: Beachler Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ALTICE USA: Faces Wiley Class Suit Over November 2019 Data Breach
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Faughnan Suit Moved From New York to N.J.
AMAZON: Paul Weiss Attorneys Discuss Ring Camera Doorbell Suit
AMECI PIZZA & PASTA: Brodetsky Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
AMERICANA HOLDINGS: DeClements Files Suit for TCPA Breach

ARSTRAT LLC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Von Asten Suit
BASE MANAGEMENT: Shortchanges Prop. Managers' OT Pay, Says Suit
BEYOND MEAT: March 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BT'S ON THE RIVER: Underpays Dancers, Aquino Suit Alleges
CABOT OIL AND GAS: Gomez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CALPERS: Settlement Talks Extended With Ex-Judge at Helm
CENTRELINK: 10,000 People Sign Up to Join Robodebt Scheme Suit
CERNER CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Fund Mismanagement
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Certification Denied on Workplace Suit
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Lescinsky Sues over Delayed Overtime Wages

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Carter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Payne Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Katzakian Balks at Debt Collection Practices
CREDIT CONTROL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Betz Suit
D & M CARRIERS: Bromlow Suit Moved From California to Oklahoma

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Judge Likely to OK $14MM Deal in Harassment Suit
EASTLAND MALL: Certification of FLSA & Rule 23 Classes Sought
EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Trial Court Ruling in Grande Case Upheld
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Zayika Suit Over Collection Practices
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zayika"

FACEBOOK INC: To Pay $550MM to Settle BIPA Class Action
FEATHER FACTORY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
FIAT CHRYSLER: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Suit
FIRST FINANCIAL: Robbins Calls Debt Collection Policy "Abusive"
FMS INC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Markovic Suit

FORD MOTOR: Class Action Settlement Could Cost More Than $100MM
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action
FORTE CAPITAL: Barthole Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs
G6 HOSPITALITY: Singletary FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
GERON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts Investors to Class Action

GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Hit With 5 New Lawsuits Charging Brutal Abuse
GLOBAL LEARNING: Class Action for Sham Tax Scheme Certified
GREAT AMERICAN POWER: Sends Spam Text Messages, Metzler Claims
GREEN DOT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
GREEN DOT: Howard Smith Reminds of Class Action

HABIT RESTAURANTS: Shudic Securities Suit Balks at Sale to YUM!
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Smith Balks at YUM! Brands Merger Deal
HANERGY AND ALTA: Cotchett Pitre Files WARN Class Action
HARO BICYCLE: Reid Class Lawsuit Over Website Settled
HEARTLAND BANK: PLB Investments Sues over Role in Ponzi Scheme

HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
HOSOPO CORPORATION: Pandura Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
I.Q. DATA: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Agreement Sought
ICANDY BEAUTY: Buitrago Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
IOVATE HEALTH: Slack-Fills Six Star Products, Schoonover Claims

ISIGNTHIS LTD: Gadens Files Possible Class Action Suit
JOE'S PUBLIC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JUUL LABS: O'Reilly Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
KRATON CORP: April 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

LIBERTY CAPITAL: Loyhayem Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
MADONNA: Faces Another Class Action Over Madame X Concert Delays
MASTERPIECE REALTY: Harris Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
METROPOLITAN GROUP: Faces Hachat Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio
MISSOURI: Class Certification Sought in Beggs v. Corrections Dept.

MOD SUPER: Sued by Sosa in Illinois Alleging Violation of BIPA
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Faces Induced Labor Class Lawsuit
MSC CRUISES: Elizabeth Sues Over Agreement Breach & Unpaid Wages
NATIONAL MILK: $220M Settlement in Suit vs. Milk Producers Reached
NATIONAL TIRE: Faces Class Suit Over New Tire Paperwork

NOVO NORDISK: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
NXIVM: Faces Mass Action Filed Philadelphia Firm for 80 Victims
NYLABONE: Pet Owner Launches Class Action in New York
OPERA LTD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 24 Motion Deadline
PENN STATION SHOE REPAIR: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages

PRINCIPAL LIFE: Fixed Income Option Plan Class Action Revived
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Insureds Sue Over Medical Benefits
R & H AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Zachery Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
RAPID MULTISERVICE: Iglesia Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
RELATED MANAGEMENT: Tenants Hit Non-disclosure of Security Deposit

RESPOND POWER: Averts Class Action Over Variable Rates
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES: Lies About Prescription Opioids, Rhodes Says
ROOT2 TAX: Faces Class Action Over Alchemy Tax Avoidance Scheme
SAFESPEED LLC: Faces Red-Light Camera Class Action in Illinois
SANTA FE, NM: Suit on DWI Forfeiture Plan Seeks Class Action Status

SIX FLAGS: IBEW Sues over Park Development Delays in China
SORL AUTO: Faces Scarantino Securities Suit Over Ruili Merger
STAMPS.COM INC: Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
STRAWBERRY CREEK: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Scott et al. Claim
TARGET CORP: Underpays Executive Team Leaders, Davis Claims

TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
TOUGH MUDDER: Terminates Employees Without Warning, McKinnon Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Drake Sues over Defective Steering Wheel
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Pulkrabek Suit Over Defective Fuel Tanks
TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Bid to Certify Class in Golf Ads Suit Denied

TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Acerra Suit Over Undisclosed Operations
ULTRA SHINE: Hernandez  Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
VERTI INSURANCE: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Hooper Says
X FINANCIAL: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
ZEMPLEO INC: Dodge Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

[*] Cornerstone Research Reveals Key Trends in Federal Filings

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.86MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $502MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $767,000 Liability at December 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 925 PI Suits at Dec. 31


                            *********

2 KREW INC: Bergad Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2 KREW, INC. The case
is styled as Bergad Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. 2 KREW, INC. doing business as: 2 KREW
SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00227-AJS (W.D. Pa., Feb.
13, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

2 Krew Security & Surveillance is a Security Products & Services
company based in Kittanning, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Fax: (412) 281-4229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


AARON'S INC: Faces Cardenas Labor Suit in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Aaron's, Inc. The case is captioned as LUIS H. CASTRO CARDENAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AARON'S, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2020-00274403-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cyt., Jan. 29,
2020).

Aaron's, Inc. rents and sells office and residential furniture and
accessories, consumer electronics, and household appliances. The
Company also manufactures furniture, bedding, and accessories.
Aaron's has Company-owned and franchised centers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren M Cohen, Esq.
     Kingsley & Kingsley
     16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Tel: 888-753-1837


ABC PEST CONTROL: Underpays Termite/Rodent Technicians, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PEST CONTROL OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a ABC
HOME & COMMERCIAL SERVICES; and RALEIGH W. JENKINS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00008 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 2, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as Termite and
Rodent Technician.

ABC Pest Control of Houston, Inc. provides pest control services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Tel: (713) 223-8855
          Fax: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
                  service@tranlawll.com


AIRBNB INC: 'Double Ticketing' Lawsuit Certified as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Larsen, writing for CBC News in Canada, reports that a
British Columbia man has succeeded in having his claim against
Airbnb certified as a national class action lawsuit.

Arthur Lin of Vancouver alleges the accommodation booking company
is guilty of "double ticketing," a rarely cited criminal offence
under the federal Competition Act.  

Simply put, double ticketing is when a vendor displays two
different prices for a single product and then charges the customer
the higher one.

Airbnb is appealing the certification.

According to his statement of claim, Lin booked a seven-day stay in
Japan in May of 2016 on Airbnb. The accommodation he selected was
shown as costing $109 a night.

But when he booked the service, he was redirected to a listing page
displaying a second price of $855 for the seven nights, the
equivalent of $122.14 a night.

The higher, second price included an extra $91 Airbnb tacked on for
service fees.

2 prices for 2 different products?

In arguments, Airbnb claimed the offence of double ticketing does
not apply in its case because the two prices are for two different
products: the actual accommodation offered by hosts to guests
reflected in the first price and the listing service reflected in
the second, higher price.

But in his analysis, Justice Denis Gascon said the company
"mischaracterizes" its own product.

"I am satisfied, that when read in context, Mr. Lin's statement of
claim identifies one 'product' supplied by Airbnb, namely the
accommodation booking services offered and supplied by Airbnb
through its platform," he wrote.

"Put differently, I do not find it plain and obvious that, as
argued, the pleadings relate to two prices for two different
products."

Lin's co-counsel Simon Lin (no relation) said Airbnb's claim of
selling two products doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

"It's just like if you go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac for
$2.99. And then when you go to pay they add a wrapper fee of 50
cents [as if] the wrapper is a different product," said Simon Lin.

'Uncharted territory'

In the decision, Gascon notes that Lin's claim "certainly appears
to be stretching the potential interpretation and application of
Section 54 of the Competition Act ... extending it into unchartered
territory."

However, he does say the concept of double ticketing can be
extended to the technologies and commercial practices of today's
digital marketplace, even though it was first introduced into law
in 1975 to address stores listing two different prices for a single
item.

An estimated 2.2 million Canadians reserved on Airbnb between Oct.
31, 2015 and August 2018, according to the claim.

It names Airbnb Inc., Airbnb Canada Inc., Airbnb Ireland Unlimited
Company and Airbnb Payments UK Limited as defendants. [GN]


ALL-IN STAFFING LTD: Beachler Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Beachler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. All-In Staffing, Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00140, (N.D. Ohio, January 21, 2020), seek unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Defendant is a staffing agency that hires employees and assigns
them to work at their customer locations. Beachler claims to have
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid
overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      614 West Superior Ave., Ste. 1148
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


ALTICE USA: Faces Wiley Class Suit Over November 2019 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Wiley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALTICE USA, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-01297 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020), seeks to redress Altice's
alleged unlawful and negligent disclosure of thousands of its
employees' and customers' personally identifiable information in a
major data breach in November 2019.

The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are current and
former employees and customers of Altice, who entrusted Altice with
their PII. The Defendant betrayed the Plaintiff's trust and that of
the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their PII and thereby enabling cyber criminals to steal
their PII, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Data Breach occurred as a result of a phishing campaign on
Altice company e-mail accounts. An undisclosed number of Altice
employees, apparently ill-equipped to protect themselves, were
tricked into providing their login information to the cyber
criminals. With these credentials, the cyber criminals were able to
remotely login to Altice company accounts, where they found a
treasure trove of PII, according to the complaint.

In short, the Plaintiff contends, due to the Defendant's negligence
and statutory violations, cyber criminals have everything they need
to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and
personal lives of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff says she
has already suffered identity theft as a result of the Data Breach,
when someone used her Social Security number to file her taxes and
steal her tax refund. She contends that this has cost her hundreds
of dollars in the lost refund and incidental costs related to
restoring her identity and a significant amount of lost time and
opportunity.

Plaintiff Brittany Wiley is domiciled in New York, and is a
resident of Bronx County.

Altice USA, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and its
principal place of business is Long Island City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Faughnan Suit Moved From New York to N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Teresa Faughnan, Jennifer Maltese,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amag
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01394, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 13,
2020.

The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01567
to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chantal Khalil, Esq.
          Jennifer Maltese, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Fax: (914) 824-1561

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert A. Barrer, Esq.
          BARCLAY DAMON LLP
          Barclay Damon Tower
          125 East Jefferson Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Phone: (315) 425-2704
          Fax: (315) 425-8544


AMAZON: Paul Weiss Attorneys Discuss Ring Camera Doorbell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
H. Christopher Boehning, Esq. -- cboehning@paulweiss.com --
Christopher D. Frey, Esq. -- cfrey@paulweiss.com -- Roberto J.
Gonzalez, Esq. -- rgonzalez@paulweiss.com -- Jeh Charles Johnson,
Esq., Jonathan S. Kanter, Esq., Lorin L. Reisner, Esq., Jeannie S.
Rhee, Esq., Richard C. Tarlowe , Esq., and Steven C. Herzog, Esq.,
of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that on December 26, 2019, Amazon and Ring LLC
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
plaintiffs alleging claims of over $5 million. While there are
myriad counts and allegations in the complaint, the central
allegation appears to be that Ring should have required users to
utilize the option of two-factor authentication to access their
accounts and connected devices -- an option that is available on
Ring systems but not required when setting up an account. The case
raises important questions about whether litigation of this kind
will lead companies that handle sensitive personal information to
require users to utilize security mechanisms such as two-factor
authentication and complex passwords.

Background

Ring is a home security and smart home company. According to the
complaint, Ring's flagship product is a video doorbell that
contains a high-definition camera, a motion sensor, and a
microphone and speaker for two-way audio communication. The smart
doorbell integrates with an associated mobile app that enables its
users to view real-time video from the camera, receive
notifications and communicate with visitors. In addition to the
video doorbell, Ring also sells other home security products,
including a complete home alarm system as well as a variety of
security cameras. Ring was acquired by Amazon in February 2018 for
an estimated value of over $1 billion and is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Amazon. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims against Amazon, leaving Ring as the only
defendant in the case.

The complaint alleges that John Baker Orange, the lead plaintiff,
bought a Ring outdoor camera in July 2019 for approximately $249 to
provide additional home security. Orange alleges that one day,
while his children were playing basketball outside, a voice came
through the camera's two-way speaker commenting on their game and
encouraging them to get closer to the camera. Plaintiffs allege
that this was just one of a number of examples of Ring video
doorbells and cameras being compromised, and Plaintiffs allege that
Ring knew about the system's security vulnerabilities.[1]
Plaintiffs allege that Ring failed to enhance security features
and, instead, blamed hacking incidents on poor security practices
by users, such as using the same username and password for multiple
accounts and services.

Plaintiffs claim that Ring has failed to fulfill its promise to
provide privacy and security for its customers, in part because
Ring failed to require users to rely on strong passwords and
utilize two-factor authentication, and that it failed to alert
users of attempted logins from unknown IP addresses. Plaintiffs
assert causes of action under common law tort theories, including
negligence and invasion of privacy; contract theories, such as
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment; and for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Implications

The case against Ring raises important questions about the standard
of care that is required of companies that handle sensitive
personal data, including whether in certain circumstances companies
are required to both put in place mechanisms like two-factor
authentication and the use of strong passwords and then require
users to utilize those mechanisms--as opposed to just recommending
or offering these options. As "smart devices" and the "Internet of
Things" ("IoT") are increasingly part of everyday life, the answers
to these questions could have significant implications. Companies
that offer smart devices and IoT, and their associated services,
may do well to pay close attention to how these issues develop, so
that they can adopt practices that will protect them from potential
liability. In the meantime, companies engaged in online services
should stay up-to-date on security standards and enhancements,
routinely update their security systems, and consider having users
take steps to reduce the risk of a compromise, such as creating
passwords with certain levels of complexity. [GN]


AMECI PIZZA & PASTA: Brodetsky Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Brodetsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ameci Pizza & Pasta Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00601 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Ameci Pizza & Pasta contacted Brodetsky via SMS on his cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Brodetsky
did not give his express consent to be contacted in this manner.
[BN]

American Directions is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
      HEKMAT LAW GROUP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (424) 888-4529
      Facsimile: (424) 270-0242

AMERICANA HOLDINGS: DeClements Files Suit for TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel DeClements, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Americana Holdings, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00166 (D. Ariz., January 21, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Americana Holdings is the parent company of the Berkshire Hathaway
franchises in Arizona, California, and Nevada that owns and
operates 30 real estate offices, with 3,300 agents.

DeClements had a property listed for sale, but he terminated his
contract with the realtor that he was working with in the beginning
of September 2019, and had the listing removed from its multiple
listing service. Despite this, and opting out, DeClements received
autodialed text messages from an agent to his cell phone. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Nathan Brown, Esq.
      BROWN PATENT LAW
      15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Phone: (602) 529-3474
      Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com


ARSTRAT LLC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Von Asten Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY VON ASTEN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ARSTRAT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00233-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BASE MANAGEMENT: Shortchanges Prop. Managers' OT Pay, Says Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catrice Cooper and Kimberly Landy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Adam Glickman and Base Management
Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00074 (E.D. Ark., January
21, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and manage multi-family housing complexes throughout
the state where Cooper and Landy were employed as property
managers. According to the Plaintiffs, they routinely work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek but the Defendants' overtime
computation failed to include the value of the nondiscretionary
bonuses that they get. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEYOND MEAT: March 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. ("Beyond Meat" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: BYND) in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Beyond Meat between May 2,
2019 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Beyond Meat investors under
the federal securities laws.

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

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Beyond Meat
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March
30, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


BT'S ON THE RIVER: Underpays Dancers, Aquino Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JOBY AQUINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BT'S ON THE RIVER, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP ON THE
RIVER; BTS NORTH, INC. dba BOOBY TRAP DORAL AREA; BOOBY TRAP, INC.;
PHILLIP GORI; P.T.G. ENTERTAINMENT, INC. dba BOOBY TRAP; GREGG
BERGER; B&G OPA LAND HOLDINGS, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP; THE GORI FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP dba BOOBY TRAP; PG INVESTMENTS I, INC.; PG
INVESTMENTS II, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-20090 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Aquino was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

BT'S On The River, LLC dba Booby Trap On The River operates
adult-oriented entertainment facilities at Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 722-6977
          Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
          E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


CABOT OIL AND GAS: Gomez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Santos Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00098 (M.D. Pa., January 20, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Cabot is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
development, exploitation and exploration of oil and gas properties
exclusively in the continental United States where Gomez worked as
a Drilling Safety Manager in Cabot's location in the Marcellus
Shale Project in Dimock. Cabot paid Gomez a flat amount for each
day worked but failed to pay him overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rschreiber@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Gregory E. Fellerman, Esq.
      FELLERMAN & CIARIMBOLI LAW, PC
      183 Market St., Suite 200
      Kingston, PA 18704
      Tel: (570) 718-1444
      Fax: (570) 714-7255
      Email: gef@fclawpc.com


CALPERS: Settlement Talks Extended With Ex-Judge at Helm
--------------------------------------------------------
Wes Venteicher, writing for The State, reports that a retired judge
is now managing settlement talks between the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and a group of people suing
the retirement system over its long-term care insurance policies,
according to court filings.

