/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200311.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 51

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Rockland Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
9TEN RESTAURANT: Reveliu Sues over Unpaid OT and Tip Credits
AARGON AGENCY: Franco Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ABC PHONES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Baggott Claims
ACCESSORIES 4 LESS: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York

AEI PAINTING: Painters Sue Over Misclassification
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Cambridge Shareholder Suit in Delaware
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Marquette Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Transfer Class Action to Texas Okayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit Underway in New York

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Okays Arbitration in Antitrust Suit
AMIGOS RETAIL: Johnson Seeks OT Pay for Cashiers
AMPLIFY SNACK: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
APPROVAL TEAM: Faces $5MM Class Action Over Employee Benefits

ARETE FINANCIAL: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy
AUTOMOTIVE WIRE: Settlement Distributions in Price-Fixing Suit OK'd
BENIHANA NATIONAL: Underpays Cooks, Rosales Suit Alleges
BINSWANGER ENTERPRISES: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
BLAZIN WINGS: Alatorre Labor and FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.

CALENDAR HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
CANADA: Assembly of First Nations File Class Action
CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Faces Class Suit Over ADA Website Accessibility
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: 50+ Students Participate in Class Action
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kosacci Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania

CR GIBSON LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
DESIGN KOLLECTIVE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers File Class Action Over Devacurl Product
DOORDASH: Forced Arbitration May Cost More Than Class Action
DRIVETIME CAR: Juarez Suit in Arizona Terminated

ENDURANCE INT'L: McGee Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Manley Files FRCA Suit in Virginia
EVENFLO COMPANY: Feinfeld Files Fraud Class Suit in Ohio
EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Nassau County, New York Litigation Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Suit over Hotel Taxes Underway

FASTENAL COMPANY: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Jackson Alleges
FCA US LLC: Removes Tremper et al. Suit to N.D. California
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: New Mexico Dist. Stays Bhasker Insurance Suit
FIORE INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Files ADA Suit in Georgia
FIRST FINANCIAL: Halloway Says Debt Collection Letter Misleading

GRAND HOME: Cruz Files Suit in New York
H. STOCKTON-ATLANTA: Taylor Asserts Breach of ADA in Georgia
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sanliturk Asserts Breach of FDCPA
HANNA ANDERSSON: Faces 1st Post-CCPA Data Breach Class Action
HERTZ CORP: Graham Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Meal & Rest Breaks

IRINOX NA: De Pombo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JTS MODULAR: Vargas Files Suit in California
JUUL LABS: Soulas Suit Transferred to N.D. California
KENTUCKY RETIREMENT: Declaratory Judgment in Cities Suit Upheld
MAMMA LOMBARDI'S: Gonzalez Files Suit in New York

MANHATTAN CONCRETE: Breaches Subcontract, Midtown-Ren Claims
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Blanco Suit Removed to C.D. California
MDL 2924: Coggins Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Litigation
MDL 2924: Colon Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
MDL 2924: Froehlich Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Action

MDL 2924: Guy Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
MDL 2924: Neary Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
MDL 2924: Ragis Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
MDL 2924: Souza Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
MERCEDES-BENZ: Emissions Suit Remanded to Reassess Arbitration Bid

MULTI-TEMPS STAFFING: Ellis Sues Over Racial Discrimination
MYLAN NV: Gott Files RICO Class Action in Kansas
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Humphrey Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Quinney Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files FDCPA Suit in Texas

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Improperly Collect Processing Fee, Suit Says
NCAA: Patterson et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NEVARES LAW: Court Dismisses Martinez Suit Without Prejudice
NIAGARA CREDIT: Surita Files Suit Under FDCPA
NORTHWEST PALLET: Collects Biometric Data, Castaneda Alleges

OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action Over Sales Pricing Tactic
PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Senquiz Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PINPOINT PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cameron Suit Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in New York

PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action in NJ Over Telemarketing Calls
Q FIFTY ONE: Taylor Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
ROCKWELL TIME: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York
SEMIHANDMADE INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
SILL INC: Crosson Suit Alleges ADA Violation

SIX FLAGS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action in Texas
STAMPS.COM INC: Loses Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
SUN TAN CITY: Caraboolad Telemarketing Row Moved to S.D. Fla.
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Bartle et al. Suit for Breach of Contract
TELEFLORA LLC: Rodriguez Alleges Violation under ADA

TESLA INC: Issa Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
TK SUPPLEMENTS: Cunningham Wants TCPA Privacy Provisions Enforced
TOWNCREST PHARMACY: Summary Judgment in Catamaran Suit Upheld
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Fund Appeals Dismissal of Merger Suit
TRUDY GILMOND: Orso Granted Summary Judgment vs. 3 Defendants

TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
UTRECHT MANUFACTURING: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
VENUS ET FLEUR: Blind Can't Access Website, Rodriguez Claims
WISTERIA CORP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
WM BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Suit in California

WONOLO INC: Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages, Alleges Misclassification
YES TO INC: Aughtman Sues Over Allergic Reaction to Face Mask
[*] Foreclosure Class Action Filed Against South African Banks
[*] More Class Suits Expected Over "Fair Chance Housing Ordinance"

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Rockland Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
----------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Co.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; ANGUS
INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP, LTD; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; E.I
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually
and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.;
ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC; ARKEMA INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC,
INC. f/k/a ASAHI GLASS CO. LTD.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS; USA,
LLC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE, P.L.C., INC.;
UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; and BASF
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00572-RMG (D.S.C., Feb.
4, 2020) is an action arising from the foreseeable contamination of
surface and groundwater in and around firefighter training
facilities ("FTFs") due to the use of the Defendants' aqueous
film-forming foam ("AFFF") that contained per-and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")
and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA").

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew or should have
known that their AFFF containing PFAS posed a foreseeable threat to
surface water, groundwater and public water supplies because these
chemicals do not biodegrade, move easily in water, and are
expensive to treat. Nevertheless, the Defendants marketed and sold
AFFF with the knowledge that PFAS would be released into the
environment in firefighting training exercises and in firefighting
emergencies. Human exposure to PFOA is associated with an increased
risk of kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, and other
conditions. Human exposure to PFOA and PFOS is associated with an
increased risk of immune system effects, changes in liver enzymes
and thyroid hormones, low birthweight, and other adverse health
conditions.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven,
and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty
materials; purification products; closure systems for personal
hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components;
and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
          NAPOLI LAW
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11 th
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
                  pnapoli@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com


9TEN RESTAURANT: Reveliu Sues over Unpaid OT and Tip Credits
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDA PACIFICO REVELIU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 910 SEVENTH AVE REST LLC, D/B/A
9TEN RESTAURANT; DEMETRIOS GLEKAS; and THEODORE KATSIHTIS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01943 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated employees, alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
appropriate overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours
worked, and failed to give them notice that they are entitled to
take a tip credit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waitress on or
about April 2018 until November 18, 2019.

910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC is a New York-based restaurant owner and
operator. It is also doing business as 9Ten Restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-mail: sclark@tpglaws.com

AARGON AGENCY: Franco Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AArgon Agency, Inc.
The case is styled as Angeliza Franco, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AArgon Agency, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01171 (E.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

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

Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




ABC PHONES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Baggott Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BAGGOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00504-D (E.D.N.C., Nov. 8, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law over
alleged unpaid wages.

Mr. Baggott, a resident of the state of Wisconsin, worked for ABC
Phones as a store manager in Wisconsin.  He brought his lawsuit as
a collective action under the FLSA, and an individual and class
action under Wisconsin law, on behalf of himself and current and
former hourly employees of the Defendant, to seek redress for its
failure to pay to them straight time and overtime pay required by
the FLSA and Wisconsin law.

ABC Phones is a North Carolina corporation that, in its capacity as
an authorized dealer of Verizon Wireless, doing business as Victra,
operates more than 1,000 stores in 46 different states, including
North Carolina and Wisconsin.  ABC Phones sells telecommunication
services and equipment to its customers.  ABC Phones maintains its
corporate headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          Joe Sexauer, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com
                  jms@previant.com

               - and -

          Paul E. Smith, Esq.
          PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
          100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 942-5200
          Facsimile: (866) 397-8671
          E-mail: psmith@pathlaw.com


ACCESSORIES 4 LESS: Morgan Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Accessories 4 Less, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Accessories 4 Less, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01696 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2020).

Accessories4less is the largest online authorized audio outlet
store in the USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC
   105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



AEI PAINTING: Painters Sue Over Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------
Jose Arias, Merlin Ivan Canales, Benjamin Castro-Ramirez, Oscar
Chirinos, Martin Duque-Camacho, Jairo Antonio Gunera-Garcia, Kelvin
Lenin Lezama-Chirinos, Alexander Mendoza, Darwin Navarro, Angel
Manfredo Ortiz-Chirino, Yony Javier Paz-Chirinos, German A.
Perez-Santos, Juan R. Perez-Santos, Selvin Rios, Norin
Teruel-Rapalo and Jhan Valentin, individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AEI Painting
Contractors, LLC and Chad Skinner, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-00550 (N.D. Ga., February 6, 2020), seeks to recover
overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors
rather than employees. They claim they were denied overtime pay,
minimum wages, workers' compensation insurance, health insurance
and unemployment insurance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall D. Grayson, Esq.
      DELCAMPO & GRAYSON, LLC
      5455 Chamblee Dunwoody Road
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 481-0444
      Facsimile: (770) 395-0806
      Email: rgrayson@dcglawfirm.com


AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Cambridge Shareholder Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley T. Crooke, et
al. The case is styled as CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and derivatively
on behalf of Nominal Defendant AKCEA THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. STANLEY
T. CROOKE, B. LYNNE PARSHALL, PAULA SOTEROPOULOS, CHRISTOPHER
GABRIELI, and IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, and AKCEA
THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2019-0905- (Del.
Ch., Nov. 11, 2019).