The development shows settlement efforts in the $1.2 billion
class-action lawsuit haven't faded since they started in September
2019. Policyholders filed the lawsuit in 2013 after the California
Public Employees' Retirement System notified them it was going to
raise their insurance premiums by 85 percent.

Judge William Highberger, who is overseeing the lawsuit in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, appointed Layn Phillips, a retired
judge, as a "settlement master" in December to oversee the talks,
according to a court filing.

The appointment expands the role of Phillips, who oversaw at least
three settlement talks from September to November as a mediator.

Included in his new role is the authority to communicate with Gov.
Gavin Newsom's office and the state Finance Department regarding
settlement talks, according to Highberger's order appointing him.

A CalPERS spokesman said on Jan. 27 the system does not discuss
mediation.

CalPERS has said that any money that might be paid as a result of
the lawsuit, whether in a settlement or a judgment, wouldn't affect
the $400 billion fund from which the system pays retirees'
pensions.

In past statements, CalPERS said the money likely would come from
rate increases on long-term care insurance policyholders.

Phillips will have had an opportunity to meet with the state by the
time of the next status conference, scheduled for Feb. 26, said
Michael Bidart, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

About 100,000 people who were affected by the rate increases are
included in the lawsuit's class. Judge Highberger urged the two
sides to try to reach a settlement last July, after issuing a
tentative ruling saying he was inclined to side with a group of
85,000 plaintiffs who purchased "inflation protection" for their
long term care plans.

The plans came with automatic increases to benefits, such as the
amount the plan would pay for nursing home care, to account for
price increases over time. CalPERS promised in marketing materials
that the increases wouldn't come with corresponding premium
increases. Attorneys in the lawsuit have said CalPERS broke that
promise.

The law firms representing the plaintiffs have set up a website
where they post updates on the case, calpersclassactionlawsuit.com.
A recent posting includes a general discussion of what the
attorneys are seeking for specific groups of affected
policyholders.

The trial in the lawsuit, originally scheduled for October 2019,
was rescheduled for April 2020. Bidart said the trial date likely
would be pushed back again to late summer or the fall. [GN]


CENTRELINK: 10,000 People Sign Up to Join Robodebt Scheme Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Henriques-Gomes, writing for The Guardian, reports that nearly
10,000 people have now signed up to join a class action demanding
compensation over the botched robodebt scheme, almost twice as many
as were on board when the government ditched the most controversial
aspect of the scheme last year.

Law firm Gordon Legal said in November that it would push ahead
with a class action against the debt recovery program, despite the
government announcing an overhaul in the face of a federal court
decision that critics argued meant the entire scheme was
"unlawful".

James Naughton, a principal lawyer at Gordon Legal, said 9,600
people had now registered to take part in the class action, up from
about 4,000 in November when the firm confirmed it had lodged writs
in the federal court.

"There is growing interest and we're contacted every day by more
people who are finding out about the class action," he said. "There
are many, many thousands of people who have been affected and many
thousands of people are now signing up."

The class action could potentially place a further financial burden
on the government, which has also been forced to review debts
issued using the controversial income-averaging method heavily
criticised by the federal court.

Last year, as it settled the separate challenge from Victoria Legal
Aid, the government said it would only issue debts where it had
gathered evidence of the income earned by welfare recipients,
rather than simply averaging a person's annual income across 26
fortnights.

Gordon Legal has said it is pursuing the class action despite the
government's backdown, given that Centrelink has not promised to
return the money taken from its clients nor promised to provide
compensation for inconvenience and distress.

And the firm maintains it will still seek compensation even if
Centrelink agrees to fully refund affected customers, and it is
also claiming interest on "the money taken unlawfully from people,
including through garnishing their tax returns".

When the scheme was at its height, Centrelink had applied a 10%
recovery fee to more than 250,000 debts and claimed $22m by
garnisheeing the tax returns of welfare recipients from 20,000
robodebts last financial year, according to new data provided to
the Senate.

While the majority were Newstart debts, the figures reveal
Centrelink also swiped $180,000 from the tax returns of disability
support pensioners from a total of 124 debts and $618,780 from the
595 debts belonging to single parents.

The government has declined to say how many people or debts could
be drawn into the saga, though Centrelink staff have been told more
than 220,000 debts may be affected. Services Australia has frozen
debts on payment plans as it reviews them.

Last year Services Australia said as of June it had banked $1.9bn
in recouped overpayments, with about $700m that had already been
paid back by welfare recipients. Nearly 700,000 debts had been
issued at an average of about $2,000 each.

Under Australian class action law, the court will define a "class"
of people who are eligible to be involved. All people who meet the
definition will be considered part of the class action unless they
opt out.

The government is expected to file a reply to the class action in
the coming weeks ahead of case management hearing next month. [GN]


CERNER CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Fund Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Jane Freck, Gloria Robinson, Jaleeza Owens and Lynn
Muserelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cerner Corporation, Compensation Committee
of the Cerner Corporation Board of Directors, Linda M. Dillman,
Julie L. Gerberding, George A. Riedel, Halsey Wise, William D.
Zollars, Cerner Corporation Foundations Retirement Plan
Administrative and Investment Committee, Marc G. Naughton and John
Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00043, (W.D. Mo., January 21,
2020), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of fiduciary
obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Freck, Robinson, Owens and Muserelli are participants of the Cerner
Corporation Foundations Retirement Plan, a defined contribution
plan for Cerner employees. They allege that the Defendants failed
to scrutinize the plan's investment option in terms of cost; failed
to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds
within the plan; and failed to consider collective trusts,
commingled accounts or separate accounts as alternatives to the
mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
     Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
     CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
     2933 North Front Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17110
     Tel: (717) 233-4101
     Fax: (717) 233-4103
     Email: markg@capozziadler.com
            donr@capozziadler.com

            - and -

     Kristie Blunt Welder, Esq.
     WELDER BLUNT WELDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     4741 Central Street, Suite 514
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Tel: (844) 935-3373
     Fax: (844) 935-3373
     Email: kwelder@welderfirm.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Certification Denied on Workplace Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Wozniak and Mark Wallin, writing for The National Law
Review, reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California recently denied certification of a potential
workplace class action, explaining that "[i]t is not enough at the
class certification stage, however, to simply assert that there
were company-wide policies," and holding that the plaintiff
employees had not proven that the alleged policies "existed on a
company-wide basis."

In Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., the plaintiffs brought
the class action suit alleging that their employer systematically
discriminated against employees of "Hispanic race and/or Mexican
national origin," and making claims under the California Fair
Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). The plaintiffs sought
certification of a Rule 23 class made up of approximately 43,000
individuals, consisting of California hourly employees "who are
Hispanic and/or of Mexican national origin." The plaintiff
employees alleged a variety of claims for discrimination,
retaliation and harassment on the basis of two alleged policies of
the defendant employer:

   English-Only Policy: the plaintiffs alleged an unwritten policy
   prohibiting employees from speaking Spanish at work

   Promotion Policy: the plaintiffs alleged an unwritten policy
   requiring a subjective level of English proficiency before any
   promotion to a management position.

The plaintiff employees alleged that these unwritten policies
applied at all of the approximately 400 stores in California. In
addition to a variety of evidentiary objections, the defendant
employer argued, in part, that to the extent the policies even
existed at all, the claims by the employees would "require
individualized inquiries into such policies, including the
subjective decision-making by Defendants' supervisors who had
discretion to implement the challenged policies, to the extent they
existed, at individual restaurants."

As the court explained, in considering class certification, the
court cannot "accept at face value Plaintiffs' theory of the case."
Rather, the court must engage in a "rigorous analysis" to determine
whether Rule 23 is satisfied, even to the extent that analysis
overlaps with the merits of the dispute. The court explained that
the plaintiff employee's evidence "tendered here in support,
however, actually rebuts the inference that Defendants uniformly
imposed such policies in their California restaurants."

With regard to the alleged English-only policy, examining the
testimony of 12 declarants, the court explained that "the
declarants' differing experiences belie Plaintiffs' asserted basis
for class-wide adjudication." For example, half of the declarants
did not experience the alleged English-only policy, and some of
those who claimed they did were in fact permitted to speak Spanish
among themselves. The court concluded that there was no evidence of
the alleged English-only policy applying to the entire class.

With regard to the alleged promotion policy, the plaintiffs and the
declarants "experienced disparate policies and requirements for
promotion," including one declarant who did not assert that they
experienced the alleged policy at all. To the extent there was
evidence of similar experiences, the record demonstrated that those
employees "worked in the same store and had the same general
manager." The court concluded that the record demonstrated only
that "employees in four of the 400 California stores were told at
different times while working in Defendants' restaurants that in
order to be promoted they needed to improve their English
proficiency." The court concluded that the plaintiff employee's
evidence "does not suggest that there was a uniform policy that
applied to all class members."  

Ultimately, because there were not "common questions of law or fact
that could be resolved efficiently in a single proceeding," the
court denied class certification.

The Guzman decision serves as a useful reminder for employers
defending workplace class actions that it is not enough for class
action plaintiffs to simply allege the existence of a uniform
policy, especially in light of Dukes. Rather, at the class
certification stage, the court's "rigorous analysis" demands
"significant proof" of the alleged policies. This is particularly
true when the alleged objectionable policies are "unwritten." [GN]


CLARK COUNTY, NV: Lescinsky Sues over Delayed Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LESCINSKY, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00290 (D. Nev., February 11, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation on time in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Lescinsky was employed as a
post-probationary police officer with the Clark County School
District and he frequently works overtime providing security/police
coverage for Adult Education and/or attending school functions such
as athletic events and other nonacademic functions.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant does not pay Plaintiff's overtime
compensation on his regular payday when it is due despite the fact
that he works overtime and instead Defendant pays him the overtime
several pay periods later.

The Clark County School District is a school district that serves
all of Clark County, Nevada, including the cities of Las Vegas,
Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Marks, Esq.
          Adam Levine, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL MARKS
          610 South Ninth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Tel: (702)386-0536
          Fax: (702)386-6812
          Emails: office@danielmarks.net
                  alevine@danielmarks.net


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Carter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., et al. The case is styled as Simonia Carter, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00829-NIQA
(E.D. Pa., Feb. 13, 2020).

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

Coast Professional, Inc. is a collection agency that focuses on the
collection of government and higher education debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntinfon Valley, PA 19006
          Phone: (215) 364-5030
          Fax: (215) 364-5029
          Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Payne Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl L. Payne, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH AIDE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
COMMUNITY HOME HEALTH CARE; JOHN DOE #1-5, manager(s), unknown
names, Case No. 7:20-cv-01276 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020), seeks to
recover from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages and liquidated damages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has not been paid full
regular wages for all of her hours worked and had not been paid
overtime for all of her hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff has also not paid an extra hour of pay for her hours
worked over a spread of 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff never
received a wage notice from the Defendants as required by law, and
was never properly informed in writing about her pay rate, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a 24-hour shift
physician.

Defendant Community Home is a licensed home health care
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Katzakian Balks at Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN KATZAKIAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CONTINENTAL CREDIT
CONTROL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-at-00103 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2020), the
Plaintiff brings an action for damages as an individual consumer
for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive,
and unfair practices.

Continental Credit Control, Inc. is a debt collection company
headquartered in Santa Barbara, California, and has been serving
companies for over 25 years. [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

CREDIT CONTROL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Betz Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JESSICA BETZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00224-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

D & M CARRIERS: Bromlow Suit Moved From California to Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Matthew Bromlow, Johnny Walters, Benny
Stewart, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. D & M Carriers, LLC, doing
business as: Freymiller, Case No. 4:19-cv-05358, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma on Feb. 13, 2020.

The Northern District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00062-JED-FHM to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

D & M Carriers, Inc. provides trucking transportation services. The
Company specializes in the transportation of temperature
controlled, time-sensitive products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Phone: (201) 630-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297

               - and -

          Nicholas Raymond Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Chad McNatt , Jr., Esq.
          Megan E Ross, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: (626) 795-4700
          Fax: (626) 795-4790


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Judge Likely to OK $14MM Deal in Harassment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a $14 million
settlement in the class-action sexual harassment lawsuit brought by
nine women against Dartmouth College.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty, in her order
filed in Concord on Jan. 29, said that she will likely be able to
approve the proposed class and the proposed settlement for the
case.

"A class action would achieve an efficient resolution of the class
claims, avoiding unnecessary and duplicative litigation for all
parties and the judicial system," McCafferty wrote.

The case centers around four claims: Dartmouth violated Title IX by
creating a hostile education environment in the Department of
Psychological and Brain Sciences; by engaging in gender
discrimination; by breaching fiduciary duty; and by being negligent
in retention and supervision.

The plaintiffs - current and former students in PBS - alleged in
their suit first filed in November 2018 that Dartmouth knew and
allowed three tenured professors in the department, Todd
Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen, to create and normalize
a sexualized culture, which included a range of behaviors from
comments about female students' appearance to sexual assault.

The women also alleged that the professors — who either retired
or resigned before they could be fired following internal
investigations by the college - conditioned their mentorship on the
students' participation in drinking binges, and sexual banter and
activity.

Most class members will receive a base payment of $1,000 and be
eligible for a supplemental payment based on the effect of the
professors' misconduct on their lives.

Both Dartmouth and the plaintiffs welcomed the judge's preliminary
approval in statements on Jan. 29.

"This settlement provides significant benefits to class members and
future generations of students," said Deborah Marcuse, a
Baltimore-based partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp, which represents
the plaintiffs. "We are supremely proud of the plaintiffs who
pursued justice here. As they had hoped, Dartmouth will be a
stronger institution as a result of their courage."

Dartmouth spokeswoman Diana Lawrence, in an emailed statement,
thanked the plaintiffs for coming forward "alongside other students
to shine a light on the unacceptable environment created by three
former faculty members."

Lawrence pointed to an ongoing effort — the Campus Culture and
Climate Initiative - to address sexual harassment on campus.

"We are confident that working together Dartmouth can be a place
where - without exception and across all disciplines — members of
our community can thrive in their studies and careers in a
campuswide environment that is welcoming, productive, professional,
and supportive," she said.

Eric MacLeish, a Boston-based attorney who has represented victims
of clerical abuse and litigated against several private schools in
New England, said that while class actions in cases of sexual abuse
and harassment are rare, it was warranted in this case.

"There seemed to be a common practice, or what we call modus
operandi, and I think that this spares a lot of other people coming
forward and having to press claims against Dartmouth," said
MacLeish. "Instead they'll be paid out of the settlement fund and
compensated, which is an easier way to do it."

Though individuals might have gotten more money if they had pursued
their claims on their own, that can be difficult for victims of
abuse, said MacLeish, who was not involved in the Dartmouth case.

"I think the judge did the right thing in preliminarily approving
this," MacLeish said, noting that he hoped it might set a precedent
for similar cases in the future.

The class, which the parties estimate includes 90 people, is
proposed to consist of current and former women graduate students
at Dartmouth who were advisees or assistants of one of the three
professors between April 1, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2017, and those who
co-authored papers with the professors during that time period.

The class also includes those who do not fit within those
categories, but were graduate students in the department between
March 31, 2015, and Aug. 31, 2017, and say they experienced harm as
a result of the professors' alleged misconduct.

McCafferty, in her order, said the proposed class likely meets four
standards set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: the number of
people involved, the commonality and typicality of their claims,
and the adequacy of the class representatives.

She said 90 members meets the standard of more than 40 for a class
action. In addition, McCafferty said that though members of the
class may have different degrees of harm from their experience, it
comes from a common source: the hostile environment created by the
professors.

"Plaintiffs here claim that the professors collectively created a
climate of harassment that pervaded the entire Department,
infecting both public and private meetings and formal and informal
gatherings," McCafferty said.

In addition, McCafferty said the class representatives'
experiences, though individual to each of them, are typical of the
class because they are "emblematic of the baseline of sexual
harassment that pervaded the department."

"In other words, the representative plaintiffs experienced the
barrage of comments about their appearance and sex lives, unwanted
touching, and forced drinking that was the common experience of the
class, as well as even more severe forms of harassment," McCafferty
said.

McCafferty said that she is "likely" to find that the proposed
settlement "is fair, reasonable, and adequate" because the parties
conducted sufficient discovery and bargained at arm's-length before
coming to an agreement.

McCafferty appointed the plaintiff's attorneys with Sanford Heisler
Sharp to serve as class council for the settlement, as well as
Maria C. Walsh to serve as independent claims expert and Rust
Consulting to serve as settlement administrator.

McCafferty ordered that Sanford Heisler Sharp notify members of the
proposed class of the settlement by mail by Feb. 12. Rust
Consulting also will try to reach members by email and post a
notice to its website: rustconsulting.com.

An application for attorney's fees and costs is due in court by May
26, and a fairness hearing is scheduled for June 25 at 10 a.m. in
court in Concord. [GN]


EASTLAND MALL: Certification of FLSA & Rule 23 Classes Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KEJUANA BEAVER, et al. for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. EASTLAND MALL
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00485-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiffs Kejuana Beaver, Askia Lamar Champion, Oscar Baylor,
Jr., and Desyre Whitehead move the Court, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for entry of an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying their proposed collective FLSA
      class defined as:

      FLSA Class: "all individuals currently and formerly employed

      by Defendants at Eastland Mall during the previous three
      years, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who did not
      receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times

      their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek

      in excess of 40";

   2. certifying this action as a Class Action under Rule 23 of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defined as:

      Rule 23 Class: "all individuals currently and formerly
      employed by Defendants at Eastland Mall during the previous
      two years, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who did not

      receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times

      their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek

      in excess of 40."

This an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act filed as a collective and
class action.

The Plaintiffs allege that their employers, Eastland Mall Holdings,
LLC, and Group 7 Staffing, LLC, failed to pay them and similarly
situated individuals for all wages earned, including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their respective
regular rates for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants provide administrative, maintenance, and security
staff at the Eastland Mall in Columbus, Ohio.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com


EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Trial Court Ruling in Grande Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two
issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's judgment in favor of
Plaintiff in the case captioned LYNN GRANDE, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant; FLEXCARE, LLC,
Intervener and Appellant. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; LYNN GRANDE,
Real Party in Interest, Case Nos. E068730, E068751.

Eisenhower filed a petition for a writ of mandate and FlexCare
appealed the trial court's interlocutory order.

FlexCare, LLC (FlexCare), a temporary staffing agency, assigned
Lynn Grande to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center
(Eisenhower). According to Grande, during her employment at
Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received
her required meal and rest breaks, wages for certain periods she
worked, and overtime wages.

FlexCare settled with the class, including Grande, and Grande
received $162.13 for her injuries, plus a class representative
incentive bonus of $20,000. Grande executed a release of claims,
and the trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement
agreement.

About a year later, Grande brought a second class action alleging
the same labor law violations, this time against Eisenhower, who
was not a party to the previous lawsuit. FlexCare intervened in the
action asserting Grande could not bring the separate lawsuit
against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims against them
in the prior class action.

The trial court held a trial limited to questions as to the
propriety of the lawsuit, and ruled Eisenhower was not a released
party under the settlement agreement and could not avail itself of
the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a
party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare.

FlexCare and Eisenhower found their arguments for reversal on the
claim that the trial court erred in concluding Eisenhower was
neither an affiliated company nor an agent of FlexCare.

They argue the companies' relationship establishes both that
Eisenhower was a released party under the agreement and that the
parties were in privity. They argue that means the judgment in the
Santa Barbara case both bars under the settlement and precludes
under res judicata Grande's claims against Eisenhower in this
case.

Res Judicata Does Not Apply Because the Companies Are Not in
Privity

According to the Restatement Second of Judgments, a judgment
against one person liable for a loss does not terminate a claim
that the injured party may have against another person who may be
liable therefore.  When the claimant thus brings consecutive
actions against different persons liable for the same harm, the
rendition of the judgment in the first action does not terminate
the claims against other persons who may be liable for the loss in
question. The judgment itself has the effect of officially
confirming the defendant's obligation to make redress, an
obligation which under the substantive law co-exists with that of
the other obligor. No reason suggests itself why the legal
confirmation of one obligation should limit or extinguish the
other.

The fact that the staffing agreement requires FlexCare to indemnify
Eisenhower under some circumstances does not change the analysis.
Those provisions of the staffing agreement put FlexCare and
Eisenhower at legal odds with each other as much as they bring them
together.

Eisenhower has telegraphed its intent to argue in this case that
FlexCare must indemnify it against any liability based on a finding
that the two parties were joint employers. FlexCare's incentive is
to establish Eisenhower is liable under a theory that doesn't
implicate the indemnity clause. Ultimately, FlexCare may fail to do
so, but it is clear the two companies have disparate legal
interests in the case and cannot act as each other's virtual
representatives.

Res judicata may bar a claim brought against an indemnitee where
the same claim has already been pursued against the indemnitor.
However, that rule applies only when the indemnitor is, in the
first action, acting in its capacity as indemnitor. If the
indemnitor is sued for its own actions and is not sued as an
indemnitor for the acts of another, the rationale favoring
preclusion no longer holds.

Here, Grande sued FlexCare based on labor law violations FlexCare
committed on its own. She didn't allege it was derivatively or
vicariously liable as Eisenhower's indemnitor.

As to the actual relationship of the companies, the trial court
found, in the context of interpreting the settlement agreement,
that neither FlexCare nor Eisenhower was an agent of the other. As
the court noted, Whether an agency relationship has been created or
exists is determined by the relation of the parties as they in fact
exist by agreement or acts citation, and the primary right of
control is particularly persuasive.

Here, FlexCare and Eisenhower affirmatively disavowed any agency
relationship in their contract, which says FlexCare is performing
the services and duties hereunder as an independent contractor and
not as an employee, agent, partner of or joint venture with
Hospital. The contract notes specifically Eisenhower retains
professional and administrative responsibility for the services
rendered.

Moreover, as the trial court noted, there was no evidence
Eisenhower ever acted as FlexCare's agent or vice versa. On the
contrary, Eisenhower maintained control over the temporary nurses
in the performance of their jobs. It assessed their competency
during an orientation program, could require nurses to take its
medication and clinical skills test, and retained discretion to
make decisions about the nurses' assignments and to terminate
nurses for poor performance.

In addition, the staffing agreement made clear nurses were required
to conform with hospital's policies and procedures. These facts
show FlexCare and Eisenhower operated independently, and constitute
substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that
neither company was an agent of the other.

Eisenhower is Not a Released Party under the Settlement Agreement

Eisenhower and FlexCare also argue the trial court erred by
determining Eisenhower was not a released party under the
settlement agreement.

FlexCare and Eisenhower argue the definition of Released Parties
does include Eisenhower and presumably the other hospital clients
because it releases FlexCare's related or affiliated companies.
They argue Eisenhower was a related or affiliated company because
they were connected in some way, namely in that FlexCare provided
temporary nursing staff to Eisenhower under a contract. Under
settled principles of contractual interpretation, Eisenhower would
be protected against liability under the release only if Grande and
FlexCare intended to cover Eisenhower as one of the parties'
affiliates.  

Where words have a definite legal meaning, the Appellate Court
presume the parties intended them to have their ordinary legal
meaning, unless a contrary intent appears in the instrument.  The
term affiliate company is known to mean a company effectively
controlled by another company. A branch, division, or subsidiary.
Other sources confirm the same meaning for the term affiliate.  

There is no indication in the settlement agreement or otherwise
that the parties had some other meaning in mind. It is plain from
the staffing agreement, the stipulation, and other extrinsic
evidence that the two companies are not related or affiliated in
this sense. Indeed, the parties stipulated specifically that
Eisenhower was not a division, subsidiary, parent, franchisor,
franchisee, or shareholder of the named released parties. Under the
uncontested facts of the case, then, Eisenhower and FlexCare are
not affiliated companies as a matter of law.

FlexCare and Eisenhower also argue Eisenhower was a released party
because it was a principal or agent of FlexCare.  

Here, the release begins by listing specific entities and persons.
Besides FlexCare, it specifically releases the company's corporate
parent as well as partners and officers of the company. The general
terms that follow subsidiaries, divisions, parent companies,
shareholders, attorneys, officers, directors, employees,
administrators, fiduciaries, and trustees identify categories of
persons or entities who, like the specifically named parties,
either exercise control over FlexCare or act on their behalf. Thus,
construing the terms affiliate, related or affiliated companies and
agents more broadly than their standard legal sense is inconsistent
with the definition of Released Party as a whole.

The trial evidence also weighs against concluding the parties were
in a principal-agent relationship. Agency is the fiduciary
relationship that arises when one person, a principal, manifests
assent to another person (agent) that the agent shall act on the
principal's behalf and subject to the principal's control, and the
agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act. The trial
court concluded there was no evidence Eisenhower ever acted as
FlexCare's agent or vice versa.

Eisenhower maintained control over the temporary nurses in the
performance of their jobs. It assessed their competency during an
orientation program, retained discretion to require nurses to take
its medication and clinical skills test, and had authority under
the contract to make decisions about the nurses' assignments,
including whether to terminate them for poor performance.

In addition, the staffing agreement made clear nurses were required
to conform with the hospital's policies and procedures and use the
hospital's time and attendance system.

The Appellate Court is left with the fact that the staffing
agreement between FlexCare and Eisenhower disavows any agency
relationship between them. FlexCare is performing the services and
duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an
employee, agent, partner of or joint venture with Hospital.
Hospital retains professional and administrative responsibility for
the services rendered That provision, while not dispositive of the
relationship, is the best evidence the Appellate Court have
regarding whether the parties understood the companies to be in a
principal-agent relationship, and strongly counsels against
overruling the trial court and reading into the agreement a release
of Eisenhower.

The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's determination that
Eisenhower is not a released party under the terms of the
settlement agreement and allow the Riverside putative class action
to proceed in the trial court.

The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's judgment against
FlexCare and deny Eisenhower's petition for a writ of mandate.  

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' February 6, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vh8mfb6 from Leagle.com

Downey Brand, Cassandra M. Ferrannini - cferrannini@downeybrand.com
- and Bradley C. Carroll  - bcarroll@DowneyBrand.com - for
Intervener and Appellant.

The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and Peter R. Dion-Kindem -
peter@dion-kindemlaw.com- The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C.
Blanchard, III - lonnieblanchard@gmail.com - for Plaintiff,
Respondent, and Real Party in Interest.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons -
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com - and Ruben D. Escalante -
rescalante@sheppardmullin.com - as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Petitioner Eisenhower Medical Center.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Zayika Suit Over Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iryna Zayika, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, TD BANK USA, N.A., and
TARGET CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00225-WED (E.D. Wisc., Feb. 13,
2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' collection practices that
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin
Consumer Act.

On August 2, 2019, ERC mailed the Plaintiff a debt collection
letter regarding an alleged associated with a "Target"
store-branded credit card. The first letter, mailed on August 2,
2019, indicates that the entire "Balance" of $638.69 "remains
unpaid," but does not disclose that the Plaintiff could return her
account to a current status by making a minimum payment.

On August 28, 2019, Target or one of its affiliated companies
mailed an account statement to the Plaintiff regarding the same
alleged debt. The second letter states that, as of August 28, 2019,
the Plaintiff's alleged debt had a "New Balance" of $691.58, with a
"Payment Due Date" of September 25, 2019, and a "Minimum Payment
Due" of $247. Thus, as of the date of the second letter, Target and
TD Bank had not accelerate the maturity of the "outstanding
balance" of this alleged debt, and had not authorized ERC to
accelerate the maturity of this outstanding balance, the Plaintiff
says.

The unsophisticated consumer cannot determine whether the debt had
been accelerated or not, or how much debt is actually due as of the
date of the first letter, the Plaintiff notes. The first letter
states that the "total amount due" is $691.58 while the second
letter seeks only a "Minimum Payment Due" of $247.00.

According to the complaint, the Defendants work in a scripted
process to collect alleged debts such as the Plaintiff's. All of
the Defendants are fully aware of the contents and representations
in the Letters. The Plaintiff was confused and misled by the
Letters, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Iryna Zayika is an individual, who resides in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collection agency with its
principal offices at Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zayika"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRYNA ZAYIKA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, TD BANK USA, N.A., and TARGET CORP,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00225-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FACEBOOK INC: To Pay $550MM to Settle BIPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
NZ Herald reports that Facebook has agreed to pay roughly half a
billion dollars to settle a class-action case alleging the company
violated Illinois law in the way it collected data for its
facial-recognition tools, the tech giant said Jan. 29.

The US$550 million (NZD$844.8 million) settlement - revealed by
company executives during their latest earnings call - comes after
Facebook tried, and failed, to quash the lawsuit in a petition to
the Supreme Court that might have made it harder for other Web
users to bring similar legal actions. It must still be reviewed by
a judge.

Under Illinois law, tech giants and other companies must obtain
explicit permission before collecting a wide array of biometric
data, including scans of one's face. Plaintiffs alleged that
Facebook ran afoul of those rules as part of a feature meant to
spot, identify and recommend tags of users in photos that had been
uploaded to the social-networking site.

The case quickly evolved into a major test of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, known as BIPA, and its
provisions allowing users to sue, known as a private right of
action, an idea that consumer-advocates and regulators around the
country increasingly tout as a critical way for people to seek
justice for major digital abuses. Tech giants vehemently oppose
such private lawsuits, and in Illinois, Facebook sought to rebuff
the case on grounds that users could not prove they had been
directly, sufficiently harmed.

Facebook tried to take the matter to the Supreme Court, but the
nation's top justices rejected the case in December 2019. Their
decision essentially would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed on
the merits before the tech giant announced it had been settled in
principle as part of its fourth quarter 2019 earnings, during which
it reported roughly US$21 billion in revenue.

Jay Edelson, a lawyer whose firm represented plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit, said on Jan. 29 that "biometric privacy is
one of the biggest fights of the day," adding: "We are proud of
this settlement and hope that others will follow Facebook's lead."

Facebook did not provide further details. "We decided to pursue
settlement as it was in the best interest of our community and our
shareholders to move past this matter," spokesman Andy Stone said
in a statement. [GN]


FEATHER FACTORY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feather Factory Hotel
Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Feather Factory Hotel Inc.,
doing business as: Feather Factory Hotel, Case No. 1:20-cv-00804
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Feather Factory Hotel offers accommodations in Long Island City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-00202, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Fiat securities from February
26, 2016 through November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fiat securities during the
class period, you have until January 31, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Fiat, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles, components, and
production systems.

The Complaint alleges that the statements were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose the following
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them as follows: Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in
its collective bargaining agreement with UAW; (ii) high-ranking
Fiat officials were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (iii)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Fiat's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 20, 2019, while the market was open, General Motors
("GM") filed a racketeering lawsuit against Fiat in the Eastern
District of Michigan styled as General Motors LLC, et al. v. FCA US
LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13429-PDB-DRG, for damages caused by a
bribery scheme perpetuated by UAW and the Company. According to the
lawsuit, the illegal activity was authorized by the high-level
officers of the Company, including Marchionne, and helped the
Company win union acceptance of cost concessions in 2011 and 2015.
The lawsuit also contended that Fiat executives bribed UAW leaders
to pressure GM into a merger with Fiat.

On this news, shares of Fiat fell $0.58 per share, or 3.72%, to
close at $15.00 per share on November 20, 2019, damaging
investors.

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


FIRST FINANCIAL: Robbins Calls Debt Collection Policy "Abusive"
---------------------------------------------------------------
TILMEKA ROBBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01000 (N.D. Ill.,
February 11, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for its alleged abusive debt collection practices in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or around February 20, 2019,
Plaintiff received an allegedly misleading and deceptive notice
from Defendant regarding the alleged debt owed to Personify
Financial/Applied Data Finance, which are one and the same
companies. The letter is deceptive because it listed Applied Data
Finance as a Current Creditor and Personify Financial as the
Original Creditor, and it also failed to clearly identify who the
creditor is.

First Financial Asset Management is a "debt collector" company that
uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in
business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect
debts alleged to be due another. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: 201-282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: 201-282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FMS INC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Markovic Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE MARKOVIC, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FMS, INC. d/b/a OKLAHOMA FMS INC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00226-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FORD MOTOR: Class Action Settlement Could Cost More Than $100MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson, writing for Car scccopes, report that Ford Motors
will settle a class-action lawsuit with almost 2 million owners and
former owners of Focus and Fiesta models outfitted with its
troubled DPS6 PowerShift dual-clutch transmission, The Detroit Free
Press reports.

The class-action lawsuit, first filed in 2012, shed additional
light on the issue and last year, it was revealed that the American
car manufacturer knowingly launched the 2012-2016 Focus and
2011-2016 Fiesta models with defective transmissions.

The proposed agreement includes a guaranteed commitment from Ford
of $30 million in cash reimbursement to consumers with a record of
multiple failed transmission repairs within five years of buying
their cars or 60,000 miles (96,000 km). Additionally, Ford will
need to simplify a buyback program for defective vehicles and
establish an easier process for former owners and people who've
leased defective cars to be compensated.

Lawyer Tarek Zohdy, Esq. -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of
Capstone Law in Los Angeles who helped broker the deal said the
Ford payout could exceed $100 million.

"There's no cap. The truth is, Ford is going to have to pay out
claims until they're exhausted," he said. In my opinion, Ford will
have to deal with these vehicles until people are done filing their
claims. This settlement is entirely reliant on the consumers'
decision to file a claim. . . . It's up to the consumer whether
they want to let Ford keep their money. . . .  They created a
defective transmission and I wanted to help people get their money
back."