Francis E. Murphy, III, the Chairman of the City of Cambridge
Retirement System, discloses that the Plaintiff is a continuous
holder of common stock of Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. during all
relevant times alleged in the verified class action and derivative
complaint.[BN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Marquette Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate,
LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Marquette, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Interstate, LLC and Does 1 Through 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01271-MAK (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2020).

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

Allied Interstate provides accounts receivable, customer retention
and debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Transfer Class Action to Texas Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that reversing a magistrate judge's order, a Florida
federal judge on Feb. 10 granted American Airlines' bid to transfer
to Texas a traveler's putative class action accusing the airline of
taking illegal kickbacks on trip insurance sales, saying "unique
circumstances" warranted transferring the case late in litigation.
[GN]


AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit Underway in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and
Grove Liquors LLC, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market,
et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks
and EMVCo, LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants
after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief.

An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30,
2016, the court denied the company motion to dismiss as to claims
brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and
on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

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

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against an antitrust class action
lawsuit entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co.,
et al.

In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of the company's charge cards and
credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

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

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates
through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Okays Arbitration in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's
motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by merchants who
accept American Express -- and to dismiss claims of merchants who
do not -- has been granted in the class action suit entitled, In
re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation
(II).

A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging the company's
cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or
another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and
"non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust
laws.

On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of
claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates
through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMIGOS RETAIL: Johnson Seeks OT Pay for Cashiers
------------------------------------------------
The case, BARBARA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated cashiers v. AMIGOS RETAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC and
AMINMOHAMED A. MAKHANI, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00795 (S.D.
Tex., March 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act including failing to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, failing to
provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to reimburse
necessary expenditures.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier from
November 2019 to February 2020.

Amigos Retail Management, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company and operator of a chain of convenience stores in Texas. It
is also doing business as Amigo's Express. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AMPLIFY SNACK: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amplify Snack Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01905 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Amplify Snack Brands, owned by Hershey, is a fast growing
"better-for-you" (BFY) snack brand company based in Austin, Texas.
The company produces guilt-free snacking products and prides itself
in having products that taste great with simple ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPROVAL TEAM: Faces $5MM Class Action Over Employee Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law is seeking to certify a $5-million class action
against the Approval Team, a used car dealership with five
locations in the Greater Toronto Area, for shortchanging employees
on hours they worked and failing to compensate them for overtime,
vacation and public holiday pay.

The lawsuit puts the spotlight on consequences that startups and
auto dealerships face if they fail to pay their sales employees
properly and deprive them of their statutory benefits.

The action was filed on behalf of Tom Rallis of Mississauga who
worked as a salesman at the firm from April 2018 to May 2019 and
includes all employees who worked for the company since its
inception.

The statement filed in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice alleges
that employees of the company did not receive statutory benefits
and did not have proper statutory remittances done on their behalf.
The class action alleges that the Approval Team had no policy in
place to properly monitor, record or compensate employees for
overtime or public holiday pay hours. Although Rallis was an
employee of the Approval Team and attended weekly sales meetings,
he did not receive vacation pay or statutory holiday pay, nor were
government remittances properly deducted, contrary to the
Employment Standards Act. At the end of his employment, Approval
Team appeared to change its practice and provide paystubs with
statutory deductions.

"These salespeople were employees of the company and relied on the
Approval Team to fulfill their contractual and statutory employment
duties and properly keep track of and pay them overtime and
vacation pay," said Andrew Monkhouse, founder of Monkhouse Law.
"The company systemically encouraged the employees to work long
hours and failed to compensate them with any premium for working
those extra hours."

According to the lawsuit, salespersons were encouraged and even
required to work a minimum of 10-hour days, six days a week,
exceeding the 44-hour limit in Ontario. Meanwhile, the company
failed to collect government and payroll taxes, and acted in a
callous manner by not resolving the issue. The lawsuit states that
the Approval Team benefited from forcing their employees to work
overtime without pay, which constitutes illegal wage theft, and the
company should be required to do more than merely pay the money
owed to the employees in order to discourage other companies from
shortchanging workers.

                      About Monkhouse Law

Toronto-based Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm that
specializes in wrongful dismissal, human rights law, labour law,
employment insurance claims, and denied long-term disability
claims. The law firm has a strong history of representing employees
in class actions, including having started the first Canadian
contractor misclassification case of Sondhi v. Deloitte in 2015.

For further information: Andrew Monkhouse, Monkhouse Law Barristers
& Solicitors, andrew@monkhouselaw.com, (416) 907-9249, x 225 [GN]


ARETE FINANCIAL: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARETE FINANCIAL GROUP; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07412 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 8,
2019), alleges that the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading its privacy.

Abante is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California.

Arete Financial Group is an entity in the business finance
industry.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTOMOTIVE WIRE: Settlement Distributions in Price-Fixing Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP (London & Toronto), Sotos LLP (Toronto), Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman LLP (CFM) ( Vancouver), and Siskinds Desmeules
s.e.n.c.r.l. (Quebec City) on Feb. 12 announced court approval of a
protocol for distributing settlements totalling approximately $25.6
million in the Automotive Wire Harness Systems price-fixing class
action. Automotive Wire Harness Systems distribute electricity
throughout automotive vehicles.

There have been extensive criminal investigations around the globe.
The auto parts cases make up the largest antitrust investigation in
history -- in terms of the number of affected parts, implicated
parties, and fines imposed.   

The settled defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability.
The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec courts approved the
settlements and a protocol for distributing the settlement funds to
purchasers of vehicles affected by the alleged conspiracy.

Consumers and businesses who purchased or leased new vehicles sold
under the following brands, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti,
Toyota/Lexus, Subaru, and/or Pontiac Vibes, between January 1, 1999
and November 30, 2014 are eligible to apply to receive compensation
from the settlement funds.

No wrongdoing is alleged against Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Subaru and
General Motors. They are not defendants in the class actions. The
class actions were brought against Automotive Wire Harness Systems
manufacturers who allegedly price-fixed those products. Honda,
Nissan, Toyota, Subaru and General Motors were unaware of alleged
price-fixing in respect of the Automotive Wire Harness Systems they
purchased for installation in their automotive vehicles.

"This plan represents an opportunity for consumers and businesses
to recover overpayments on millions of vehicles sold in Canada,"
said Charles Wright, a partner at Siskinds LLP in London, Ontario.


David Sterns, a partner at Sotos LLP states: "It is our hope that
through continued work with our colleagues in London , Vancouver
and Quebec , we will put additional repayments into the pockets of
Canadians in the coming years."

The Automotive Wire Harness Systems class action is one of over 40
class actions ongoing in Canada alleging unlawful conspiracies to
fix prices of auto parts for installation in new vehicles. Subject
to court approval, the information filed by settlement class
members may be used to determine eligibility for settlement
benefits in other auto parts class actions. If settlement class
members do not apply for settlement benefits in the Automotive Wire
Harness Systems case, they may not be able to participate in such
further distributions.

Applications for settlement benefits can be filed online at
autopartsettlement.ca on or before June 12, 2020. More information
about the settlements, the distribution of settlement funds and the
claims process can be found online or by calling the claims
administrator at 1-800-474-4331.

                About Class Counsel Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP is a pioneer in class action lawsuits and has been
recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm by the Chambers and
Partners, a global legal review organization, in their 2020 guide.
The class actions team, comprised of 25 lawyers admitted to
practice in Ontario, Quebec, New York State and the District of
Columbia, act exclusively for plaintiffs.
siskinds.com/classactions

                          About Sotos LLP

Sotos LLP -- http://www.sotosclassactions.com-- is a
nationally-recognized law firm based in Toronto. Sotos acts for
plaintiffs in many of Canada's leading class actions in the areas
of employment (wage and hour litigation), antitrust (Competition
Act), privacy, consumer protection and franchising and
distribution.

                            About CFM

CFM -- http://www.cfmlawyers.ca-- is a boutique law firm based in
Vancouver specializing in class actions, aviation accident
litigation and product liability litigation, on behalf of
plaintiffs.


BENIHANA NATIONAL: Underpays Cooks, Rosales Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP.; BENIHANA,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-20-582696 (Cal. Super., Feb. 4, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Rosales was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Benihana Inc. operates as a chain of restaurants. The Company
offers steak, chicken, seafood, sushi, and fusion dishes. Benihana
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
          Un Kei Wu, Esq.
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2760 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 695-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 695-1006


BINSWANGER ENTERPRISES: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Binswanger Enterprises, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Binswanger Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01897 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Binswanger Enterprises, LLC produces and distributes building glass
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLAZIN WINGS: Alatorre Labor and FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled HECTOR ALATORRE, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. BLAZIN WINGS,
INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-19-5079520, was removed on Nov. 8, 2019, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07405 to the
proceeding.