In a statement issued on Jan. 24, Ford spokesman T.R. Reid said
"Ford believes the settlement is fair and reasonable, and we
anticipate it will be approved by the court following the hearing
next month."

During recent court proceedings, Ford revealed that between October
2017 and the end of 2019, it had bought back 2,666 vehicles for
approximately $47.47 million. [GN]


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
between February 7, 2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 2, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=forescout-technologies-inc&id=2148
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) Forescout was experiencing significant
volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the
timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially
in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; (2) the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class 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.  Attorney
Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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]


FORTE CAPITAL: Barthole Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Barthole, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Forte Capital Group Inc. and
National Securities Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00536
(S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2020), seeks compensation for wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants
for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay as required by law, liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, "spread of hours"
requirements of New York Labor Law, and statutory damages for
violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants are in the securities trading business where Barthole
was employed as an inside sales broker from February 2015 to August
2018. Barthole claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor. He regularly worked seven days per week typically
working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime pay.
Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch,
timesheets, or any other method for him to track his time worked.
Hernandez's effective rate of pay was below the statutory federal
minimum wage throughout his employment. Defendants also failed to
provide him with written wage notices providing contact
information, regular and overtime rates and intended allowances
claimed, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel S. Braverman, Esq.
      Sean W. Higgins, Esq.
      BRAVERMAN, PLLC
      Collective Members and New York Class Action Members
      19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 233-2910
      E-mail: dbraverman@bravelaw.com
              shiggins@bravelaw.com


G6 HOSPITALITY: Singletary FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Angelique Singletary, an individual, on behalf
of herself, an on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. G6
HOSPITALITY LLC, a Limited Liability Company; MOTEL 6 OPERATING
L.P., a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2019-00065740-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on Feb. 13, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00270-LAB-AHG to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 5 causes of action against the
Defendants: (1) Failure to Make Proper Disclosures in Violation of
Fair Credit Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Obtain Proper
Authorization in Violation of FCRA; (3) Failure to Make Proper
Disclosures in Violation of ICRAA; (4) Failure to Obtain Proper
Disclosures in Violation of CCRAA; and (5) Unfair Competition in
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Holly R. Lake, Esq.
          Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
          Ryan M. Estes, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Phone: 310.595.3000
          Fax: 310.595.3300
          Email: holly.lake@dlapiper.com
                 steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com
                 ryan.estes@dlapiper.com


GERON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts Investors to Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors that
purchased Geron Corporation (GERN) common stock between March 19,
2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Geron Corporation and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information and join the action on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Geron Corporation, you
may, no later than March 23, 2020, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Geron Corporation.

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

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

Subsequently, on September 27, 2018, Geron disclosed its Phase 2
study results for imetelstat failed to meet its primary efficacy
endpoints. On this news, Geron's share price fell $3.92, or over
62%, to close at $2.31 per share on September 27, 2018.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com to
join this action.

Contact:

        Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
        Kevin Cooper, Esq.
        Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
        Tel: (800) 575-0735
        Fax: (212) 545-4774
        E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Hit With 5 New Lawsuits Charging Brutal Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Rose, writing for Daily Times, reports that attorneys
representing hundreds of former students at the Glen Mills Schools
announced five new lawsuits had been filed on Jan. 29 alleging
rape, physical abuse and cover-ups at the institution in order to
continue receiving millions of dollars' worth of state funding.

"The Glen Mills School was touted as a prestigious reform school,"
said Nancy J. Winkler, an attorney with Eisenberg, Rothweiler,
Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C., representing the men. "The façade
outside was a stark contrast to life inside the walls. Glen Mills
was a house of horrors."

The complaints name only the Glen Mills Schools as a defendant, but
do include the names and aliases of several specific staff members
plaintiffs claim sexually, physically and emotionally abused them
during their stays at the institution.

Though some of the named counselors have since died, it was unknown
on Jan. 29 whether the others are being investigated for criminal
conduct by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Delaware
County District Attorney's office, which does not comment on
ongoing investigations.

The Glen Mills School, the oldest school of its kind in the nation,
came under serious scrutiny following a Philadelphia Inquirer
report in February that alleged students there suffered decades of
abuse at the hands of employees.

The 193-year-old institution has since seen the departure of former
director Randy Ireson along with nearly all staff and all of its
students, which were removed under an emergency order from the
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. All 14 of the school's
licenses have been revoked and it is the subject, with other
defendants, of several individual and class-action lawsuits.

"Despite Glen Mills' advertised image, Glen Mills' leadership
created and maintained a culture of fear and abuse, and ignored the
medical and educational needs of its residents," according to one
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on Jan. 29. "The juveniles placed at Glen Mills
suffered systematic physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse at the
hands of Glen Mills' leadership and staff."

The complainants allege staff at the school sexually abused and
anally raped them, beat them to the point of requiring medical care
that often was not provided, and threatened to kill them if they
reported the sexual or physical abuse committed against them or
other students.

"Every day at Glen Mills was a horror movie," said plaintiff Laboy
Wiggins during a press conference at Eisenberg, Rothweiler,
Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck's Spruce Street offices on Jan. 29.
"Every day in Glen Mills, to me, was the worst part of my life. And
I'm still suffering from it to this day and I'm 48 years old
today."

Wiggins' complaint alleges he was sexually abused by a counselor
nearly every other day he was on staff, who would put his fingers
into Wiggins' anus while touching Wiggins' penis or his own.

"Every time this staff member got a chance to sexually assault me,
he did it," said Wiggins. "Every time they got a chance to put
their hands on me, they did it. I reported this, I got my head
slammed against a wall, glass broke all in my head. I said this
happened, I got slammed on the floor. Every day I'm reliving this
in my head. Every day."

When Wiggins attempted to ward off the staff member, he was beaten,
according to the complaint. When he sought help from a superior, he
was first beaten by the superior and then the staff member who was
assaulting him was called in to beat him again, the complaint
says.

Wiggins said they threatened to kill him if he told anyone about
the sexual abuse, which was frequently accompanied by racial
epithets and more violence.

Winkler indicated the school attempted to cover up the alleged
abuse because it was receiving approximately $52,000 per year in
tuition for each juvenile placed in the facility, generating
approximately $40 million in revenues annually.

Eventually, Wiggins tried to flee, but he was caught and beaten
again, this time losing a tooth. He also allegedly suffered
injuries requiring stitches to his head, arm and leg from assaults.
The leg became infected but he said he was never taken to a
hospital.

When asked why he was coming forward now, decades later, Wiggins
said he decided to speak up when he was finally given the chance.

"Every time I tried to speak up I was beaten, so I went into this
dark shell because I thought every time I said something about
this, I was going to be beaten or I was going to be ignored," he
said.

Wiggins said he was at the school for about six months in 1987. But
Tawfeeq Abdul-Lateef, another plaintiff present on Jan. 29 who was
at Glen Mills in 2016 and 2017, said not much had changed in the
intervening 30 years.

"They would frequently spit in my face and call me a n----," said
Abdul-Lateef. "I watched staff beat and break the jaw of another
student, then threaten me if I reported it and told anybody about
that attack."

Abdul-Lateef did not allege sexual abuse, but said he had been the
victim of "all calls," where multiple staff members would take
turns beating a student, and "green lights," where counselors
directed other students jump a peer. During one assault,
Abdul-Lateef said he chipped a tooth that became infected, but he
was not provided medical care either.

"Just imagine 30 grown men, all over 180 (pounds), all in shape,
they all had this type of anger sown into them and they just had to
let their rage out on us," he said. "It was like watching a Royal
Rumble and you're the only one getting in and out of the ring."

Abdul-Lateef said the experience robbed him of a promising football
career he had dreamt about since he was 7 years old and left him
scarred and distrustful for life.

"Glen Mills was supposed to help me and get me on the right path.
Instead it seems I went on a detour," he said. "Now I have
emotional breakdowns and feel like just a failure in life. Glen
Mills Schools took from me the positive light I had as a teenager
and now all that's left is darkness."

Another plaintiff who has filed under the initials "M.A." claimed
he was a student at Glen Mills in 1981 and was frequently taken by
staff to an area known as "the tunnels," where he was also sexually
abused and raped. This would take place two to three times per
week, according to that complaint, with one staff member keeping
watch while the other raped him before trading places.

Another plaintiff placed in the facility in 2007 said he was beaten
while in the shower and dragged out naked, then forced to pick lint
from the floors of Hayes Hall for more than an hour.

"These allegations we learned of today can only be described as
heartbreaking," said Glen Mills spokesman Jeff Jubelirer in a
statement. "Our attorneys are now evaluating the lawsuits. In the
meantime, Glen Mills Schools continues to cooperate with all
governmental authorities."

Abdul-Lateef and Wiggins are among 13 plaintiffs represented by
Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, and Dion, Solomon
& Shapiro, L.L.C, though Winkler said the firms plan to file suits
on behalf of more than 300 men who attended the school between 1976
and 2018.

Winkler said she hopes the suits can get the plaintiffs some
compensation for their alleged abuse, but also that they help shine
the light on how oversight needs to be reformed in the state.

The complaints each allege claims for negligence, negligence per se
and negligent infliction of emotional distress, for which they are
seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.
Wiggins and M.A. are additionally alleging fraudulent concealment
and civil conspiracy claims.

At least two other lawsuits are pending in federal court from other
firms representing former students. U.S. District Judge Harvey
Bartle III, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, last month
denied nearly all of the defendants' motions to dismiss one lawsuit
brought by the Juvenile Law Center, Education Law Center and
Dechert LLP on behalf of four other plaintiffs and their parents.

Glen Mills is meanwhile now under the leadership of Acting
Executive Director Chris Spriggs and board President Carolyn
Seagraves, who say they are focused on retooling every aspect of
the program to bring the school back online with a different
atmosphere and culture.

But Adbul-Lateef and Wiggins made it clear on Jan. 29 that they do
not believe the school should reopen.

"I think that they're going to put a Band-Aid on it right now …
but after two or three years, it's going to remain the same," said
Wiggins. "If Glen Mills School opened back up, it's going to
continue the pain, it's going to continue what it did. Y'all cannot
let the school open back up, by any means necessary."


GLOBAL LEARNING: Class Action for Sham Tax Scheme Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for The Canadian Lawyer, reports that a
class proceeding has been certified against the parties who
operated a tax scheme called the Global Learning Gifting Initiative
Charitable Donation Program.

On Jan. 16, Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation and Klein &
Schonblum Associates, acting on behalf of the representative
plaintiffs, announced that the class action suit had been certified
against Global Learning Group Inc., as well as other legal,
accounting and administrative professionals involved in the
program.

The defendants include prominent law firms such as Morris, Kepes,
Winters LLP; Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP and Cassels Brock &
Blackwell LLP.

The action alleged that the defendants had led the plaintiffs to
make donations in the belief that the program was a legitimate
charitable enterprise, which would support underserved communities,
and which would entitle the plaintiffs to tax credits. In
actuality, the plaintiffs claimed, the program had no genuine
charitable purpose, and had only meant to enrich the defendants to
the detriment of the plaintiffs.

The action is brought on behalf of a class of around 50,000 to
60,000 Canadian taxpayers who participated in the program between
2004 to 2014, suffering damages as a result. In all, the
participating taxpayers had paid more than $500 million in what
they believed were charitable donations.

The issue first arose when, in 2007, the Canada Revenue Agency
began to reassess the tax returns of participants to the program,
eventually disallowing the tax credits claimed and charging
interest and penalties. In 2015, the Tax Court of Canada held that
the program was a "sham," with about 90 per cent of cash donations
going into the defendants' pockets. On June 26, 2019, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified the class action as a class
proceeding.

Reliefs sought in the action include the recovery of the money
given by the plaintiffs to the program, as well as any interests or
penalties charged against the plaintiffs by the Canada Revenue
Agency.

Since the action is funded by the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund,
class members need not pay costs or charges, nor can they be held
responsible for any adverse costs of the proceeding. Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are working on a contingency fee basis, which means
that they will only receive payment if the action succeeds in
recovering money for the class members. [GN]


GREAT AMERICAN POWER: Sends Spam Text Messages, Metzler Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK METZLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT AMERICAN POWER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00803 (E.D. Pa., February 12, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing by sending prerecorded messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated to
promote its services and goods. The illegal practice led to the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of Plaintiff and Class members.

Great American Power LLC is an energy supply company whose
principal office is located in Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania. It
directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the
State of Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
                  kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                 
               - and -
           
          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE PA
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132          
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@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

GREEN DOT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that was filed on behalf of
investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Green Dot
Corporation between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Green Dot securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/greendotcorporation-gdot-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-235/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact:

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

GREEN DOT: Howard Smith Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (NYSE: FCAU)
Class Period: February 26, 2016 – November 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 31, 2020

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 Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain
favorable terms in its collective bargaining agreement with
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America; (2) that high-ranking Fiat officials
were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) that due to the
foregoing, defendants' statements about Fiat's receivables,
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Cintas Corp. (NASDAQ: CTAS)
Class Period: March 6, 2017 - November 13, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 10, 2020

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 Cintas never tracked legacy margins following
the G&K acquisition; (2) that the Company has systematically
provided guidance with which it would outperform (a "Beat and
Raise" scheme); (3) that undisclosed to the investing public, the
Company has breached the law multiple times; (4) that as a result
of publicly known and undisclosed breaches of law, the Company's
Credit Agreement may be jeopardized; and (5) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Correvio Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ: CORV)
Class Period: October 23, 2018 - December 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 10, 2020

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 data supporting the Resubmitted New Drug
Application ("NDA") for Brinavess did not minimize the significant
health and safety issues observed in connection with the drug's
original NDA; (2) that the foregoing substantially diminished the
likelihood that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would approve
the Resubmitted NDA; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Green Dot Corporation (NYSE: GDOT)
Class Period: May 9, 2018 – November 7, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 17, 2020

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


HABIT RESTAURANTS: Shudic Securities Suit Balks at Sale to YUM!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Shudic, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, INC., CHRISTOPHER K. REILLY,
ALLAN W. KARP, IRA ZECHER, A. WILLIAM ALLEN III, RUSSELL W. BENDEL,
IRA FILS, JOSEPH J. KADOW, KARIN TIMPONE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00294
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2020), arises from a proposed transaction
pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by YUM! Brands,
Inc.

The lawsuit is brought public on behalf of similarly situated
public stockholders of The Habit Restaurants, Inc., against Habit
Restaurants' Board of Directors for violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed acquisition by YUM! Brands, Inc.
("Parent"), and YEB Newco Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent, whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into Habit
Restaurants, with Habit Restaurants continuing as the surviving
corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

On January 6, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Parent will
acquire Parent will acquire Habit Restaurants, with Merger Sub
merging with and into Habit Restaurants, and Habit Restaurants
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The transaction
consideration is $14.00 per share. Thereafter, on February 4, 2020,
Habit Restaurants filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
support of the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff contends that the Preliminary Proxy is wholly
insufficient and provides either materially misleading and or
insufficient information for Habit Restaurants stockholders to
properly analyze whether to tender their shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, and is, therefore, a continuation of the
Board's breaches of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff insists that the
Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of
reasons. The Plaintiff adds that the Preliminary Proxy describes an
insufficient sales process in which the Board only paid lip service
to its fiduciary duties.

In violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and their
fiduciary duties, the Defendants caused to be filed the materially
deficient Preliminary Proxy with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in an effort to solicit stockholders to tender their
Habit Restaurants shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the Preliminary
Proxy is materially deficient and deprives Habit Restaurants
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to tender their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.

If the Proposed Transaction is approved, the Individual Defendants
will have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care
by, inter alia, agreeing to sell the Company without first taking
steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members, who are the
minority stockholders of the Company, would obtain adequate and
fair consideration under the circumstances, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, who is the owner of Habit Restaurants common stock,
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from
the Individual Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

Habit Restaurants operates and franchises fast casual restaurants
under The Habit Burger Grill name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          1040 Kings Highway N., Suite 650
          Cherry Hills, NJ 08034
          Phone: (856) 795-7250
          Facsimile: (856) 795-1799
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


HABIT RESTAURANTS: Smith Balks at YUM! Brands Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, EDWARD SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER K. REILLY, ALLAN W. KARP, IRA ZECHER, A. WILLIAM ALLEN
III, RUSSELL W. BENDEL, IRA FILS, JOSEPH J. KADOW, and KARIN
TIMPONE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00203-UNA (D. Del., February
11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with its merger deal with Yum! Brands
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Board of Directors of The Habit
Restaurants, Inc. caused the Company to enter into an agreement and
plan of merger with Yum! Brands, which was announced on January 5,
2020.  The documents show the Company's stockholders will receive
$14.00 in cash for each share of Habit common stock they own in
accordance to the terms of the Merger Agreement.

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, Defendants filed a
proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 4, 2020. However, there were allegedly omitted material
information, such as the Company's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Piper Sandler
& Co., and information regarding Piper, which infringed Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Habit is a fast-casual restaurant concept that specializes in
preparing fresh, made-to-order chargrilled burgers and sandwiches.
[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
          Tel: (302)295-5310
          Fax: (302)654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

                - and -

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


HANERGY AND ALTA: Cotchett Pitre Files WARN Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
PV Magazine reports that the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
(CPM) has filed a class action complaint against Hanergy and Alta
Devices on behalf of approximately 300 ex-Alta employees.

Late last year, pv magazine reported that Hanergy-owned Alta
Devices, the world record efficiency holder for single-junction
solar cells, "furloughed" almost all of its Sunnyvale, California
staff without pay, notice, or PTO. This was according to several of
the almost 300 employees affected.

pv magazine spoke with an ex-Alta employee on Feb. 2 who called CPM
a "high-profile law firm" and pointed out that a viable route to
reaching the non-responsive Hanergy was through the Alta CEO, as
well as some other upper-management, who were also Hanergy
employees.

According to the legal filing:

* "Defendants abruptly shut the doors to their Sunnyvale,
California factory, leaving almost 300 employees without a job --
and without their final paychecks -- just before the holiday
season. Defendants abandoned employees without any pay and left
them in the lurch -- providing no official notice of termination,
and repeatedly promising that the plant would be back up and
running any day."

* "In the meantime, employees are having trouble paying bills and
are left with uncertainty relating to healthcare coverage after
being given false hope that Defendant Hanergy would reopen the Alta
plant and resume operations as usual."

* "Defendant Hanergy, a company with over 15,000 employees based in
Beijing, China, is Alta's parent corporation -- providing funding
and calling all the shots at Alta, including the decision to shut
down the plant. Hanergy has engaged in similar conduct in China:
abruptly closing manufacturing plants without paying employees
their final wages, and even failing to pay employees for months at
a time. Hanergy has now imported its egregious practices to
California."

The complaint further notes, "Hanergy, however, is not above the
rule of law, and this is not China. In abruptly closing the Alta
plant, Defendants violated the federal and California WARN Acts,
which require at least 60 days written notice of termination where
a plant is shut down and/or mass layoffs occur," adding, "Under
both California and Federal law, Hanergy is liable for these
employment practices as Alta was dependent upon and controlled by
Hanergy."

Miasole, Global Solar, Solibro too

In 2013, Hanergy acquired gallium-arsenide solar developer Alta
Devices for an undisclosed amount. Alta joined CIGS firms MiaSolé,
Solibro and Global Solar Energy under the Hanergy roof. With little
synergy among the acquired firm's VC-funded technologies, Hanergy's
solar shopping spree appeared less than focused.

Although not part of this complaint, China "furloughed" almost all
the employees and halted manufacturing at those three American
solar companies and at Germany's Solibro -- as well as at its China
headquarters. Those unannounced layoffs with no pay or benefits
left more than 600 American workers in the U.S., 180 employees in
Germany, and thousands in China unemployed and in the dark.

Hanergy's rise and fall

In 2015, Hanergy became the world's largest solar company by market
cap, and Li Hejun, the founder of Hanergy Group, China's
fifth-richest man. The Hong Kong-listed subsidiary of Hanergy,
Hanergy Thin Film Power Group, had a market cap of $14 billion
compared to the $5.5 billion market cap of First Solar, an actual
solar firm, at that time.

The company's stock price plunged and trading in Hanergy Thin Film
shares was halted in May 2015 after news that the company's
finances had been inflated by intra-unit trading. Hanergy was
eventually delisted.

Unable to pay its debts, Hanergy was forced to sell its only real
asset, a hydro power station, to creditors. The commercial future
of Hanergy is uncertain.

Hanergy left its employees in the dark

Hanergy corporate has not responded to inquiries from pv magazine.
Employees have expressed concern over the fate of the thin-film
intellectual property and know-how that might be lost.

An ex-employee shared a rumor that equipment lease company Utica
had taken control of Alta assets and IP and was looking for an
acquirer for those assets.

Utica Leaseco, Alta's senior lender since February 6, 2017, states,
"After Alta ceased operations, Utica got involved and is assisting
in efforts to sell the company. SSG Capital Advisors, LLC, a
well-recognized investment bank, has been retained to manage the
sale process."

The U.S. WARN Act requires that an employer provide "notice 60 days
in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs."
There are exceptions to the 60-day notice for "faltering companies"
and "unforeseen business circumstances. [GN]


HARO BICYCLE: Reid Class Lawsuit Over Website Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Bicycle Retailer reports that Haro Bicycle Corp. and a New York man
have agreed to settle the man's lawsuit over the bike company's
website.

Valentin Reid, who is legally blind, had charged that Haro violated
the American Disabilities Act, saying one of its websites,
ridedelsol.com, was not accessible to the blind. Reid was the lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed in October against Haro
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Court filings show both sides have agreed to ask the court to
dismiss the case permanently. The judge has not approved the
dismissal request.

In October, Joe Hawk, Haro's COO, said the company believed its
sites were ADA compliant but that it would correct any broken links
or parts of the site that were difficult to use by the disabled.

Reid is the lead plaintiff on at least four similar suits filed in
the court in October. The other cases appear to be proceeding.

Legal experts say thousands of similar suits - charging that
commercial or government websites are not ADA compliant - have been
filed in recent years. One source counted over 2,200 such suits
filed in 2018, a 177% increase over the year prior. [GN]


HEARTLAND BANK: PLB Investments Sues over Role in Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLB INVESTMENTS LLC; JOHN KUEHNER; and A.S. PALMER INVESTMENTS LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HEARTLAND BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and PNC BANK N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01023 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for their key
participation in the fraudulent operations of Todays Growth
Consultant Inc., a Ponzi-like scheme also known as The Income Store
organized by Kenneth D. Courtright III.  The Plaintiffs allege
violation of the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants assisted and abetted to
the misuse, diversion, and misappropriation of the investors'
proceeds by Todays Growth Consultant as the scheme's transactions
were conducted through the Defendants' bank accounts.

Heartland Bank and Trust Company is a community bank and subsidiary
of financial holding company Heartland Financial Inc., whose
principal office is located in Bloomington, Illinois.

PNC Bank N.A. is a domestic subsidiary bank of the PNC Financial
Services Group located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Burke, Esq.
          HIGGINS & BURKE PC
          2560 Foxfield Road, Suite 200
          Saint Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 762 9081
          E-mail: jburke@higginsandburke.com
  
               - and -
           
          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          Alan Rosca, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC          
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com
                  rosca@lawgsp.com
  
               - and -
           
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC          
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net

HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tiffanie Snider, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND BEEF, INC., an
Indiana corporation, Case No. 37-2019-00065740-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on Feb. 13, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00270-LAB-AHG to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 5 causes of action against the
Defendants: (1) Failure to Make Proper Disclosures in Violation of
Fair Credit Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Obtain Proper
Authorization in Violation of FCRA; (3) Failure to Make Proper
Disclosures in Violation of ICRAA; (4) Failure to Obtain Proper
Disclosures in Violation of CCRAA; and (5) Unfair Competition in
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                 tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                 nl@kellerlenkner.com
                 ajd@kellerlenkner.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary M. Miller, Esq.
          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700
          Fax: (312) 558-1195
          Email: gmiller@shb.com
                 mwolfe@shb.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Jones, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 684-5000
          Email: b.jones@boselaw.com


HOSOPO CORPORATION: Pandura Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Griselda Pandura, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOSOPO CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00303
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
sending automated text messages advertisements to cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across
the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff were
transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without her requisite
prior "express written consent," the Plaintiff asserts. Because the
Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts her whenever she receives a text
message, each unsolicited text message transmitted by or on behalf
of the Defendant to her number invaded her privacy and intruded
upon her seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Phoenix, Arizona.

Hosopo Corporation is a solar construction and power company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Eugene Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


I.Q. DATA: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Agreement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SPTIME ZULKU, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. I.Q. DATA
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03675 (N.D. Ill.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Class Settlement Agreement;

   2. setting dates for Class Members to opt out or object;

   3. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Agreement;

   4. approving the mailing of notice to the Class; and

   5. finding that the mailing of such notice satisfies due
      process.

The parties desire to settle and compromise the Litigation on the
terms and conditions embodied in the Agreement, and agree to
certification of this Class for settlement purposes only:

   "all persons similarly situated (1) with addresses in the State
   of Illinois (2) from whom I.Q. Data International, Inc.
   attempted to collect a debt by mailing a form letter with a
   Notice of Debt (3) sent within 30 days of its initial
   communication with a person wherein I.Q. Data International,
   Inc. first provided said person with a Notice of Debt (4) which

   form letter contained a subsequent 30 day Notice of Debt AND
   (5) where I.Q. Data International, Inc. sought to collect
   accruing interest (6) wherein I.Q. Data International, Inc. did

   not indicate on the form letter that the amount of the debt is
   increasing and/or that the amount that will be due on a later
   date may be more than the amount stated to be owed (7) which
   all form letters were mailed on or after June 2, 2018 and on or

   before June 2, 2019.

The Defendant has identified 198 members of the Class.

The salient terms of the deal are:

   a. Plaintiff's Relief:

      Defendant shall pay $3,000.00 to Zulku as damages for his
      claims, and as an incentive award for bringing the claims on

      behalf of the Class.

   b. Class Fund:

      Defendant shall create a Class Fund of $77,000.00, which
      shall be distributed pro rata among Class Members who do not

      exclude themselves. (Participating Class Members).

   c. Participating Class Members will receive a pro rata share of

      the Class Fund by check. Checks issued to Participating
      Class Members will be void 60 calendar days after issuance.
      Any uncashed checks after the Void Date will be used to
      cover any unanticipated administration expenses and the
      remainder will be given to the National Association of
      Consumer Advocates  as a cy pres award.

   d. Attorney's Fees and Costs:

      Defendant agree to pay Class Counsel attorney's fees and
      costs in the amount of $52,000.00.

   e. Administration Cost:

      Class Administrator will be administering the Class
      Settlement, including the sending of Class Notice and
      issuing of checks. Defendant agrees to pay the Class
      Administrator $5,800.00 for the cost incurred with
      administering the Class Settlement.

   f. Opting-Out:

      All Class Members who timely submit a written request for
      exclusion from the Class shall be excluded from such Class
      and shall have no rights pursuant to the Agreement. A
      request for exclusion must be in writing, and include the
      name, address, phone number and signature of the person (or
      authorized representative) seeking exclusion. The request
      must be mailed to the Class Administrator at the address
      provided in the Class Notice and postmarked by the date set
      by the Court.

   g. Objecting to Class Settlement:

      A Class Member has the right to object to the settlement or
      a part of it. An objector must timely submit an objection
      and give reasons why her or she thinks the Court should not
      approve the settlement. A copy of the objection must also be

      mailed to Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel at the
      addresses provided in the Class Notice.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, when it sent debt collection letters to
Plaintiff and the Class which overshadowed the right to dispute the
validity of a debt and/or verify the debt; falsely and deceptively
represented that the debt was not increasing due to interest; and
falsely stating that interest was due when Defendant had no
contractual or statutory right to add or collect interest.

IQ Data is a debt collection agency.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602

Attorney for the Defendant are:

          Paul Gamboa, Esq.
          Christina Rose Spiezia, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60606

ICANDY BEAUTY: Buitrago Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Buitrago and Brittany Beckham, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. ICANDY BEAUTY, INC., a California
Corporation; SARAH THOMPSON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01131473-CU-WT-CJC (Cal. Super., Orange
Cty., Feb. 13, 2020), seeks recovery of individual damages, as well
as penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 and the California Labor Code.

Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment by ICANDY, for all hours
worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek, the
Plaintiffs say they were not compensated at the proper overtime
rate and were instead paid at their regular hourly rate for all
overtime worked. The Plaintiffs add that they were not regularly
provided with legally compliant meal and rest breaks, nor received
any penalty compensation in lieu thereof.

The Plaintiffs were hired as a receptionist by the Defendants.

Defendant ICANDY BEAUTY is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
          KO LEGAL, INC.
          100 W Broadway, Suite 250
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 317-3999
          Facsimile: (714) 242-1590
          Email: Kim@KO-Legal.com


IOVATE HEALTH: Slack-Fills Six Star Products, Schoonover Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emiley Schoonover, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01487 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2020),
seeks to stop the Defendant's distribution and sale of its Six Star
Pre-Workout Explosion products, which are falsely advertised and
deceptively packaged with nonfunctional empty space.

The Defendant's Six Star Pro Nutrition Pre-Workout Explosion
Products are all packaged and sold in opaque containers that
conceal from consumers the amount of powder actually contained
therein, according to the complaint. The Product is advertised and
sold in sealed, opaque plastic containers composed mostly of
nonfunctional empty space, or slack fill. The Product's sealed
opaque packaging prevents the consumer from directly seeing or
handling the pre-workout product, and amounts to not only wasteful
packaging, but also and leads reasonable consumers to believe that
the package contains significantly more pre-workout product than it
actually does.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's practice of
substantially under-filling its Product's opaque container with
powder creates nonfunctional slack-fill, in violation of state and
federal laws. The use of nonfunctional slack-fill allows the
Defendant to lower its costs by deceiving customers into paying a
higher price for more pre-workout product than they truly receive.
As a result, the Plaintiff avers, the Defendant has realized
sizable profits to the detriment of consumers.

Had the Plaintiff and other consumers not been deceived by relying
on the size of the Product's container, they would not have
purchased the Product or would have paid less for the Product, as
the container is substantially empty, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Los Angeles County, California,
when she purchased one of the Defendant's Products.

Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. is one of the largest sellers of
fitness and weight loss supplements in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deval Zaveri, Esq.
          Jimmy Tabb, Esq.
          ZAVERI TABB, APC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Email: dev@zaveritabb.com
                 jimmy@zaveritabb.com

               - and -

          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Email: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com


ISIGNTHIS LTD: Gadens Files Possible Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that national law firm Gadens is
investigating a possible class action against payment identity
verifier iSignthis (ASX: ISX), adding salt to the wounds of a
company that has been suspended from trading since October and has
a court case of its own pending against the ASX.

The Melbourne-based fintech founded and led by CEO John Karantzis
has come under fire over regulatory issues with clients in Europe,
where the bulk of the company's sales take place.

Gadens' investigation will home in on several issues that have
plagued ISX over the past four months, including the share market
operator's concerns over disclosures and the release of $500
million worth of performance rights to executives.

The circumstances surrounding these rights were harshly criticsed
in a report from Ownership Matters, leading the ISX share price to
plunge 40 per cent in one day.

Led by Gadens partner Glenn McGowan QC, the firm will aim to
determine whether unlawful conduct has occurred which might found a
claim for failing to keep the market properly informed.

A profit downgrade from $10.7 million to $6.5 million announced in
December will be under the microscope.

"Gadens is investigating whether ISX and/or its directors had a
reasonable basis to issue the Initial FY19 Guidance and the extent
to which ISX and/or its directors have complied with their
continuous disclosure obligations to keep the market fully informed
of all material matters affecting the price of ISX shares," Gadens
states.

"Claims potentially available to ISX shareholders may include
breaches of continuous disclosure obligations, misleading and
deceptive conduct, and breaches of directors' duties." [GN]


JOE'S PUBLIC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Joe's Public
LLC and Public Theater Productions, Inc., jointly and severally,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00532 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2020),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a cannabidiol and hemp oil retailer that owns and
operates www.charlottesweb.com that offers cannabis products and
services for online sale and general delivery to the public.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


JUUL LABS: O'Reilly Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William O'Reilly, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juul Labs, Inc. and
Altria Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05918-PBT and
2:20-cv-00343-PBT, was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on
February 11, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00778-PBT.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability filed
pursuant to the Diversity-Product Liability.

Juul Labs, Inc. is an American electronic cigarette company which
spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges. Juul Labs was co-founded by Adam Bowen and James
Monsees. Its headquarters is in San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Stone, Esq.
   Stone Law Firm
   437 Grant ST Suite 1806
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 391-2005
   Email: astone@stone-law-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   John P. Elliott, Esq.
   Elliott Greenleaf, P.C.
   Union Meeting Corporate Center V, Suite 300
   925 Harvest Drive, Suite 300
   P.O. BOX 3010
   Blue Bell, PA 19422
   Tel: (215) 977-1027
   Fax: (215) 977-1099
   Email: jpe@elliottgreenleaf.com


KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Harlan Zaback, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 13, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00268-BEN-MSB to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Bear Naked Granola Fit V'Nilla Almond,
which is manufactured and sold by Kellogg, is mislabeled because it
purports to be "made with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively
from vanilla beans when the ingredient list reveals otherwise." The
Plaintiff asserts that the labeling of this product is misleading
and that it violates various FDA regulations governing the labeling
of vanilla and other flavoring agents. The Plaintiff asserts claims
for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair
Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          Email: kspelman@jenner.com
                 asmith@jenner.com

               - and -

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          Email: dpanos@jenner.com


KRATON CORP: April 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm P.A. on Feb. 3 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of Kraton Corporation.
(NYSE: KRA):

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

TO:  All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Kraton Corporation ("Kraton") common stock ("Kraton
Securities") during the period October 25, 2017 through February
21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") (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 Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $1,500,000 (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on April 23, 2020 at 1:00 p.m., before the
Honorable George C. Hanks, Jr. at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, 515
Rusk Street, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
November 15, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Settlement of the Action, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you
may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at Hrasok v. Kraton Corp., et al., c/o Strategic
Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205,
Media, PA 19063, 1-866-274-4004, info@strategicclaims.net.  Copies
of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/kraton.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than March 27, 2020 to the Claims
Administrator.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

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

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and provided
to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than April 9, 2020,  in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.