On October 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his complaint in the
Superior Court.  The Complaint asserts several causes of action,
including violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; failure to
provide meal and rest periods; and failure to pay hourly wages.

Blazin Wings is a corporation organized and incorporated under the
laws of the state of Minnesota.  Blazin Wings' principal place of
business is located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

Defendant Blazin Wings, Inc., is represented by:

          Stacey E. James, Esq.
          Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq.
          Noah J. Woods, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: sjames@littler.com
                  sfahimi@littler.com
                  nwoods@littler.com


CALENDAR HOLDINGS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Calendar Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Calendar Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01898 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Calendar Holdings LLC operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, retails calendars, games, puzzles, and
toy products. Calendar Holdings serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CANADA: Assembly of First Nations File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that the Assembly of First Nations has filed a
class action lawsuit against the Canadian federal government,
seeking damages for First Nations children who it says have been
discriminated against by the government's child welfare system.

The lawsuit was first reported by APTN's Brett Forester on Feb. 7,
and was confirmed in a release from the AFN on Feb. 12.

It alleges that Canada, through "discriminatory" funding, created
an incentive to remove First Nations children from their families
and failed to account for different needs among First Nations
communities across the country. It also claims the funding for
First Nations children on-reserve fell far short of what was
allotted to children off-reserve.

"Year after year, generation after generation, Canada systemically
discriminated against First Nations children and families simply
because they were First Nations," said AFN National Chief Perry
Bellegarde in a press release.

"It did so by underfunding preventive care, perpetuating the
historical disadvantage resulting from the residential schools.
Canada breached its responsibility to our children and families,
infringed on their Charter rights, and caused them real harm and
suffering. We will always stand up for our children."

The suit goes beyond the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling in
January 2016, which found the government was systemically
discriminating against First Nations children on-reserve and in the
Yukon through its provision of services.

Canada was ordered to pay $40,000 to First Nations children and
their families who were denied services or wrongly apprehended.

The AFN's lawsuit is seeking compensation for an even larger group,
broadening it to all those harmed by the system, including those
not covered in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision.
Speaking to host Evan Solomon during an episode of CTV's Power Play
on Feb. 12, Bellegarde explained that this was the main purpose of
the new lawsuit.

"From 1991 until 2005, the CHRT's decision didn't deal with [that]
group of individuals and children that went through the system. So
our class action suit was comprehensive to deal with that group of
people," Bellegarde said.

The government has already spent upwards of $8 million in legal
fees in its efforts to fight the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
ruling, according to the Canadian Press.

The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society's Cindy
Blackstock, who originally filed the human rights complaint
alongside the AFN, obtained the documents through the Access to
Information Act.

Vanessa Adams, a spokesperson for Indigenous Services Minister Marc
Miller, told CTVNews.ca in an emailed statement that the government
"fully" agrees that First Nations children who were harmed by
government Child and Family Service policies must be compensated.

"We maintain focused on delivering fair and equitable compensation
and hope the parties can work together so that we can continue
advancing towards our shared goal of compensating children
negatively affected by government policies," Adams said.

"We made a commitment and nothing about our commitment changes. We
will continue to work with all relevant parties to ensure we make
this right." [GN]


CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Faces Class Suit Over ADA Website Accessibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Rockney, Esq., and Erika N. Auger, Esq., of Reed Smith, in
an article for Mondaq, report that in January, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court against
Charlotte's Web, Inc., a Colorado-based maker of cannabidiol
("CBD") oils, balms and gummies claiming that its website is not
accessible to visually impaired shoppers, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, plaintiff Joseph Guglielmo, who is
visually impaired, visited Charlotte's Web's website several times
in December 2019, where he had difficulty navigating the site
because it was not coded such that it was compatible with his
screen-reading software. As a result, Guglielmo claims he was
effectively barred from determining what specific products were
offered for sale.

The complaint further alleges that the company's website does not
meet the World Wide Web Consortium's guidelines for blind and
visually impaired website accessibility. Moreover, the complaint
alleges that because websites are places of public accommodations
under the ADA, the company's alleged denial of equal access to its
website and refusal to make changes to improve the accessibility of
the website amounts to an ADA violation.

The suit seeks a court order requiring the company to modify its
website to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines,
hire a consultant to improve the accessibility of the website, and
regularly monitor the site's current state of accessibility.

Takeaway: This putative class action serves as an important
reminder to all companies who maintain websites for promoting and
selling their products that such websites should be free of
accessibility barriers that could support a plaintiff asserting an
ADA claim. Unless a website has been coded with accessibility in
mind, cannabis companies and dispensaries appear to be among the
disability rights bar's next targets in the ever increasing number
of class action lawsuits filed alleging digital access ADA
violations. [GN]


CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: 50+ Students Participate in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Vaughn, writing for The Portland Tribune, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia University,
by students who say they were misled about the university's
financial status and want refunds on their tuition.

On Monday, Feb. 10, the private, nonprofit Christian university in
Portland abruptly announced plans to close by the end of the
academic year. In a statement and video, university Interim
President, Rev. Thomas Ries said the college's board of regents
voted the prior Friday, Feb. 7 to cease operations at the end of
the spring 2020 semester.

A statement released by the university cited "years of mounting
financial challenges, and a challenging and changing educational
landscape." In a lawsuit filed by attorney Michael Fuller, students
say those years of financial challenges were not disclosed by the
university to students, who applied and paid tuition fees to the
college expecting to complete their degrees there.

"Concordia University misled hundreds of students about its
financial condition, and collected tuition in 2020 that students
would not have paid had the students known the truth about
Concordia University's looming closure," the complaint states.

Fuller said the university likely knew it was in financial trouble,
but continued to recruit students both at its Portland campus and
through its online degree programs, who likely had no chance of
ever earning a degree there.

"A university can choose not to disclose its financial information
to its students, but if it turns out the students were misled, then
they have a case," Fuller said, likening the situation to "selling
someone a lifetime supply to a gym when you know it's going to
close tomorrow."

The attorney said he was contacted by Concordia students the day of
the announcement, and now has more than 50 students joining the
lawsuit.

Many of those students have been in this situation before.

In 2018, another private Oregon university- Marylhurst University,
shuttered. Fuller helped Marylhurst students file a class action
lawsuit against the school, which was eventually settled for
undisclosed amounts.

Many of Marylhurst's former students turned to Concordia when they
needed to transfer to a new school, Fuller noted.

"Within an hour or two (of the announcement) I had been contacted
by three or four of my former clients," Fuller said of former
Marylhurst students who are now finding themselves caught in the
middle of another private college shut down fiasco.

"A lot of them have maxed out their financial aid and taken out
private loans to pay for school," he said.

The lawsuit alleges Concordia misrepresented its services by
omission, leaving students to pay for college credits that may not
transfer to other universities, and without the ability to
graduate. Concordia even touted a long-range plan that said, "by
2024, ‘all students of Concordia University-Portland will be
actively engaged in a university that enjoys a strong national
reputation in select programs preparing leaders for the
transformation of society through educational experiences grounded
in relationships and centered in servant leadership, rigor, and
Lutheran identity and values.'"

Fuller said universities typically have insurance policies that
cover legal issues like this, but noted, "if (Concordia) promises
to give tuition refunds to every single one of the students, I'll
dismiss the case and cover my own costs."

The university has yet to respond to the legal complaint and has
not responded to requests for comment on other financial matters
surrounding its nonprofit foundation. [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kosacci Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Oksana Kosacci,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and Does 1 Through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01269-CMR (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2020).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




CR GIBSON LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Gibson, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. C.R. Gibson, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01900
(S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

CR Gibson LLC. Cr Gibson LLC was founded in 2007. The company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of wrapping
and other coarse paper products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DESIGN KOLLECTIVE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Design Kollective, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Design Kollective, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01901 (E.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Design Kollective is a platform that allows brick and mortar
furniture retailers to sell their inventory online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers File Class Action Over Devacurl Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Fonrouge and Kenneth Garger, writing for New York Post,
report that a group of curly-haired consumers filed a class-action
lawsuit against the maker of a popular haircare brand -- claiming
use of the products leads to scalp irritation and hair loss.

DevaCurl No-Poo Original conditioner, manufactured by the defendant
in the suit, Deva Concepts, is marketed as a sulfate-free
alternative to shampoos for customers with curly hair, according to
the Manhattan Federal court suit.

But treating your locks with a various number of DevaCurl products,
including the conditioner, leads to "scalp irritation, excessive
shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage and/or balding during
normal use," the suit alleges.

The suit, which filed on Feb. 12, says "thousands of consumers"
have reported such adverse effects, with some filing FDA complaints
and others voicing their concerns on Facebook.

DevaCurl "provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact
makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of
the products," the suit says.

Had DevaCurl users known using the product would cause hair loss,
"they would have not purchased" them, according to the suit.

The three lead plaintiffs in the case are Ginger Dixon, of
Pennsylvania, Alanna Hall, of Brooklyn, and Cristina Napolotano, of
West Babylon.

The trio have all used DevaCurl products within the last four
years, experiencing scalp issues and hair loss. Once they switched
to other brands, the suit says, their conditions subsided and
improved.

They are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

DevaCurl could not immediately be reached for comment.

But the company on Feb. 11 posted a message intended for "our
beloved curl community" addressing customer concerns.

"When some of you first raised concerns about our products, we were
laser-focused on our testing as the best way to confirm their
safety and quality," the message read.

"We've heard you and recognize that any changes to your hair -- for
whatever reason -- demand a special type of attention that safety
tests alone can't address," the letter continued.

To better address consumer complaints, the company added, they are
now "partnering with medical professionals, dermatologists,
industry experts, professional stylists, and members of our curl
community." [GN]


DOORDASH: Forced Arbitration May Cost More Than Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Millhiser, writing for Vox, reports that the food delivery
company DoorDash made its delivery workers sign away their right to
sue if a legal dispute arises between a worker and the company.
Instead, disputes would be resolved by a privatized arbitration
system that tends to favor corporate parties.

It's a common tactic, often used by companies seeking to discourage
workers from asserting their legal rights at all. And, if a
decision handed down on Feb. 10 by a federal district judge stands,
the tactic backfired spectacularly for DoorDash.

Under Judge William Alsup's order in Abernathy v. DoorDash,
DoorDash must arbitrate over 5,000 individual disputes with various
workers who claim that they were misclassified as independent
contractors, when they should be treated as employees. It also must
pay a $1,900 fee for each of these individual arbitration
proceedings.

Though DoorDash might settle the various claims before it is hit
with these fees, Alsup's order means that if it doesn't, the
delivery company will face a bill of nearly $10 million before any
of the individual proceedings are even resolved. Add in the cost of
paying for lawyers to represent them in each proceeding, plus the
amount the company will have to pay to the workers in each
proceeding that it loses, and DoorDash is likely to wind up paying
far more money than it would have if it hadn't tried to strip away
many of its workers' rights.

Ordinarily, when thousands of workers at the same company all raise
very similar legal claims against that same employer, those workers
will join together in a class action lawsuit -- a process that
allows all of the disputes to be resolved in a single suit rather
than in thousands of separate proceedings. But DoorDash required
these delivery workers to sign away their right to bring a class
action as well.

That decision also appears to have backfired.

Forced arbitration, explained

In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to, in
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words, allow "merchants with
relatively equal bargaining power" to resolve disputes through
private arbitration. For such merchants, arbitration is often
preferred to litigation because it can be quicker, less expensive,
and because merchants can choose an arbitrator who is more familiar
with their industry than a typical judge.

Beginning in the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court started to read
the Arbitration Act to allow companies to require ordinary
consumers and workers to agree to arbitration as a condition of
doing business with that company. Some of these Supreme Court
decisions rested on a defensible reading of the Arbitration Act's
text, but many of them distorted that text so severely that it is
easy to suspect bad faith.

The Arbitration Act, for example, exempts "workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce." Yet, in Circuit City v. Adams
(2001), the Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign
or interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration. Similarly,
the Arbitration Act is silent on the subject of class actions, but
in AT&T v. Concepcion (2011), the Court held that companies can
insert a clause into arbitration contracts that ban class actions.

Most recently, in Epic Systems v. Lewis (2018), the Supreme Court
merged these two prior holdings. Epic Systems conclusively
established that a company can order its workers to give up their
right to bring a class action and require those workers to
arbitrate any future disputes — and immediately fire any worker
who does not comply.

For employers, these decisions were largely a windfall. As the
Economic Policy Institute's Ross Eisenbrey explains, workers are
less likely to prevail in arbitration than they are in litigation.
And when workers to prevail in arbitration, they typically receive
far less money than they would have if their case had been heard by
a judge.

Class action bans, meanwhile, often allow employers to immunize
themselves from liability altogether.

Consider the facts of Concepcion, the 2011 decision allowing
companies to add class action bans to forced arbitration contracts.
The plaintiffs in that case were cellphone customers who claimed
that they were victims of deceptive advertising, and that they were
overcharged by $30.22.

Virtually no one is going to file a lawsuit over a $30.22 charge.
The cost of hiring a lawyer, filing a complaint, and litigating (or
arbitrating) the case until the bitter end will vastly exceed the
amount of money at issue. But, if a company cheats millions of
customers out of tiny sums of money, the total value of their claim
could be tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Class actions allow large groups with similar grievances to join
together under a single lawsuit, and they allow that large group to
hire excellent legal counsel who will litigate the case in return
for a share of the money the group receives if they prevail.

But if class actions are banned, no lawsuit will ever be filed in
the first place.

As one federal court of appeals decision explained in a case
similar to Concepcion, "the realistic alternative to a class action
is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as
only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30."

Class action bans, moreover, give companies tremendous incentive to
cheat their workers -- so long as they only cheat each worker a
little bit at a time. In the DoorDash case, for example, each of
the more than 5,000 workers at the heart of that case had to pay a
$300 filing fee before they could bring any claim at all against
DoorDash. That means that DoorDash could theoretically have
outright stolen as much as $299 from each worker, and it could have
done so knowing that none of those workers had a plausible way to
recoup that money.

How DoorDash's workers beat a rigged system

Judge Alsup does not conceal his disdain for companies that use
decisions like Concepcion and Epic Systems to strip away the rights
of their workers. "For decades," he writes in his DoorDash opinion,
"the employer-side bar and their employer clients have forced
arbitration clauses upon workers, thus taking away their right to
go to court, and forced class-action waivers upon them too, thus
taking away their ability to join collectively to vindicate common
rights."

What makes this recent case different, is that "the workers wish to
enforce the very provisions forced on them by seeking, even if by
the thousands, individual arbitrations." When a company imposes a
forced arbitration clause and a class action ban on its workers, it
often bets that those workers will slink away quietly if the
company breaks the law. It bets on the fact that "only a lunatic or
a fanatic" sues over a relatively small amount of money.

But now a handful of plaintiffs' law firms are calling these
companies' bluff by actually seeking to arbitrate thousands of
cases at a time.

It's a tactic that's worked before. After Uber imposed forced
arbitration and a class action ban on its drivers, more than 60,000
of those drivers sought to arbitrate claims against the company.
Faced with legal costs of at least $600 million, Uber cried
"uncle!" The company announced it settled the "large majority" of
these claims last May.

Yet, while filing large amounts of arbitration claims may cause
some companies to rethink forced arbitration, this tactic also
carries considerable risk for plaintiffs' lawyers. Actually
arbitrating thousands of cases on behalf of workers with small
claims is a terrible way for a lawyer to earn a living. It's slow,
work-intensive, and the payoff at the end is very small.

The plaintiffs' lawyers are playing a game of chicken with
employers like Uber and DoorDash, and it's not at all clear that
this tactic can be expanded into a broader attack on forced
arbitration. [GN]


DRIVETIME CAR: Juarez Suit in Arizona Terminated
------------------------------------------------
A motion to quash has been filed in the class action lawsuit styled
as Ramon Juarez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DriveTime Car Sales Company LLC
doing business as: DriveTime, an Arizona limited liability company,
Defendant, John Gersitz, Movant, Case No. 2:20-mc-00011-DLR (D.
Ariz., Feb. 26, 2020).

However, the Court was advised that the subpoena subject to
Movant's Motion to Quash has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it was
ordered that the motion to quash is denied as moot, and the Clerk
was directed to terminate the case.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes:
Other Statutory Actions filed pursuant to the Civil Miscellaneous
Case.

A related case pending in the Middle District of Florida has this
case no: 3:10-CV-01132-BJD-JR.

DriveTime Car Sales Company LLC is an American used car retailer
and finance company. It is based in Tempe, Arizona, and sells and
finances cars to customers around the nation. The company was
formerly known as Ugly Duckling and was renamed DriveTime in
2002.[BN]

The Movant is represented by:

   Jonathon Andrew Talcott, Esq.
   Ballard Spahr LLP - Phoenix, AZ
   1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300
   Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
   Tel: (602) 798-5400
   Fax: (602) 798-5595
   Email: talcottj@ballardspahr.com

ENDURANCE INT'L: McGee Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the settlement fairness hearing in the class action suit
entitled, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., is set
for May 27, 2020.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which
named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the
terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement
and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the
release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its
former officers.

On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and
approval of notice to the settlement class.

On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for May 27, 2020
at which the court will determine whether the proposed settlement
is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should
therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

Endurance said, "The Company's contribution to the settlement pool
under the proposed settlement would be equal to the $1.5 million it
reserved for this matter during the year ended December 31, 2018.
The Company cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the
McGee settlement will be approved by the court and the Company
cannot assess the ultimate outcome of this matter or an estimate of
any probable losses or any reasonably possible losses (other than
the reserve specifically discussed above) at this time."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Manley Files FRCA Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Curtis Manley, individually
and on behlaf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00150-JAG (E.D. Va., March 3, 2020).

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

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
   Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
        craig@clalegal.com

     - and -

   Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates (Richmond)
   626 E Broad Street, Suite 300
   Richmond, VA 23219
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com




EVENFLO COMPANY: Feinfeld Files Fraud Class Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Feinfeld, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evenflo Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00081-WHR (S.D. Ohio, March 3, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Evenflo Company, Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and
principally engages in the design, research and development,
manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer
branded juvenile products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Esq.
   Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A. - 2
   600 Vine Street, Suite 2704
   Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008
   Tel: (513) 421-2400
   Fax: (513) 421-7902
   Email: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com



EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Nassau County, New York Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal taken by
Nassau County, New York, and the intervenor-plaintiffs from the
court's dismissal order of their claims remains pending.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of online
travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Orbitz, which was subsequently dismissed and refiled in state
court.