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

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

         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         Attn: Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Email: kratonsettlement@rosenlegal.com

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

         Hrasok v. Kraton Corp., et al.
         c/o Strategic Claims Services
         P.O. Box 230
         600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
         Media, PA 19063
         Toll-Free Phone: (866) 274-4004
         Email: info@strategicclaims.net
                                                                   
                                                    By Order of the
Court
[GN]


LIBERTY CAPITAL: Loyhayem Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Loyhayem, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Capital Group, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00559 (C.D. Cal.,
January 21, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Liberty Capital Group is a business loan provider. Loyhayem claims
to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls from Liberty on
his phone. His phones is registered in the National Do-Not-Call
registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MADONNA: Faces Another Class Action Over Madame X Concert Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Eggertsen, writing for Billboard, reports that a new
complaint filed in New York claims the Queen of Pop was hours late
for two Brooklyn shows.

Madonna's storied tardiness has gotten her in even more legal hot
water, this time in the state of New York.

Andrew Panos and Antonio Velotta have filed a class-action suit
against the Queen of Pop for showing up three hours late to
Brooklyn concerts on Sept. 21 and Oct. 1, 2019, according to
documents filed by attorneys Richard Klass and Marcus Corwin in
Kings County Supreme Court. Live Nation, the promoter of her
"Madame X" tour, is named as a co-defendant.

Claiming they and other members of the proposed New York class were
"lulled into purchasing expensive tickets" for Madame X shows that
routinely started after 10:30 p.m. despite an advertised 8:30 p.m.
start time, Panos and Venotta are suing Madonna and Live Nation for
false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, among other
charges.

The Feb. 3 suit follows a previous class-action filed in November
by Florida resident Nate Hollander, who sought in excess of $15,000
in damages after Live Nation refused to refund his tickets to a
Madame X show after he was informed that the concert would be
starting two hours late. Madonna seemingly responded to that suit
during a Las Vegas concert on Nov. 8, stating, "[H]ere is something
that you all need to understand and that is that a queen is never
late."

The Feb. 3 complaint notes that despite Madonna's "long history" of
showing up late to concerts -- including reported two-hour delays
on her previous Rebel Heart tour in 2016 -- Live Nation should have
been aware that advertising an 8:30 start time for the Sept. 21 and
Oct. 1 shows "constituted, at best optimistic speculation." The
suit alleges that the Brooklyn show attended by Panos on Sept. 21
didn't start until 11:30 p.m. -- three hours later than the
advertised start time and with no advance notice
-- and that upon taking the stage, Madonna acknowledged that the
delay was her fault. The Oct. 1 show attended by Velotta didn't
begin until 10:40 p.m., the suit alleges.

The complaint states that Panos purchased two tickets to the Sept.
21 concert for a total of $800, while Velotta purchased one ticket
to the Oct. 1 show for $321. It claims that both men were denied a
refund by Live Nation and that they were unable to resell their
tickets due to the lateness of the hour, leading to an "extreme
loss in value" for them and others who were unable to stay for the
show.

Similar to the November complaint, the Feb. 3 suit goes on to
allege that because of Madonna's tardiness at the Brooklyn
concerts, ticket holders under the age of 18 were no longer legally
able to attend without an adult -- rendering their tickets
"worthless" -- while others were forced to leave due to work and
school commitments the following day. It adds that because the
concerts didn't end until around 1 a.m., many ticket holders who
remained for the duration became stranded at the venue, either
because they missed rides they had arranged prior to the concerts
or because they were unable to access the metro, which had already
closed. The suit further contends that because concertgoers were
forced to surrender their phones upon entering the venue, they were
unable to arrange for a later ride once it became clear that the
start times would be substantially delayed.

The plaintiffs are asking for actual and consequential damages, as
well as attorney fees and "costs pursuant to the Contract or other
New York law or Federal law," as well as pre and post-judgment
interest.

Live Nation did not immediately respond to Billboard's request for
comment. [GN]


MASTERPIECE REALTY: Harris Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Masterpiece Realty LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-14020 (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2020), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Port Saint Lucie
operating as Re/Max Masterpiece Realty. It utilized prerecorded
messages to place calls to promote its products and services as
part of its marketing strategy. At no point in time did Harris
provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using
an automated dialer, asserts the complain. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ignacio Hiraldo
      IJH LAW
      1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (786) 496-4469
      Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com

             - and -

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


METROPOLITAN GROUP: Faces Hachat Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Group
Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as
Lloyd Hachat, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated v. Metropolitan Group Property and
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00316-SO (N.D. Ohio,
Feb. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from alleged insurance-related breach of
contract.

Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance Company operates
as an insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty
insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
          2 North Main Street, Ste. 2
          P.O. Box 6
          Thornville, OH 43076
          Phone: (740) 785-7730
          Fax: (740) 205-8898
          Email: steve@whetstonelegal.com


MISSOURI: Class Certification Sought in Beggs v. Corrections Dept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM BEGGS, TERRY McILVOY,
ANDRE BOYD, and RICHARD SALES On behalf of themselves and a class
of similarly situated individuals v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Case No. 2:19-cv-04227-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an Order certifying case as a class action on
behalf of:

   "all current and future inmates in the custody of the Missouri
   Department of Corrections who have presented, or will present,
   with a symptomatic hernia to prison staff."

Defendants have a "one-size fits all" policy for all inmates with
reducible abdominal wall hernias, without regard to their
individual symptoms and limitations, withholding surgical consult
and surgery until the hernia can no longer be reduced (an emergency
situation). This is in violation of the prevailing medical standard
of care. This policy is deliberately indifferent to a known and
serious medical need for symptomatic hernia treatment, leaving
people to live with needless and avoidable pain, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, says
the complaint.

The Missouri Department of Corrections is a state agency of
Missouri that operates state prisons. It is headquartered in
Jefferson City.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tom Pirmantgen, Esq.
          Susan Eckles, Esq.
          Will Hack, Esq.
          MISSOURI PROTECTION AND
          ADVOCACY SERVICES
          925 South Country Club Drive
          Jefferson City, MO 65109
          Telephone: 573 893-3333
          Facsimile: 573 893-4231
          E-mail: tom.pirmantgen@mo-pa.org

               - and -

          Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
          Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
          COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, PC
          231 Madison
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 635-7977
          Fascimile: (573) 635-7414
          E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net
                  kschulte@cvdl.net

MOD SUPER: Sued by Sosa in Illinois Alleging Violation of BIPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC d/b/a MOD PIZZA, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2020CH01737 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Feb. 13, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires workers at one of its locations to use their
fingerprints as a means of authentication, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Steven Fongaro, a citizen of the state of Illinois
residing in Cook County, contends that the Defendant's scanning and
retention of workers' fingerprints without informed consent is
clearly unlawful in Illinois.

The Defendant operates restaurants throughout Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                 ajd@kellerlenkner.com


MONCTON HOSPITAL: Faces Induced Labor Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bissett, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
lawyer representing women in a proposed class-action lawsuit
against New Brunswick's largest health authority and an obstetrics
nurse says hundreds of concerned women have contacted him.

The lawsuit, which has not been tested in court, alleges nurse
Nicole Ruest improperly gave patients the labour-inducing drug
oxytocin, leading to an unusually high number of emergency
C-sections and instrument-assisted deliveries at the Moncton
Hospital.

"We have been contacted by hundreds of mothers who have expressed
concerns, but as I indicated to the court, not every mother who
underwent an emergency C-section at the Moncton Hospital will be a
class member," John McKiggan, a Halifax-based medical malpractice
lawyer, said. "It remains to be seen what the actual class size
is."

McKiggan was in court in Moncton on Jan. 28, seeking an order to
obtain information from the hospital. "There is specific
information we believe the hospital has that is relevant to the
issues that the court will need to deal with on certification," he
said.

The judge is expected to rule on that request before the end of
February.

Ruest could not be reached Jan. 29 for comment, but in a statement
of defence filed with the court, her lawyers reject the allegation
that she was negligent.

"She did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff or to
any proposed class member, nor did she fall below the applicable
standard of care," the document reads. "At all material times, Ms.
Ruest provided nursing care that met or exceeded the applicable
standard of care."

The hospital, part of the Horizon Health Network, also filed a
statement of defence last May.

"The defendant hospital admits that its physicians were becoming
concerned over the increasing number of emergency caesarean
sections and were attempting to determine the reason for the
increase in the number of emergency caesarean sections," the
statement reads. But it denies all other allegations.

The hospital says that Ruest was terminated as an obstetrical
nurse.

The RCMP said in November that one person was arrested and
questioned about the case and is to appear in court in May.

McKiggan said a hearing to determine whether the class action
lawsuit goes ahead will likely be held in December or early in
2021. [GN]


MSC CRUISES: Elizabeth Sues Over Agreement Breach & Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sexy Sarah Elizabeth, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MSC CRUISES (USA) Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Case No. CACE-20-002716 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 13, 2020),
is brought for damages exceeding $30,000, excluding attorneys' fees
or costs, for breach of agreement and unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a Personal
Vacation Consultant from November 2016 to December 2019. Throughout
the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant her commissions were
shorted due to errors that would either cancel an individual's
commissions earned or withhold commissions for certain pay periods,
according to the complaint.

The Defendant breached its agreement with the Plaintiff by failing
to pay the amount due to her for services provided and performed
under their agreement, and by not properly paying her for all hours
worked in violation of the laws of the United States and the State
of Florida, says the complaint.

MSC CRUISES (USA) INC., is a Foreign Profit Corporation having its
main place of business in Broward County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bujan, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 416-5000
          Fax: (305) 416-5005
          Email: pmh@rgpattorneys.com
                 ns@rgpattorneys.com
                 dbujan@rgpattorneys.com


NATIONAL MILK: $220M Settlement in Suit vs. Milk Producers Reached
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vending Market Watch reports that a $220 million settlement has
been reached in a class action lawsuit brought against National
Milk Producers Federation, Agri-Mark, Inc., Dairy Farmers of
America, Inc., and Land O'Lakes, Inc. (collectively "Defendants").
The lawsuit claimed that an effort known as Cooperatives Working
Together (CWT) operated a Herd Retirement Program that was a
conspiracy to reduce milk output that violated the law.  The
Defendants deny doing anything wrong. The Court has not decided who
is right.

The Court decided that the Class includes all persons and entities
in the United States that purchased butter and/or cheese directly
from one or more Members of Defendant, Cooperatives Working
Together and/or their subsidiaries, during the period from December
6, 2008 to July 31, 2013 who did not timely opt-out of the Class.
Those that are included are called "Class Members." To be eligible
for a payment, a Class Member must have purchased butter or cheese
made by a CWT Member.  Class Members who are consumers must have
purchased butter or cheese made by a CWT Member at one of the dairy
co-op stores. Go to www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com for a list
of CWT Members along with their store names and locations.

The settlement provides that payments to Class Members will be
allocated: 37% to the Butter Sub-Class, and 63% to the Cheese
Sub-Class. Total payments will be $220 million plus interest,
minus: attorneys' fees and expenses; payments to the Named
Plaintiffs; notice and administration costs; and taxes.

Class Members who received emailed or mailed Notice do not need to
do anything at this time to be eligible to receive a payment.  Once
the Court has approved the Claim Form, a deadline will be set for
Class Members to submit claims. Class Members who received a Notice
in the mail will be mailed a Claim Form automatically.

Those who did not receive a Notice in the mail, and think they are
a potential Class Member, should identify themselves or their
company to the Settlement Administrator as a potential Class Member
by letter to the following address: Butter and Cheese Class Action,
PO Box 4290, Portland, OR 97208-4290, email to:
info@butterandcheeseclassaction.com, or register on the website, so
they can obtain a Claim Form, once it is available. Class Members
will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court. Unless a
Class Member wants to object to the settlement, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO
DO ANYTHING NOW.

Instructions for objecting can be found at the website or by
calling the toll-free number below.  Class Members must mail their
objection postmarked by March 17, 2020. The Court will hold a
Fairness Hearing on April 27, 2020, to decide whether to approve
the Settlement and any requests for fees and expenses. If there are
objections, the Court will consider them at the hearing.  Class
Members do not need to attend the hearing.  Class Members who wish
to appear at the hearing must file a "Notice of Intention to
Appear" with the Court and they may hire their own attorney to
appear in Court for them at their own expense. Detailed information
is available at www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com and toll-free at
1-855-804-8574. [GN]


NATIONAL TIRE: Faces Class Suit Over New Tire Paperwork
-------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that two
Virginia consumers adequately alleged that National Tire and
Battery dealers in Virginia failed to register new tires with their
manufacturers when selling them, a federal court in Florida ruled
Jan. 28 in a proposed class action.

Warranty, negligence, and other claims can proceed against NTB and
its parent company, TBC Corp., even though the regulation requiring
registration doesn't provide a private right of action, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida said.

And plaintiffs Bruce Exum Jr. and Emilie Palmer have standing to
sue, Magistrate Judge William Matthewman said. [GN]


NOVO NORDISK: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Novo Nordisk
A/S will face class action claims that its stock dropped when it
was revealed it misrepresented the sales of its insulin drugs,
after the District of New Jersey rejected challenges to five
pension funds as class representatives.

The court certified a class of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired Novo American Depository Receipts between
Feb. 3, 2015, and Feb. 2, 2017. An ADR is a certificate issued by a
U.S. bank that represents shares in foreign stock.

The plaintiffs allege Novo falsely attributed its revenue and
growth to its innovation. [GN]




NXIVM: Faces Mass Action Filed Philadelphia Firm for 80 Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max  Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia firm filed a mass action against NXIVM Sex Slave Cult
on behalf of 80 victims.  The long list of claims raised in the
complaint include fraud, identity theft, racketeering, forced labor
and sex trafficking, and negligence for engaging in unauthorized
practice of psychoanalysis, and mental health counselling.

Dozens of accusers who are saying they were victims of sex
trafficking and forced labor have filed a mass lawsuit against the
leaders of NXIVM, a purported personal development organization
whose leader has been convicted of charges including racketeering,
sex trafficking and child pornography. [GN]


NYLABONE: Pet Owner Launches Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, Legal Newsline, reports that a New York man has
instituted a class action against Nylabone alleging its "natural"
products for dogs contain non-natural and synthetic ingredients.

Keith Scandore, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint Jan. 15 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Nylabone Corp. alleging violation of New York General Business Law,
breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment.

Scandore alleges that Nylabone deceptively markets its dental
spray, toothpaste, chews and treats for dogs as "natural" when they
include non-natural ingredients such as potassium chloride and
silicon dioxide. He claims that due to the false labeling of the
products, consumers pay a premium for products they assume have no
synthetic ingredients.

Scandore seeks to permanently enjoin Nylabone from further alleged
mislabeling, monetary relief, a trial by jury, interest and all
other appropriate relief. He is represented by Jason P. Sultzer,
Janine Pollack and Jeremy Francis of The Sultzer Law Group in
Poughkeepsie, New York. [GN]


OPERA LTD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 24 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Opera
Limited (OPRA). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court and
further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Opera Limited (OPRA)

OPRA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased (a) Opera
American depositary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering commenced on or about July 27,
2018 and/or (b) Opera securities between July 27, 2018 and January
15, 2020.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 24, 2020

Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/opera-limited-loss-form?wire=3&prid=5367

The lawsuit alleges: Opera Limited made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Opera's
sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser
applications was significantly overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded,
owned, or otherwise controlled loan services applications and/or
businesses relied on predatory lending practices; (iii) all the
foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on Opera's financial prospects, especially with
respect to its lending applications' continued availability on the
Google Play Store; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and
Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

To learn more about the Opera Limited class action, contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


PENN STATION SHOE REPAIR: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEFINA GONZALEZ, EDGAR FERNANDO VELICELA, EDGAR PATRICIO
VELICELA, JOHN JAIRO VELICELA, MARCO TULIO SALDANHA, JOSE ARMANDO
SAMBULA, JOSE GINO DESOUZA, EDUARDO FERNANDO MACANCELA CHEDRAUI and
VICTOR MANUEL DISLA, Plaintiffs, -against- PENN STATION SHOE
REPAIR, INC. d/b/a DRAGO SHOE REPAIR, 45TH STREET PARK AVENUE SHOE
REPAIR INC. and VADIM KHAIMOV, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01222 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020) is a class action on behalf
of Plaintiffs to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as shoe shiners and
shoe repairers.

Penn Station Shoe Repair, Inc. is a domestic limited liability
company engaged and operating in the shoe shining and repair
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce Menken, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616

                – and –

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          307 225, Broadway,
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 232-6980


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Fixed Income Option Plan Class Action Revived
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 3 overturned a ruling for
Principal Life Insurance Co in a long-running class action over the
terms of a guaranteed-investment product it offers to 401(k)s,
turning aside a warning by the U.S. Chamber that doing so will
create "a magnet for wasteful litigation."