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain
local governments in New York.

The trial court certified the case as a class action but the New
York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed that order.
Additional county/city plaintiffs subsequently joined the case as
intervenor plaintiffs.

On December 2, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment with respect to Nassau County's claims on the
grounds that the enabling statute for plaintiff’s tax ordinance
did not impose a tax on defendants' fees.

On March 22, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment against the additional intervenor plaintiffs.

Nassau County and the intervenor-plaintiffs appealed the court's
dismissal of their claims and that appeal remains pending.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Suit over Hotel Taxes Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal
from the court order awarding approximately $2.25 million in
reimbursable costs to the defendants remains pending.

On May 8, 2006, the City of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Orbitz,
alleging that the defendants failed to pay hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinance.

On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that the
defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding
approximately $15 million for historical damages against the
Expedia Group companies. The jury also found that defendants were
not liable for conversion or punitive damages.

On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the
online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to
counties and cities in the statewide class action. On April 11,
2016, the court entered an amended judgment including approximately
$68 million in tax, interest and penalty amounts for the Expedia
Group companies, including Orbitz, and the defendants appealed.

On November 29, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing
the district court and rendering judgment for the defendant online
travel companies, finding that the amounts charged by the
defendants for their services are not subject to the hotel
accommodations taxes at issue.

The district court entered final judgment in favor of the defendant
online travel companies on March 28, 2018, and the defendants
submitted their request for an award of reimbursable costs.

On June 26, 2019, the district court granted in part the
defendants' request, awarding the defendants approximately $2.25
million in reimbursable costs. On July 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from a portion of that decision. That appeal
remains pending.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


FASTENAL COMPANY: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Jackson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASTENAL COMPANY and DOES 1
through 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-at-00170 (Cal. Super.,
Stanislaus Cty., March 4, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code including failing to pay overtime wages,
provide required rest and meal period premiums, and reimburse
business expenses.

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

Fastenal Company is a Minnesota-based fastener distributor. It
conducts business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -
           
          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

FCA US LLC: Removes Tremper et al. Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of STEPHEN TREMPER; and HEATHER TREMPER
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Monterey (Case No.
20CV000047) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 4, 2020. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00828-HSG.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories. FCA US serve clients in the United
States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan E. Cosgrove, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
          Torrance, CA 90502
          Telephone: (424) 221-7400
          Facsimile: (424) 221-7499
          E-mail: ryan.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com


FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: New Mexico Dist. Stays Bhasker Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00260-KWR/JHR (D. N.M.), Judge Kea W.
Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico:

    (a) granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay filed in March, and

    (b) denied without prejudice (i) the Plaintiff's Motion to
        Certify Class Action and (ii) the Defendant's Motion for
        Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff alleges she was injured in a June 24, 2015 accident
with an underinsured motorist.  She was covered by an auto
insurance policy issued by the Defendant.  Her carried insurance at
New Mexico's minimum amounts, which provide bodily injury coverage
of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident.  She also purchased
uninsured/underinsured ("UM/UIM") motorist coverage in the same
amounts.

She received the full extent of the at-fault driver's liability
coverage, $25,000.  She sought coverage under her own minimum-level
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.  The Defendant denied
coverage, because it offset the $25,000 she received from the
at-fault driver against her underinsured motorist coverage of
$25,000.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misled her or failed to
inform her that underinsured motorist coverage, when purchased at
the minimum level, is "illusory."  She alleges that a purchase of
25/50 underinsured coverage, when triggered by a crash with a
tortfeasor who has 25/50 bodily injury liability limits, will
result in a payment of premium for which no payment of benefits
will ever occur and therefore violated plaintiff and other insureds
reasonable expectations of benefiting from underinsured coverage.

In her First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted the
following claims: (i) Count I - Negligence; (ii) Count II -
Violation of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act; (iii) Count
III - Violation of the New Mexico Unfair Insurance Practices Act;
(iv) Count IV - Breach of Contract and Claim for Underinsured
Motorists Coverage; (v) Count V - Breach of the Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing; (vi) Count VI - Injunctive Relief; (vii)
Count VII - Declaratory Relief; and (viii) Count VIII - Punitive
Damages.

On March 22, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to stay the case
pending an answer by the New Mexico Supreme Court to the question
certified in Crutcher v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 1:18-cv-412
JCH/LF (D.N.M.).  Judge James O. Browning held a hearing on that
motion.  He indicated at the hearing that the motion would be
denied, but he would issue a subsequent written opinion.

On Oct. 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
following class: All persons (and their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns), from whom FIC collected a
premium for UIMBI coverage after Aug. 14, 1985 to present, on a
policy that was issued or renewed in New Mexico by FIC and that
purported to provide UIMBI coverage, but which effectively provides
no UIMBI coverage and/or misleading UIMBI coverage, because of the
statutory offset recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 704 P.2d 1092 (1985).

The Defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.  It
seeks a ruling on whether underinsured motorist coverage sold at
minimum levels is illusory.

Judge Riggs notes that all other similar cases in the district have
been stayed pending the New Mexico Supreme Court's answer.
Although the case is now fairly far along, the dispositive summary
judgment motion is not fully briefed.  Moreover, the motion to
certify has not gone to hearing or been ruled upon.

Judge Riggs acknowledges that Judge James O. Browning issued a
preliminary oral ruling denying the motion to stay.  However, Judge
Browning also stated he would issue a subsequent written ruling.
Judge Riggs finds that any prejudice to the Plaintiff is outweighed
by the need to avoid wasting resources and to avoid issuing a
ruling contrary to the law.

Moreover, the current briefing on the pending motions will be out
of date once the New Mexico Supreme Court answers the certified
question.  The Court would likely benefit from the parties'
interpretation of the New Mexico Supreme Court's answer.  

Accordingly, Judge Riggs granted the Motion to Stay as described in
her Opinion.  Judge Riggs denied without prejudice (i) the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify, and (ii) the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.  The case is stayed pending the New Mexico
Supreme Court's answer to the question certified by Judge Herrera
in Crutcher.  The parties shall, within 14 days of the date that
the New Mexico Supreme Court answers the certified question, file a
status report with the New Mexico Court.

A full-text copy of the New Mexico Court's Jan. 10, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/tzEASK from Leagle.com.

Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Kedar Bhasker & Corbin
Hildebrandt, Corbin Hildebrandt, P.C.

Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee
Allensworth , O'Brien & Padilla, Alicia M. Santos --
asantos@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L.
Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice.


FIORE INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Files ADA Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
Fiore International Atlanta, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Todd Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fiore International Atlanta, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00055-SDG (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2020).

Fiore Boutique is a clothing boutique.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
   The Oaks Firm
   3895 Brookgreen Pt.
   Decatur, GA 30034
   Tel: (404) 725-5697
   Fax: (775) 320-3695
   Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com




FIRST FINANCIAL: Halloway Says Debt Collection Letter Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FATIN ANN HALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01486 (N.D. Ill., February 28,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by indicating that Plaintiff
should accept its offer to satisfy the account for a fraction of
the amount now owed by February 18, 2020 and by failing to include
the phrase "[w]e are not obligated to renew any offers provided" on
its collection letter.  Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA prohibits
false representation regarding the character or legal status of the
Subject Debt and the debts of all similarly situated class
members.

First Financial Asset Management, Inc. is a debt collector and a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with
its principal place of business located at 3091 Governors Lake
Drive, Suite 500, Norcross, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

GRAND HOME: Cruz Files Suit in New York
---------------------------------------
Grand Home Holdings Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Grand Home Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01896 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Grand Home Holdings Inc. is a US chain of retail stores
specializing in barbecue grills, accessories and consumables. There
are 23 company-owned stores, and several authorized dealers in the
United States of America. The US business was purchased by Grand
Home Holdings Inc in late 2008.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H. STOCKTON-ATLANTA: Taylor Asserts Breach of ADA in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
H. Stockton-Atlanta, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Todd Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H. Stockton-Atlanta, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00056-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2020).

H. Stockton-Atlanta, Inc.  was established in 1980 specializing in
Men's Suits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
   The Oaks Firm
   3895 Brookgreen Pt.
   Decatur, GA 30034
   Tel: (404) 725-5697
   Fax: (775) 320-3695
   Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sanliturk Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Birsen Sanliturk, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Halsted Financial Services LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC and Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01170 (E.D., N.Y.,
March 3, 2020).

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

Halsted Financial Services is a global financial services firm,
providing consumer and commercial solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HANNA ANDERSSON: Faces 1st Post-CCPA Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohen, Esq. -- michael.cohen@lathropgpm.com -- and Brian
Fries, Esq. -- brian.fries@lathropgpm.com -- of Lathrop GPM, in an
article for JDSupra, report that the first post-California Consumer
Privacy Act (CCPA) data breach class action was filed on February 3
in the Northern District of California. See Barnes v. Hanna
Andersson, LLC , N.D. Cal., Case No. 20-cv-00812.

The Barnes complaint does not yet expressly state a cause of action
under the CCPA, instead relying upon violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law. Given the nature of the allegations,
however, an amendment to include a CCPA claim is anticipated.

Under the CCPA, a plaintiff not need show any actual harm caused by
a data breach and can seek statutory damages of up to $750 per
incident per victim in the event of a data breach. In Barnes, it is
alleged that there are 10,000 California victims of data breach
that occurred in the fall of 2019.  

The Barnes plaintiffs claim that defendants put at risk the
personally identifiable information (PII) that children's clothing
retailer Hanna Andersson maintained on Salesforce software, and
that neither company maintained "reasonable security procedures and
practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect
their customers' valuable PII."

A data breach under the CCPA is any unauthorized access, theft or
disclosure of a consumer's nonencrypted and nonredacted personal
information that is the result of a business failure to implement
and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices.

The CCPA became effective on January 1, 2020, and enforcement by
the California Attorney General is expected in July 2020. In
response, many businesses have been data mapping to find what
personal information they collect on California residents and for
what purposes, revising their website privacy policies, reviewing
vendor agreements, creating new procedures to respond to consumer
requests for access to or deletion of data, purchasing
cybersecurity insurance and other activities necessary to comply
with the CCPA.

These private rights of action -- and potential class action
lawsuits enabled by this right -- are scary. They apply only to
data breaches, not privacy complaints. We will continue to monitor
this California data breach case, as well as others soon expected
under the CCPA.

In the meantime, this case serves as another strong incentive to
implement and maintain reasonable data security as a defense
against such claims. [GN]


HERTZ CORP: Graham Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Meal & Rest Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-at-00167 (E.D. Cal., March 4, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code including failing to pay overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, failing to provide
required meal and rest periods, and failing to reimburse necessary
expenditures.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a damage appraiser
in Fresno, California from March 2015 through approximately June
2019.

The Hertz Corporation is a for-profit corporation, which owns and
operates Hertz rental car facilities and locations across the
United States at airports and other non-airport locations. It is
headquartered at 8501 Williams Road in Estero, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -
           
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076          
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -
           
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101          
          Telephone: (619) 762-2125
          Facsimile: (619) 762-2127

IRINOX NA: De Pombo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. De Pombo and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Irinox North America, Inc. and John Horvath, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-20533 (S.D. Fla., December 24, 2019), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages
still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief.

De Pombo worked for Irinox as a parts and service representative of
blast chillers from January 15, 2018 to December 9, 2019. De Pombo
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours weekly without being
paid overtime wages for work performed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


JTS MODULAR: Vargas Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JTS Modular, Inc. The
case is styled as Jaime Cazares Vargas, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JTS Modular,
Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-100645
(Cal., Super., March 4, 2020).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.

JTS Modular, Inc. provides construction services. The Company
offers wide variety of modular homes. JTS Modular serves customers
in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
   222 N Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 1550
   El Segundo, CA 90245


JUUL LABS: Soulas Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, SEBASTIAN SOULAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. f/k/a PAX
LABS, INC. f/k/a PLOOM PRODUCTS, INC.; and PAX LABS, INC. f/k/a PAX
LABS (DEUX), INC., Defendants, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No.
2:20-cv-00489-LMA-JVM) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 5, 2020. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01615-WHO.

The case alleges the deceptive advertising of JUUL electronic
cigarettes, particularly the level of nicotine concentrations which
can cause addiction to consumers, specially the youth.

JUUL Labs, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based electronic
cigarette manufacturer. It was authorized to do business under the
name Ploom Products, Inc. It changed its name to PAX Labs, Inc. and
subsequently to JUUL Labs, Inc.

PAX Labs, Inc. is an electronic vaporizer company based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
          Henry Saint Paul Provosty, Esq.
          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2700
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          E-mail: ebelin@provostylaw.com
                  egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                  hprovosty@provostylaw.com

               - and -
           
          Matt Schultz, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA
          316 South Baylen Street
          Pensacola, FL 32502        
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com

KENTUCKY RETIREMENT: Declaratory Judgment in Cities Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF FORT WRIGHT, KENTUCKY; CITY OF COVINGTON,
KENTUCKY; CITY OF TAYLOR MILL, KENTUCKY; AND CITY OF INDEPENDENCE,
KENTUCKY, Appellants/Cross-Appellees. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case Nos.
2018-CA-001518-MR, 2018-CA-001569-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the judgment of the Franklin Circuit
Court denying the Cities' motion for declaratory judgment and
granting the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems'
cross-motion for declaratory judgment.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Board of Trustees of the
Kentucky Retirement Systems was permitted by statute to make
certain types of investments on behalf of the County Employees
Retirement System ("CERS").  

The case was previously before the Appellate Court on interlocutory
appeal.  The Board sought to determine whether it was entitled to
sovereign immunity.  The Cities and their employees participate in
CERS.  CERS is a public retirement system created under Kentucky
Revised Statutes ("KRS") 78.510 et seq.  It is administered by the
Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems.

The City of Fort Wright filed a class action complaint against the
Board in Kenton Circuit Court, on behalf of itself and all other
participants in CERS.  The complaint alleged the Board had violated
its statutory and fiduciary obligations by placing CERS funds in
unauthorized and high-risk alternative assets investments, and the
Board had paid substantial management fees (exceeding $50 million
over a period of five years) in connection with these inappropriate
investments.  The complaint sought a declaration of the rights of
the parties, to enjoin the Board from investing CERS assets in
funds that are not registered pursuant to the Federal Investment
Company Act of 1940, and to enjoin the Board from using CERS assets
to pay management fees for such investments.  It sought an
accounting from the Board for the previous five years and a
segregation and reallocation of investment assets in the three
funds the Board administers: CERS, the Kentucky Employees
Retirement System ("KERS") and the State Police Retirement
Systems.

The Board moved to dismiss.  The Kenton Circuit Court transferred
the case to the Franklin Circuit Court, which entered an order
denying the motion to dismiss.  The Board then moved the court
specifically to address its sovereign immunity defense.  The trial
court issued another order expressly ruling sovereign immunity did
not bar the action.

The Board's interlocutory appeal followed, and the Appellate Court
held the Board waived its entitlement to sovereign immunity.  Then,
the trial court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for a
declaratory judgment.  The trial court found that the Board had
broad discretion in making investments, and the investments it made
were permitted by Kentucky law.  The appeal followed.

On appeal, the Cities argue the standard for investing CERS funds
is more restrictive than the standard for investing KERS funds.
Participation in CERS, like KERS, is "controlled by statute."  

The Appellate Court holds that KRS 78.780(1) requires CERS to be
administered in the same manner as KERS, so the standard for
investing the assets of both funds must be the same.  Therefore,
the "prudent person" standard in KRS 61.650 also applies to CERS
investments, and the trial court correctly concluded that the
investments made on behalf of CERS were permitted by Kentucky law.
Because the Appellate Court will affirm the trial court's ruling on
the merits, the arguments raised in the Board's cross-appeal will
be rendered moot.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the
Franklin Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 10, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/zV9WGH from Leagle.com.

Ronald R. Parry -- rrparry@strausstroy.com -- Robert R. Sparks --
rrsparks@strausstroy.com -- Amy L. Hunt -- alhunt@strausstroy.com
-- Cincinnati, Ohio.

Counsel for City of Fort Wright, Kentucky: Todd V. McMurtry --
tmcmurtry@hemmerlaw.com -- Fort Mitchell, Kentucky.

Counsel for City of Covington, Kentucky: Michael Bartlett,
Covington, Kentucky.

Counsel for City of Taylor Mill, Kentucky: Frank A. Wichmann,
Erlanger, Kentucky.

Counsel for City of Independence, Kentucky: Jack S. Gatlin, Fort
Mitchell, Kentucky, Joint Briefs for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Robert W. Kellerman -- robert.kellerman@skofirm.com -- Frankfort,
Kentucky, Briefs for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


MAMMA LOMBARDI'S: Gonzalez Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mamma Lombardi's of
Holbrook, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Gonzalez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mamma
Lombardi's of Holbrook, Inc., Lombardi Caterers, Inc., Qurino
Lombardi, Jerry Lombar, Defendants, Case No. 605023/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., March 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the case type as Other Tort Case.

Mamma Lombardi's of Holbrook, Inc. is a time-tested, family-run
Italian spot for classic dishes & pizza in a brick-lined space with
a patio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC
   25 Melville Park RD Suite 235
   Melville, NY 11747
   Tel: (631) 352-0050


MANHATTAN CONCRETE: Breaches Subcontract, Midtown-Ren Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MIDTOWN-REN ENTERPRISE INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN CONCRETE, LLC;
NIALL P. GILLESPIE; and SEAN HENRY, Defendants, Index No.
651490/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 5, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of New York Lien Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their
construction subcontract by failing to fully pay Plaintiff for the
labor, materials, work, equipment and services furnished in
connection with a construction project for the construction of a
hotel at 112-16 Astoria Boulevard, Queens, New York. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants consented to and participated in the
diversion of trust assets, which it should have received. It seeks
to recover total damage amounting to $293,967.05, plus applicable
interest thereon.

Midtown-Ren Enterprise Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with a principal
place of business in the County of Richmond, New York.

Manhattan Concrete, LLC is a concrete and construction management
contractor with a principal place of business located at 511 Canal
Street, 6th Floor, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RagSmond A. Castronovo, Esq.
          TORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
          333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
          Uniondale, NY 11553          
          Telephone: (516) 248-1700

MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Blanco Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled WILFREDO BLANCO, An
Individual; On Behalf Of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated
Non-Exempt Current and Former Employees v. MCKESSON
MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 1926637, was removed on Nov. 8, 2019,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09634 to the
proceeding.