The lawsuit was filed in Iowa federal court in 2014 by Frederick
Rozo, who had invested in the company's Principal Fixed Income
Option plan (PFIO) through the Western Exterminator Company
Employees' 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan. [GN]



PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Insureds Sue Over Medical Benefits
------------------------------------------------------
BETHANY BYRD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, -and- TAYLOR BROOKS, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY 6300 Wilson Mills Road W33 Cleveland, OH 44143
2182 Serve: CT Corporation System 306 West Main Street Suite 512
Frankfort, KY 40601 -and- PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
6300 Wilson Mills Road W33 Cleveland, OH 44143-2182 Serve: CT
Corporation System 306 West Main Street Suite 512 Frankfort, KY
40601 DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:20 -CV-119-JRW (W.D. Ky., Feb. 12,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their unlawful
and identical practices of relying upon paper reviews as a basis to
reduce and deny owed personal injury protection benefits to their
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated insured claimants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their
contractual obligations owed to the Plaintiffs and the class when
they failed to pay the benefits which were owed under the policy
contracts.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company is an Ohio-domiciled insurer
authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Its
statutory home office is located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, W33,
Cleveland, OH 44143 2182.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an Ohio-domiciled insurer
authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Its
statutory home office is located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, W33,
Cleveland, OH 44143 2182. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sam Aguiar, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Hollan, Esq.
          Miles Mussetter, Esq.
          SAM AGUIAR INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC
          1201 Story Avenue, Suite 301
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 400-6969
          Facsimile: (502) 491-3946


R & H AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Zachery Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
KESEAN ZACHERY, Plaintiff, v. R & H AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. dba
NISSANI BROS ACURA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants,
Case No. 208M CV00225 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles City, Feb. 11,
2020) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
misclassified nonexempt employees who had been enforced unlawful
practices and policies by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks relief over failed labor practices of the
Defendants including the payment of all wages, the provision of
meal and rest periods or compensation, the payment of all wages due
upon separation of employment to terminated or resigned employees,
the provision of accurate itemized wage statements, and the
reimbursement for necessary expenditures.

R & H Automotive Group, Inc. is a California corporation involves
in the business of selling and servicing automobiles in the state
of California in the county of Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
            MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
            249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814,
            Long Beach, CA 90802
            Telephone: (562) 590-5550
            Facsimile: (562) 590-8400

RAPID MULTISERVICE: Iglesia Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audris De La Iglesia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rapid Multiservice & Messenger
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-20246 (S.D. Fla., January 20,
2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Rapid Multiservice is a travel and shipping agency to Cuba. To
promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en
masse via an auto dialer. Iglesia did not give express consent to
receive such texts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


RELATED MANAGEMENT: Tenants Hit Non-disclosure of Security Deposit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Belden and Matthew Bond, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Related Management
Company, L.P. and Lathrop Homes IA, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
2020CH00808 (Ill. Cir., January 21, 2020), seeks statutory damages
equal to two times the security deposit of each tenant, attorney's
fees, plus litigation expenses and costs of suit and such other and
further relief under the Residential Landlords and Tenants
Ordinance.

Belden and Bond occupy a multi-unit residential apartment building
located at 2950 N. Clybourn in Chicago managed by Related
Management and Lathrop Homes. The latter allegedly failed to
disclose in writing on the leases the address of the financial
institution where the security deposit was held. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE LLC
      225 W. Washington Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 925-4090


RESPOND POWER: Averts Class Action Over Variable Rates
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Respond Power
LLC is entitled to the dismissal of a potential class action that
claimed the company misled consumers about the price of its
variable rate energy agreements, the Third Circuit ruled on Feb.
3.

Under these agreements, consumers contracted with Respond for their
energy instead of dealing directly with local utility companies. A
disclosure in the agreement said that prices could vary monthly and
that, while Respond's goal was to provide power at a cheaper price
than would be charged by local utilities, the company couldn't
guarantee that consumers would see such savings every month "due to
market fluctuations and conditions". [GN]


RHODES TECHNOLOGIES: Lies About Prescription Opioids, Rhodes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Rhodes, Anthony Silvers and Lea Anne Spradlen, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. RHODES
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-op-45076-DAP (M.D. Tenn.,
Feb. 13, 2020), stems from the Defendants' alleged fraudulent
concealment of facts regarding the addictive properties of
prescription opioids.

Prescription opioids are narcotics. They are derived from and
possess properties similar to opium and heroin, and they are
regulated as controlled substances. While opioids can dampen the
perception of pain, they also can create an addictive, euphoric
high.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used misrepresentations
regarding the risks and benefits of opioids to enable the
widespread prescribing of opioids for common, chronic pain
conditions like low back pain, arthritis, and headaches. The
Plaintiffs contend that the wrongful misrepresentations are the
direct cause of all their economic loss since they would not have
bought the opioid drug had they known of the addiction
propensities.

According to the complaint, the prescription opioid drug crisis
began with a lie to create a market for opioid drugs. It started
with a decision by Purdue and the Sackler Defendants, to promote
opioids deceptively and illegally in order to create a market for
opioid drugs and significantly increase sales and costs to
consumers, thereby generating billions of dollars in revenue for
Purdue's private owners, the Sackler family.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of legally prescribed opioids.

The Defendants are RHODES TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD S. SACKLER,
M.D., KATHE A. SACKLER, JONATHAN D. SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER,
ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT, BEVERLY SACKLER, THERESA SACKLER, DAVID A.
SACKLER, ALLERGAN PLC F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC F/K/A ALLERGAN INC.,
ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC F/K/A ACTAVIS INC. F/K/A WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC.,
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, ACTAVIS
PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC., ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC,
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, ACTAVIS MID ATLANTIC) LLC, ACTAVIS TOTOWA
LLC, ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS KADIAN LLC, ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT,
INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NORAMCO, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL
JANSSENPHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. F/K/A PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC,
MALLINCKRODT LLC, SPECGX LLC, KVK-TECH, INC., AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., IMPAX
LABORATORIES, LLC, and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK LLC.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute branded
and/or generic prescription opioid pain medications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          GORDON BALL, LLC
          7001 Old Kent Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Phone: 865-525-7028

               - and –

          Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
          JESSEE & JESSEE
          P.O. Box 997
          Johnson City, TN 37605
          Phone: 423-928-7175


ROOT2 TAX: Faces Class Action Over Alchemy Tax Avoidance Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accountancy Daily reports that a group action lawsuit has been set
up by Wright Hassall, against tax scheme promoter, Root2 Tax
Limited, which set up the Alchemy tax avoidance scheme.

The group action follows the latest decision at the First Tier
Tribunal (FTT) -- Root 2 Ltd [2019] TC 07502 -- which upheld HMRC's
argument that amounts paid under 'spread betting' contracts were
taxable as earnings from employment, in effect meaning that Class 1
national insurance contributions (NICs) and PAYE were payable by
the directors of the tax consultancy business, and their customers
who used the scheme.

The latest case decision, released in December, 18 months since the
tribunal heard the case in June 2018, focused on NICs and PAYE
liability for users of the scheme. HMRC's argument was that the
scheme was a disguised remuneration scheme, based on a complex
spread betting scenario, and was therefore disguised remuneration
and so liable for full income tax and NICs as per any other
employment relationship.

In making its decision, the tribunal said that there was a
"relevant arrangement" intended to remunerate the individuals, and
a "relevant step" (the pay-outs made to the individuals) taken by a
"relevant third party" (the spread betting business).

The tribunal ruled in favour of HMRC and told the parties to go
away and agree a settlement figure.  

Former customers who were involved in the Alchemy scheme are now
being called on to enter into the group action being put together
by Wright Hassall. Over 200 customers are said to have used the
Alchemy scheme.

The long running saga first went to the tax tribunal in 2017 on a
separate argument.

At the 2017 tribunal, judges ruled that Root2's mass-marketed tax
avoidance scheme should have been reported to HMRC under UK rules
on Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme (DOTAS) [[2017] UKFTT 0696
TC06115]. Root2 was not allowed to appeal this decision but was
told at the time that it could apply for judicial review.

The original scheme, which was deemed as tax avoidance, aimed to
extract profits from owner-managed companies in the form of
winnings from betting on the stock market, which the scheme aimed
to ensure would be tax free, rather than in the form of taxable
employment income.

Matthew Goodwin, associate in the tax litigation team at Wright
Hassall, said: "We are representing a number of Root2's former
clients and this group action will mean that the case can be
pursued on a much larger scale.

"HMRC has shown that the Alchemy scheme does not work and should be
treated as tax avoidance so it is important that this group action
can look to recover some of their losses and hold Root2 to
account.

"A third-party funder is prepared to support and fund the
litigation against Root2, and also to provide insurance against
adverse costs, so we are able to offer risk free litigation."[GN]


SAFESPEED LLC: Faces Red-Light Camera Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hancock, writing for The Southern Illinoisan, reports that
former Illinois state Sen. Martin Sandoval and SafeSpeed LLC, the
red-light camera company at the center of federal corruption
charges against him, are now the targets of a racketeering lawsuit
that seeks to void tens of thousands of traffic citations issued
through the company's devices.

Lawrence Gress, a Downers Grove resident and lead plaintiff in the
case, filed the suit on Feb. 3 under the federal Racketeering,
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO, a law
most often used to prosecute organized crime syndicates. But RICO
also allows for private civil suits for actions that are part of a
criminal enterprise.

The lawsuit alleges SafeSpeed, and its officers and employees, paid
bribes to Sandoval and several other government officials to gain
approval for placing its red-light cameras at various intersections
in Chicago-area suburbs.

Sandoval and the other government officials, the lawsuit alleges,
were paid as "undisclosed sales agents" or "consultants" based on a
percentage of the revenue generated by the cameras.

Sandoval served in the state Senate from 2003 until Jan. 1, when he
resigned amid the corruption scandal. Starting in January 2009, he
was chairman of the powerful Senate Transportation Committee and
was instrumental in securing passage of last year's $45 billion
capital improvements program known as Rebuild Illinois.

He was removed from his chairmanship in October, just weeks after
federal agents executed a search warrant on his Statehouse office
in Springfield, where they seized a number of computers, cellphones
and boxes of documents.

On Tuesday, Jan. 28, Sandoval pleaded guilty to one count each of
federal bribery and tax fraud charges as part of a deal with
prosecutors in which he agreed to cooperate with their ongoing
investigations.

The RICO lawsuit, however, is separate from the criminal case, but
it is based largely on the same set of facts to which Sandoval has
already pleaded guilty.

It alleges that beginning sometime in 2016 and continuing through
October 2019, SafeSpeed operated a corrupt enterprise, known as an
"association-in-fact," by conspiring with the other defendants to
pay bribes or kickbacks to public officials who would steer
contracts toward the company for operating red-light cameras.

Sandoval is accused of using his position in the Senate to serve as
the company's "protector" by ensuring legislation unfavorable to
the company, including bills to ban the use of red-light cameras,
would never pass and to help override objections from the Illinois
Department of Transportation about the placement of certain
cameras.

In exchange, the lawsuit alleges, SafeSpeed and its employees
arranged to pay $20,000 a year in donations to Sandoval's
campaigns.

The lawsuit was filed as a proposed class action on behalf of an
estimated 100,000 or more individuals who were fined between $100
and $200 for each ticket issued by a red-light camera that was
"corruptly and improperly installed, over repeated objections from
IDOT, as a direct and proximate result of bribes paid."

While the claim of each individual member of the class is
relatively small, the lawsuit argues, combined they add up to
millions of dollars.

Other defendants named in the suit are SafeSpeed co-founders and
employees Nikki Zollar, Chris Lai, Khalid "Cliff" Maani and his son
Omar Maani; Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci; the city of
Oakbrook Terrace; Cook County Commissioner and McCook Village
President Jeff Tobolski; Tobolski's chief of staff, Patrick
Doherty; former Chicago Deputy Aviation Commissioner Bill Helm;
former Village of Justice Police Chief Robert Gedville; Worth
Township Supervisor and Democratic committeeman John O'Sullivan;
Summit Mayor Sergio Rodriguez; Alsip Mayor John Ryan; former state
Rep. Michael Carberry, of Oak Lawn; Summit Police Chief John
Kosmowski; and Summit Public Works Chief Bill Mundy.

It is the second RICO case that Gress, the lead plaintiff, has
filed that involves Sandoval. Another pending case was originally
filed in 2017 after Gress was passed over for a job as community
relations representative for the Pace Suburban Bus Company in favor
of Sandoval's son, Martin Sandoval II.

That suit refers to Sandoval as "the kingpin at the center of the
wide-ranging and longstanding conspiracy" alleged in the case.
[GN]


SANTA FE, NM: Suit on DWI Forfeiture Plan Seeks Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmundo Carrillo, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that a
lawsuit against the city of Santa Fe and police chief Andrew
Padilla requests class action status and accuses the city of using
the now-halted DWI forfeiture program to unlawfully confiscate
vehicles from their owners and use the proceeds to help fund the
police department.

The lawsuit also says unnamed city officials bragged about how much
money the city was making from the forfeiture program and
envisioning all the property they can seize from people, saying
they could be "czars" and "own the city."

Bernard Lucero filed the lawsuit in Santa Fe District Court last
month claiming the city unlawfully seized his car after a January
2018 traffic stop. Lucero wants a judge to declare the case a class
action, opening the door for hundreds of people who had their cars
seized by the Santa Fe Police Department under the city's
forfeiture program to have their cars immediately returned and
claim other damages.

The lawsuit, filed by Albuquerque firm Kennedy, Kennedy and Ives,
says the city used the forfeiture ordinance to help fund the police
operations.

"The city erected a web of arbitrary fines and fees to be paid by
vehicle owners and lienholders to fully fund the program with
surplus monies placed in a special revenue fund to benefit the
police department," the lawsuit says. "The expectation was that
forfeiture funds could be used to hire more police officers,
increase overtime, and purchase equipment - including new police
cars."

The city put the ordinance on hold in December 2018 after the state
Court of Appeals found that a similar ordinance in Albuquerque
"completely contradicts" the state's Forfeiture Act. The following
month the appeals court found that Santa Fe's ordinance also
contradicted state law.

The state Forfeiture Act, passed in 2015, prohibits local
governments from seizing a person's vehicle before a criminal
conviction, and it prohibits municipalities from keeping seized
property or the proceeds from sales and auctions.

"Rather than complying with the law, the city ignored the
amendments, seized hundreds of vehicles and brought in hundreds of
thousands of dollars in the following fiscal year," the lawsuit
says.

The lawsuit says nearly 500 cars were seized between 2009, when the
program was started, and 2014.

According to the lawsuit, in 2014, the city's vehicle forfeiture
attorney, who is not named, "bragged at a videotaped conference
that Santa Fe had 'realized a million dollars in revenues from
forfeitures, fines, penalties and other things imposed in
connection with these cases.'" [GN]

The lawsuit says at the same conference an SFPD officer reported
seizing "showpiece" cars, and other officials spoke about the
potential of seizing peoples' homes, bikes and airplanes by
boasting, "We can be czars. We can own the city."

City government spokeswoman Lilia Chacon said the city doesn't
comment on pending legal action. [GN]


SIX FLAGS: IBEW Sues over Park Development Delays in China
----------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIX FLAGS
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; JAMES REIDANDERSON; and MARSHALL BARBER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00346-K (N.D. Tex., February 12, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the company's business operations
and growth prospects, particularly its partnership with Chinese
real estate developer Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. to
develop parks across three locations in China, which led to the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to purchase Six Flags'
common stock at artificially inflated prices between April 25, 2018
and January 9, 2020.

Six Flags suffered from park development delays in China with
partner Riverside. The delays were not "short-term" by any
reasonable definition; in fact, the delays were both long-term and
material in nature. Riverside was in a state of severe financial
distress and did not have the resources necessary to complete its
projects with the Company.  When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is a regional theme park
operator in the world, with headquarters in Grand Prairie, Texas.
The company had over 84 million shares of common stock outstanding,
owned by hundreds or thousands of investors, as of October 18,
2019. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH PC
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020          
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

SORL AUTO: Faces Scarantino Securities Suit Over Ruili Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Scarantino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SORL AUTO PARTS, INC., XIAO PING ZHANG, XIAO
FENG ZHANG, SHU PING CHI, YU HONG LI, HUI LIN WANG, JIN BAO LIU,
JIANG HUA FENG, XIAO LIN, and BING HUA FENG, Case No.
1:20-cv-00216-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 13, 2020), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the proposed merger with Ruili International Inc. and Ruili
International Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 29, 2019, SORL Auto Parts, Inc. announced that it had
entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Ruili
International Inc. ("Parent") and Ruili International Merger Sub,
Inc. Parent was formed on behalf of a consortium consisting of Xiao
Ping Zhang, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Shu
Ping Chi and Xiao Feng Zhang, directors of the Company, and Ruili
Group Co., Ltd. (collectively, the "Consortium"). The members of
the Consortium other than Ruili Group beneficially own
approximately 58.83% of the total outstanding common stock of the
Company.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, SORL stockholders
will receive $4.72 in cash for each share of SORL common stock they
own.

On February 11, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, the
Plaintiff asserts. He avers that the Proxy Statement fails to
disclose: whether any parties expressed interest in a potential
transaction with SORL between the time of the "2015 Proposal" and
the "Proposal"; the Consortium's basis for waiting until 2019 to
submit the revised Proposal; the Defendants' basis for appointing
Xiao Lin and Bing Hua Feng to the Board on May 20, 2019, in
response to the Proposal; and who determined that the members of
the Special Committee would receive $14,000 per month, and how such
determination was made.