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff Wilfredo Blanco filed a Class
Action Complaint against the Defendant in San Bernardino Superior
Court.  The Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) failure
to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal breaks; (3) failure to
provide rest breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) failure to pay
all hours worked; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements;
and (7) unlawful business practices under Business and Professions
Code, Section 17200.

McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. is a corporation organized and
incorporated under the laws of the state of Virginia, with its
principal place of business located in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

Defendant McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc. is represented by:

          Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: tdarrow@littler.com

               - and -

          Alecia Whitaker Winfield, Esq.
          Alexandria M. Witte, Esq.
          Cassidy C. Veal, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: awinfield@littler.com
                  awitte@littler.com
                  cveal@littler.com


MDL 2924: Coggins Suit Consolidated in Product Liability Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michelle Coggins and Sandra R. Weeks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc.,
Chattem Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-20060, was transferred from New Jersey
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
February 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80286-RLR.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Torts -
Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury/Product Liability.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Bradley Keith King, Esq.
   Ahdoot & Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Eric Francis Gladbach, Esq.
   King & Spalding LLP
   1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 556-2206
   Fax: (212) 556-2222
   Email: egladbach@kslaw.com

     - and -

   Shankar Duraiswamy, Esq.
   Covington & Burling LLP
   One CityCenter
   850 Tenth Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20001-4956
   Tel: (202) 662-5273
   Email: sduraiswamy@cov.com

MDL 2924: Colon Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carmen Colon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from New Jersey
with the assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-20023 to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida on February 25, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 9:20-cv-80284-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Product Liability.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq.
   Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC
   112 Madison Avenue
   7TH FLOOR
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 784-6400
   Fax: (212) 213-5949
   Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Eric Francis Gladbach, Esq.
   King & Spalding LLP
   1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 556-2206
   Fax: (212) 556-2222
   Email: egladbach@kslaw.com


MDL 2924: Froehlich Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Froehlich, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Walmart Inc, Defendants, was transferred
from New York Southern with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11632 to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach) on February 26, 2020, and assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80304-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
     Vozzolo LLC



MDL 2924: Guy Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Denise Guy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC,
Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the
Illinois Northern with the assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00454 to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach)
on February 26, 2020, and assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80311-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MDL 2924: Neary Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Francis Neary, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from New Jersey
with the assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-20484 to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on February
26, 2020, and assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80294-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product
Liability.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lee Albert, Esq.
   Murray, Frank & Sailer
   275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 682-1818
   Email: lalbert@murrayfrank.com


MDL 2924: Ragis Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eric Ragis, Lisa Ragis and Ronald Ragis, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi U.S. Services Inc., Chattem
Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Glaxo Smith
Kline LLC, Defendants, was transferred from Vermont with the
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00231 to the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on March 4, 202, and assigned
Case No. 9:20-cv-80373-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Ruben Honik, Esq.
   Golomb & Honik PC
   1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 985-9177
   Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com


MDL 2924: Souza Suit Consolidated in Products Liability Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Herbert Souza and Sara Souza, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi U.S. Services Inc., Chattem Inc.,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Glaxo Smith Kline
LLC, Defendants, was transferred from California Central with the
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02161 to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on March 3, 2020,
and assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-80368-RLR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Consequently, the case was consolidated in IN RE: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL Case No.
9:20-md-02924-RLR.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures,, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Allan Kanner, Esq.
   Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
   Kanner & Whiteley, LLC
   701 Camp Street
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 524-5777
   Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
         c.whiteley@kanner-law.com

      - and -

   David J. Stanoch, Esq.
   Ruben Honik, Esq.
   Golomb & Honik, P.C.
   1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 965-9177
   Email: dstanoch@golombhonik.com
         rhonik@golombhonik.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Christopher M. Young, Esq.
   DLA Piper LLP (US)
   401 B Street, Suite 1700
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 699-2700
   Email: Christopher.Young@dlapiper.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Emissions Suit Remanded to Reassess Arbitration Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated in part a
district court order partially denying Mercedes Manufacturers'
motion to dismiss the Fourth Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint, and remanded for the district court to evaluate the
Mercedes Manufacturers' motion to compel arbitration on state-law
grounds in the Mercedes Benz Emissions Litigation.

The interlocutory appeal about compelled arbitration arises out of
a broader dispute regarding Mercedes BlueTEC diesel vehicles.  That
wider controversy involves a putative class action of individual
buyers who purchased Mercedes BlueTEC diesel vehicles from Mercedes
dealerships, believing that those vehicles were 'clean diesel' when
allegedly they were not.  From those allegations, 60 named
Plaintiffs bring an array of claims as a nationwide class for
violations of federal law and as 33 subclasses for violations of
various state laws.  Those claims are directed not against the
dealerships but rather against two manufacturers, Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC and Daimler AG, as well as their software suppliers.  The
two manufacturer Defendants, the 'Mercedes Manufacturers,' moved to
dismiss the initial complaint, and that led to several cycles of
amended complaints and subsequent motions to dismiss.

The Mercedes Manufacturers take the instant appeal from the
District Court's partial denial of their motion to dismiss the
Fourth Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.  Although
that motion presented numerous bases for dismissal, only one of
those -- the request to compel arbitration -- is at issue in the
interlocutory appeal.  That request to compel arbitration relates
to two named Plaintiffs, Gwendolyn Andary and Darrell Feller, who
purchased vehicles from Mercedes dealerships, one located in
California, the other in Virginia.

In seeking to compel arbitration, the Mercedes Manufacturers rely
on the terms of the purchase agreements between those dealerships
and Andary and Feller.  But those purchase agreements do not
mention the Mercedes Manufacturers, nor are the Mercedes
Manufacturers signatories to those agreements.  On the briefing
before it, the District Court rejected the argument that the
purchase agreements compelled Andary and Feller to arbitrate with
the Mercedes Manufacturers directly or as third-party
beneficiaries.  The Mercedes Manufacturers noticed an interlocutory
appeal as permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Neither side appears content with the record for the interlocutory
appeal.  For the first time on appeal, the Mercedes Manufacturers
raise a 'gateway' arbitrability defense.  Meanwhile, Andary,
Feller, and the other named Plaintiffs have augmented the District
Court docket during the pendency of the appeal.  Andary and Feller
filed a joint notice of voluntary dismissal under Civil Rule 41 in
an attempt to dismiss themselves, without prejudice, as named
Plaintiffs.  Shortly afterwards, the remaining named Plaintiffs
filed a Fifth Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint,
which did not include either Andary or Feller as a named Plaintiff.
That amended pleading did, however, define the putative nationwide
class and two subclasses such that Andary and Feller would be
included as class members.  Based upon those filings, Andary and
Feller moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, even though they remain
as putative class members under the most recent amended complaint.

From this unusually fluid posture, two central issues emerge on
appeal.  First is the question of whether the appeal is moot.
Second is the issue of whether the District Court erred in not
compelling Andary or Feller to arbitrate with the Mercedes
Manufacturers.

The Third Circuit holds that a choice-of-law analysis is needed to
resolve the question of which state substantive law governs the
construction of these arbitration clauses.  But in advancing their
arguments on compelled arbitration, the parties have not provided
any choice-of-law analysis on appeal.  Nor did the District Court
conduct such an analysis.

That is a problem: without a choice-of-law analysis and subsequent
application of the appropriate state substantive law, it cannot be
conclusively determined whether Andary's and Feller's purchase
agreements compel them to arbitrate with the Mercedes
Manufacturers.  The choice-of-law analysis should have been
performed by the District Court.  

For these reasons set forth, the Third Circuit held that the appeal
is not moot, and vacated the District Court's order in part and
remanded the matter to the District Court to evaluate the Mercedes
Manufacturers' motion to compel arbitration on state-law grounds.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Jan. 10, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/YY8WqR from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is In re: MERCEDES-BENZ EMISSIONS LITIGATION.
ULYANA LYNEVYCH; JOHN LINGUA; JIMMY BIRD; JONATHAN MOSE; ARTHUR
DASCHKE; RICHARD YANUS; WALTER LOUIS; KEITH CANIERO; CAROLINE A.
LEDLIE; CHANDRAKANT PATEL; TIFFANY KNIGHT; SUSAN ALBERS; CRAIG
THORSON; SHELBY A. JORDAN; GWENDOLYN ANDARY; SCOTT MORGAN; HENRY
SILVERIO; DEDRICK WATKINS; TERRENCE GARMEY; WENDELL DINGLE; SEID
DILGISIC; JORGE SALVADOR SERVIN; ANDREW DEUTSCH; DEVIN DOWNS;
FREDDIE T. HOLBROOK; GEOFFREY C. CUNNINGHAM; BILLY FOX; LORRIE
VIDAL; JAMES EDWARDS; SHEILA REED; ZBIGNIEW KURZAWA; JANICE SHEEHY;
BRADFORD SMITH; GUSTAVO FRAGA-ERRECART; ROBERT TREPPER; JAMES
SCHAFER; VINCENT MINERVA; HENRY SILVERADO; JEFF FINDLAY; ANDREW H.
RUBEY; CHRISTOPHER GATES; DARRELL FELLER; STEPHEN CARROLL; DAVID I.
ASHCRAFT; LARS DANNENBERG; ADRIAN CLIVE ROBERTS; RANDOLPH ROLLE;
GINA McVEY; ANTHONY CAPUTO; CATHERINE ROBERTS; KEITH HALL; FLAVIO
MOY; A. ERIC NGWASHI; BOBBY HAMILTON; MARYANA MELNYK; PAUL
HERRMANN; LYNN DOHERTY MUNOE; BRENDA ONEAL; CHARLES WOLFORD; THOMAS
WEISS; JOHN LAURINO; ANDREW DEUTSCH; MICHAEL MEDLER; DR. GREGORY
CHAN; LARS DANNBERG; HASSAN ZAVAREEI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; HAGOP BAZRGANIAN; ROBERT GERSHBERG;
MELANIE JOHNSON; DEREK STEELBERG, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, A
Delaware Limited Liability Company; DAIMLER AG; ROBERT BOSCH LLC;
ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC; DETROIT DIESEL
CORPORATION; DAIMLER VANS USA, LLC; DAIMLER VEHICLE INNOVATIONS,
LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation; CALSTAR MOTORS, a Mercedes
Benz Dealer; CARRIE KENNY, an individual; DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and DAIMLER AG, Appellants, Case
No. 19-1484 (3d Cir.).