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

The Plaintiff is the owner of SORL common stock.

SORL develops, manufactures, and distributes automotive brake
systems and other key safety related auto parts to automotive
original equipment manufacturers and the related aftermarket both
in China and abroad.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


STAMPS.COM INC: Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of federal and state laws by Stamps.com Inc.
("Stamps") (NASDAQ: STMP) and certain of its officers.

In 2019, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of
those who purchased securities of Stamps, between May 3, 2017 and
May 8, 2019. Recently, the class action lawsuit survived the
Defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed.

According to the lawsuit, Stamps was reselling USPS products to
small volume delivery companies, which was directly against the
agreement between the two companies. When the Postal Services
learned about this, it cut ties with Stamps, and as a result, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you are a long-term shareholder of Stamps continuously holding
shares before May 4, 2017, you may have standing to hold Stamps
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors
of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also
be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance
to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

         Contact:
         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


STRAWBERRY CREEK: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Scott et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAMIA SCOTT, SHEANETTE LEONARD, CASONDRA SARGENT, and AHATI BROWN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. STRAWBERRY CREEK OUTREACH CENTER, INC. and DANIEL HILL,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00110-P (N.D. Tex., February 10, 2020)
is a complaint brought against Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
were employees of Defendants whose primary duty was providing the
services that Strawberry Creek contracted with the state to
perform.

Plaintiffs assert that they regularly worked far in excess of 40
hours and instead of complying with the law and paying the
Plaintiffs overtime, Defendants instructed them to stop recording
their hours worked.

Strawberry Creek Outreach Center, Inc. provides home placement
services for foster parents.

Daniel Hill owned, operated and had operational control over
Strawberry Creek. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           John Holleman, Esq.
           Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
           HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
           1008 West Second Street
           Little Rock, AR 72201
           Tel: 501-975-5040
           Fax: 501-975-5043
           Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net


TARGET CORP: Underpays Executive Team Leaders, Davis Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW DAVIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No.: 0:20-cv-00490-DWF-ECW (D. Minn., February 11, 2020) is a
collective action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former Executive Team Leaders who
have worked at Target at any time from January 17, 2017 to the date
of final judgment of the complaint.

According to the complaint, Defendant assigns non-management work
to its ETLs which generally takes up more than 50% of their time,
closely supervises their work, and pays them only a little more
than its non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated ETLs at
Target are entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for all overtime
hours they have worked, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Target Corporation owns and operates retail department stores
throughout the U.S., including Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLAS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612)256-3200
          Fax: (612)338-4878
          Email: srey@nka.com

                - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          750 Main Street, Suite 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Tel: (860)522-8888
          Fax: (860)218-9555
          Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kara Hartnett, writing for Nashville Post, reports that a federal
court has certified a securities class action against Tivity Health
that accuses the Franklin-based company of misleading investors
about UnitedHealthcare bringing its services in-house.

UnitedHealthcare has always been a significant client for Tivity,
accounting for about 15 percent of its revenue. But in November
2017, the insurance giant announced the launch of its own fitness
benefit program in 11 states. The move tanked Tivity shares more
than 33 percent, undoing more than five months of gains.

Before the announcement, Tivity leadership had warned investors in
Securities and Exchange Commission filings of the significant risk
the company faces from insurers taking their services in-house.
However, the suit says the company never disclosed to investors its
knowledge that United already had entered the market.

According to the lawsuit, Tivity allegedly knew United was bringing
services in-house in late 2016 but never indicated its wavering
relationship or that the risks its executives were warning about
were coming to fruition. Defendants say that, because of this
misrepresentation, Tivity's stock price was artificially inflated
between March 6, 2017, and Nov. 6, 2017.

"By presenting a historical, material fact about which Defendants
had actual knowledge as a mere possibility, and by failing to
disclose that historical fact, Defendants knowingly, or at least
recklessly, misled the investing public," the complaint, filed by
plaintiffs Eric Weiner and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System, reads. "Then, even as Defendants learned later
in the Class Period that UHC would be intensifying its competitive
efforts by expanding its competing program beyond New Jersey and
Washington to nine additional states, Defendants not only continued
to withhold that information from the investing public, but
continued to tout Tivity's relationship with UHC in unqualifiedly
positive terms."

Tivity officials have denied all accusations in court filings and
pointed to their regulatory disclosures as sufficient. Alongside
Tivity, CEO Donato Tramuto, former CAO and current Quorum SVP Glenn
Hargreaves and CFO Adam Holland are listed as defendants in the
suit. [GN]


TOUGH MUDDER: Terminates Employees Without Warning, McKinnon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca McKinnon, Claire Larbey, Daniel Parke, Irene Carias, Jake
Raboy, James McGuinness, Nicola Porter-Smith, and John Little, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOUGH
MUDDER INCORPORATED and TOUGH MUDDER EVENT PRODUCTION INCORPORATED,
Case No. 650992/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 13, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York State
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they received no warning of the mass
layoff or of their termination in particular. The Defendants
terminated approximately all of its employees located within its 15
MetroTech Center, in Brooklyn, New York address without providing
the requisite ninety days' notice, in violation of the New York
State WARN, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.

TM is a company that manages endurance racing events in which
participants attempt obstacle courses through tough terrain.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Danilo Bandovic, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212) 587-0760


TOYOTA MOTOR: Drake Sues over Defective Steering Wheel
------------------------------------------------------
LINDA DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01421 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The case alleges that the Defendants designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed, sold and warranted 2008-2013 Toyota
Highlander vehicles with steering wheel defect. The manufacturing
defect caused knock-type noise that distracts Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated vehicle owners, thereby presents a
substantial safety risk.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese automobile manufacturing
company that operates in 50 states in the U.S. through its various
subsidiaries and affiliates. It is the parent corporation of Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a California corporation
headquartered in Plano, Texas as of May 2017. It operates as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp., and is the corporate
parent of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the sales and marketing
division of Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor North America,
Inc., which oversees sales and other operations across the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Pulkrabek Suit Over Defective Fuel Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------
David Pulkrabek, Barbara Rainey, Andrew Schwab, Wesley Dickman and
Whitney Dickman, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 13, 2020), is brought by
the Plaintiffs on behalf of a class of current and former owners of
model year 2019 and 2020 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid vehicles that contain
defective fuel tanks.

The Class Vehicles contain fuel tanks with a defect in the tank
shape, which does not allow the fuel tank to reach its advertised
14.5-gallon capacity, according to the complaint. When an owner or
lessee of a Class Vehicle attempts to refuel the Class Vehicle, the
automatic fuel shut-off on the pump's handle kicks off before the
fuel level reaches the tank's advertised 14.5-gallon capacity. Even
when the tank is nearly empty, owners cannot add more than 10-11
gallons of fuel before the automatic shut-off engages and stops the
pump from filling the tank further. This result in the Class
Vehicles having an actual gas-tank capacity of less than 12 gallons
of fuel--nearly 25 percent less fuel capacity than Toyota
advertises.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants knew, or through the
exercise of reasonable care had reason to know, that the redesigned
fuel tank was defective and that the actual capacity of the fuel
tanks was substantially less than advertised. The Plaintiffs assert
that the Defendants omitted and/or concealed the existence of the
Defect to increase profits by selling additional Class Vehicles.
Knowledge and information regarding the Defect were in the
exclusive and superior possession of the Defendants and its
dealers, and this information was not provided to Plaintiffs and
members of the Class.

As a direct result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the Class have been
harmed and are entitled to actual damages, including damages for
the benefit of the bargain they struck when purchasing their
vehicles, the diminished value of their vehicles, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The Plaintiffs are current and former owners of the Class
Vehicles.

The Defendants manufactured, distributed and sold the 2019 and 2020
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid vehicles, which are compact crossover SUVs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Phone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

               - and –

          Charles Everingham IV, Esq.
          Claire Henry, Esq.
          WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1231
          Longview, TX 75606
          Phone: 903-757-6400
          Facsimile: 903-757-2323
          Email: ce@wsfirm.com
                 claire@wsfirm.com

               - and –

          Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
          Nickolas W. Allen, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
          103 East Broadway, P.O. Box 117
          Bolivar, MO 65613
          Phone: (417) 326-5261
          Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
          Email: craig@dhhlawfirm.com
                 nick@dhhlawfirm.com

               - and –

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          555 Lancaster Ave.
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581
          Fax: (610) 421-1326
          Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com


TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Bid to Certify Class in Golf Ads Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TJF Services, Inc., et al. v.
Transportation Media, Inc., d/b/a Bench Craft Company, Case No.
5:17-CV-00626-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Numbers II
entered an order denying certification of the proposed class
consisting of:

   "all individuals residing in North Carolina or companies doing
   business in North Carolina who have purchased golf course
   advertising from Bench Craft."

The Plaintiffs contend that Bench Craft intentionally
misrepresented how many golfers would see these guides and whether
golfers would receive the guides free of charge. Plaintiffs allege
Bench Craft's actions violated the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Transportation Media, Inc. publishes travel guides.[CC]



TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Acerra Suit Over Undisclosed Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ACERRA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM RIVERS, and
MOHAN SRINIVASAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00775 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 12, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose some
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and
prospects to the Plaintiff and on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Trulieve securities
between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019.

Acerra and other Class members claim significant losses and damages
as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

Trulieve Cannabis Corp. operates as a medical marijuana company
that cultivates and produces products in-house and distributes its
products to Trulieve branded stores in Florida, as well as directly
to patients through home delivery. Trulieve is incorporated in
British Columbia, Canada, and its head office is located at 6749
Ben Bostic Road, Quincy, Florida 32351. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and –

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296

ULTRA SHINE: Hernandez  Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Romel Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ultra Shine Car Wash, Inc. and
Adelino Pastilha, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03950 (S.D. N.Y., May
2, 2019), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and "spread of hours"
requirements of New York Labor Law, and statutory damages for
violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Ultra Shine Car Wash is a car wash in Yonkers, New York where
Hernandez was employed from approximately October 2018 through
January 2020. He regularly worked seven days per week typically
working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime pay.
Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch,
timesheets, or any other method for him to track his time worked.
Hernandez's effective rate of pay was below the statutory federal
minimum wage throughout his employment. Defendants also failed to
provide him with written wage notices providing contact
information, regular and overtime rates and intended allowances
claimed, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


VERTI INSURANCE: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Hooper Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GRAHAM HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VERTI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00806 (E.D. Pa., February 12, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to his cellular telephone number using an automatic
telephone dialing system without prior express consent on or about
May 6, 2019. The unsolicited messages caused the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated actual harm, including invasion of
privacy, aggravation, and disruption to daily life.

Verti Insurance Company is a car insurance provider whose principal
office is located at 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio. It directs,
markets, and provides business activities throughout the State of
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
                  kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                 
               - and -
           
          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE PA
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132          
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@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

X FINANCIAL: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
X Financial ("X Financial" or "the Company") (NYSE:XYF) for
violations of the securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. X Financial's third quarter of 2018 ended
just 11 days after the Company's September 2018 IPO. The Company's
results for the quartered showed it was suffering from an increase
in delinquency rates, a reduction in loans, and a shrinking number
of active lenders on its platform. The Company's CEO admitted on
March 19, 2019, that its loan volume had been decreasing since the
middle of 2018, before its IPO. The Company's Chairman and CEO
disclosed on May 21, 2019, that it would be unlikely to achieve
significant growth due to the failure of its preferred loan
business. Since X Financial's IPO, it has traded as low as $1.65
per ADS compared to its $9.50 per ADS IPO.

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

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

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
info@schallfirm.com
[GN]


ZEMPLEO INC: Dodge Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DODGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZEMPLEO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01092 (N.D. Calif., February 11, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hourly employees of
Defendant of the overtime they have worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Plaintiff Dodge was employed by Defendant Zempleo, Inc. as a
Project Manager and staffed to a power company Duke Energy from
approximately September 2015 to March 2019.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant practiced "straight time for
overtime" payment scheme to its employees which is a willful
violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiff seeks back wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees,
costs, and all other remedies available under the FLSA and
California law.

Zempleo is a staffing company that provides workers to
construction, energy, and industrial clients throughout the
country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave.
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Tel: 713-999-5228
          Fax: 713-999-1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


[*] Cornerstone Research Reveals Key Trends in Federal Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin of Cornerstone Research, in an article for
National Law Review, reports that companies on U.S. exchanges were
more likely to be sued in 2019 than in any previous year whether
measured solely on core filings or on total filings. Core filings
in federal courts (core federal filings) against non-U.S. issuers
(i.e., companies headquartered outside the United States with
securities trading on U.S. exchanges) also reached record levels.

U.S. Companies

   * In 2019, 5.5 percent of U.S. exchange-listed companies were
the subject of core filings.
   * Core federal filings against S&P 500 firms in 2019 occurred at
a rate of 7.2 percent.

Non-U.S. Companies

   * Core federal filings against non-U.S. companies rose to 57,
the highest level on record.
   * The likelihood of a core federal filing against a non-U.S.
company increased from 4.8 percent in 2018 to 5.6 percent in 2019.


By Industry

   * In 2019, 66 core federal filings were brought against
companies in the Technology and Communications sectors combined, up
32 percent from 2018.
   * Core federal filings in the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector
jumped from 67 in 2018 to 88 in 2019. Within this sector, combined
filings against biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare
companies also increased.

By Circuit

   * There were 103 and 52 core federal filings in the Second and
Ninth Circuits, respectively. Second Circuit core federal filings
were at historically high levels, 45 percent greater than 2018.
   *  Third Circuit filings remained at elevated levels with 28 in
2019 compared with the 1997–2018 historical average of 17.

M&A Filings

  * Federal filings of merger-objection class actions--those
involving M&A transactions with Section 14 claims but no Rule
10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12(2) claims—decreased again, from
182 in 2018 to 160 in 2019.
   * M&A filings were concentrated in the Third Circuit. In 2019,
127 of the 160 M&A filings were in the Third Circuit, including 126
in Delaware federal court.

   * M&A filings had a much higher rate of dismissal (89 percent)
than core federal filings (47 percent) from 2009 to 2018.

Filings by Lead Plaintiff

   * For 2019 core federal filings, individuals were appointed lead
plaintiff more often than institutional investors, a pattern that
has persisted since 2013.

Appointment of Plaintiff Lead Counsel

   * The growth in core federal filings over the last seven years
has coincided with the activity of three plaintiff law firms that
have increasingly been involved in securities class actions.

New Developments

   * There has been an increased number of core filings involving
companies in and related to the cannabis industry.
   * The forum selection case, Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, is
currently before the Delaware Supreme Court.

Annual Rank of Filing Intensity

Filing activity in federal and state courts accelerated in 2019.
Each of the last three years—2017 through 2019--has been more
active than any previous year. More core filings in federal and
state courts occurred in 2019 than in any other year. Unlike in
earlier years with heightened levels of filings (e.g., at the time
of the dot-com bust or the financial crisis), the current peaks
have occurred despite a lack of financial market turbulence.

Core federal filings against S&P 500 companies occurred with
slightly lower frequency than in 2018, but remained elevated
compared with historical measures. Given the number of filings and
the frequency of filings involving larger companies, historically
large amounts of market capitalization losses (as measured by DDL
and MDL) are being litigated. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face
approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at
December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 29, 2019.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,400 pending
active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many
other companies, as defendants at December 31, 2019 and September
30, 2019.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products.  Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8G1hCR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.86MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$4,864,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of December
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$3,600,000 and US$6,500,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
December 31, 2019.  The Company's estimation of its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles approximates US$4,864,000, which is included in the
accrued general and product liability costs in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019.  The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable
federal legislation.  This liability will fluctuate based on the
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and
the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a
number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.  Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months.  Because
payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years,
management believes that the potential additional costs for claims
will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the
Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
The Company received settlement payments of US$77,000 and
US$300,000 during the three months ended December 31, 2019 and
2018, respectively, and US$366,000 and US$430,000 during the nine
months ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, net of legal
fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for
asbestos-related expenses.  These partial payments have been
recorded as a reduction of cost of products sold in the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The Company is continuing
its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future
costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6Vuw4R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or accompanying
its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying our products.  We are a co-defendant
with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.  The claims in
our current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos
lawsuits that named us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits
either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us
for immaterial amounts."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $502MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$502 million as of December 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials.  These cases have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing
components.

"As of December 31, 2019, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$132 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$502 million, of which US$50 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$452 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$370 million, of which US$42
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$328 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$12
million of cash and US$282 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at December 31, 2019 was US$76 million.  As of
September 30, 2019, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$141 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$507 million, of which US$50 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$457 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$366 million, of which US$46
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$320 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$16
million of cash and US$273 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.  In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2019 was US$77
million."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $767,000 Liability at December 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$767,000 for asbestos-related liability as of
December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned.  During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products.  For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations.  The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos-related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$767,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet at December 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6Vuw4R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 925 PI Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company continues to face approximately 925
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation.  To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant.  As of December 31, 2019, there were
approximately 925 such lawsuits.  We believe that we have
substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles
and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims.  We also have
valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and
intend to continue to defend them vigorously.  Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases.  We do not expect the
resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows.  In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or
cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9SJ4aL



                            *********

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 ***