Matthew J. Kemner -- matthew.kemner@squirepb.com -- Troy M. Yoshino
-- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs, San Francisco,
CA.

Daniel W. Nelson -- dnelson@gibsondunn.com -- Lucas C. Townsend --
ltownsend@gibsondunn.com -- [ARGUED], Gibson Dunn & Crutcher,
Washington, DC, Counsel for Appellants Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, and
Daimler AG.

James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Lindsey H. Taylor --
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olsteing Brody &
Agnello, Roseland, NJ.

Steven W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, Seattle, WA.

Kevin K. Green -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- [ARGUED], Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, San Diego, CA, Counsel for Appellees Gwendolyn
Andary and Darrell Feller.


MULTI-TEMPS STAFFING: Ellis Sues Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICKIE ELLIS and EARNEST GREGORY, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated laborers v. Multi-Temps STAFFING AGENCY, INC.,
and PROVIDE CREATIONS d/b/a PERSONAL CREATIONS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-07483 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2019), arises under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the Civil Rights Act of 1866
for the Defendants' discrimination against African-American
laborers in their practices of assigning work.

Multi-Temps is a temporary staffing agency that assigns temporary
laborers in its labor pool to its third-party client companies for
a fee, including to Defendant Personal Creations. Beginning in
November 2017, the Plaintiffs say they sought work assignments
through Multi-Temps to work at its client companies, including
Personal Creations.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated
African American laborers were denied assignment to client
companies of Multi-Temps because of their race.  At one point, the
Plaintiffs note, they were assigned by Multi-Temps to work at its
client company, Personal Creations, but they and other similarly
situated African American laborers assigned to Personal Creations
by Multi-Temps were subjected to worse treatment by the Defendants
because of their race.

Multi-Temps Staffing, Inc., has been a corporation organized under
the laws of the state of Illinois and has been an "employment
agency," operating as an employment agency with a branch office
located in Cicero, Illinois.  Personal Creations has been a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


MYLAN NV: Gott Files RICO Class Action in Kansas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mylan N.V. The case
is styled as Troy Gott, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mylan N.V., Mylan Specialty L.P.,
Pfizer Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02099 (D. Kan., March 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

Mylan N.V. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals
company domiciled in the Netherlands, with principal executive
offices in Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK and a "Global Center" in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
   Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
   Sharp Barton, LLP
   5301 West 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Email: ryan@sharpbarton.com



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Humphrey Suit Transferred to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daryl Humphrey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00359, was
transferred from Indiana Southern Court to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February
25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01292.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
   Raizner Slania, Llp
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Quinney Suit Transferred to Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gregory Quinney, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Tuskegee University, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00369, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
February 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01302.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
   Raizner Slania, Llp
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com



NATIONAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Luis Sanchez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Credit Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00237
(W.D. Tex., March 3, 2020).

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

National Credit Systems, Inc. provides debt recovery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Improperly Collect Processing Fee, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MULLEN, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR.
COOPER, Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-20519 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect processing fees.

The Plaintiff is the owner of a house at 16018 Rosecroft Terrace,
Delray Beach, Florida 33446, which is subject to a mortgage
serviced by Nationstar. Nationstar has a uniform practice of
knowingly charging illegal and improper "processing fees" when
payments on the mortgage are made over the phone or online,
although neither the mortgage nor Florida Law expressly authorizes
those fees.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans. Mr. Cooper serves client in
the state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          Facsimile: (786) 298-5737
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com


NCAA: Patterson et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, TIMOTHY PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY, Defendants, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana (Case No. 1:19-cv-05001) to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on February 24, 2020. The clerk
of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01285.

The case alleges the Defendants' failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other JCSU student-athletes
from the long-term dangers of concussions and concussion-related
injuries.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association with its principal place of business located at 700
West Washington Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
                 
               - and -
           
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654          
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                 
               - and -
           
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107         
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NEVARES LAW: Court Dismisses Martinez Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Francisco A. Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico dismissed without prejudice the case,
HECTOR MARTINEZ, CRUCITA PAGAN and RONALDO ROBLES-MENENDEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOCIATES, P.S.C.; SALAS, LC,
Defendants, Civil No. 18-1400 (FAB) (D. P.R.).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The Defendants represented Plaintiffs in a prior class action
litigation.  That litigation was settled on a class-wide basis.
The settlement funds were deposited into Nevares' trust account.
The Defendants were entitled to reimbursement of their
litigation-related expenses to be paid from the settlement funds
before distributions to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs assert five claims against the Defendants.  Three of
the claims -- breach of implied contract, breach of contract on
behalf of a retained subclass, and unjust enrichment -- concern
allegations that the Defendants withdrew more money than that to
which they were entitled from the settlement amounts deposited into
Nevares' trust account.  The Plaintiffs assert that for each of
these claims, damages should exceed the sum of $5 million,
exclusive of interest and attorney's fees.

The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants breached a
fiduciary duty.  The Defendants did so, the Plaintiffs allege, by
(i) withdrawing from the settlement amounts more money than that to
which they were entitled, and (ii) surreptitiously and improperly
settling the Plaintiffs' claims without their expressed, or even
implied consent, to enter into any settling agreement, all to
further their own economic aims over those of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' fifth claim asserts that the Defendants have been
obstinate in the prosecution in the prosecution of their claim,
and, as a result thereof, owe damages, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest.  No dollar amount is specified for these
claims either.

Judge Besosa holds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
show with sufficient particularity indicating that it is not a
legal certainty that the claim involves less than the
jurisdictional amount.  The Plaintiffs' claims do not satisfy
CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement.  Even if the amount in
controversy regarding the difference between the settlement amount
and the amounts for which the claims should have been settled would
reach the $5 million benchmark, the record is silent as to how the
amount would be reached.  The Plaintiffs have presented no facts on
the matter.

Accordingly, Judge Besosa granted the motions to dismiss, and
vacated as moot the supplemental motion to dismiss.  The case is
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/VwEgkH from Leagle.com.

Hector Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Crucita Pagan, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Ronaldo Robles-Menendez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jay
P. Dinan, Parker Waichman, LLP, pro hac vice, Jay L. Breakstone,
Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Schell-Asad, Schell Law
Office.

Law Offices of John F. Nevares & Associates, PSC, Defendant,
represented by John F. Nevares -- jfnevares@nevareslaw.com -- John
F. Nevares & Assoc. PSC & Ramon E. Dapena --
ramon.dapena@mbcdlaw.com -- Morell Cartagena & Dapena.

Salas, LC, Defendant, represented by Ivan M. Fernandez, Ivan M.
Fernandez Law Office.


NIAGARA CREDIT: Surita Files Suit Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niagara Credit
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Cheryl Surita, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02328
(D.N.J., March 3, 2020).

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

Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc. is a full service national
collection agency that specializes in the recovery of charged off
credit card, consumer loan, student loan and auto deficiency
accounts in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NORTHWEST PALLET: Collects Biometric Data, Castaneda Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RENE CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST PALLET SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
NORTHWEST PALLET SUPPLY and NORTHWEST PALLET HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2020CH02749 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 5,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants' violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants required her and all
others similarly-situated employees to use their fingerprints as a
means of authentication to track their work time. The Defendants
failed to inform Plaintiff and class members of the specific
limited purposes or length of time for which they collected,
stored, or used fingerprints, thereby putting them at risk of
identity theft.

Northwest Pallet Services, LLC is a pallet supplier and
manufacturer that conducts business throughout Illinois, including
in Cook County. The company is also doing business as Northwest
Pallet Supply.

Northwest Pallet Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Belvidere,
Illinois. It is the holding company for Northwest Pallet Services,
LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563          
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com

OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action Over Sales Pricing Tactic
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Old Navy concocted a scheme to artificially
inflate the original prices of its clothing during in-store sales
to trick consumers into thinking prices had been cut, according to
a putative class action removed to New Jersey federal court on Feb.
11. [GN]



PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Senquiz Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Recovery
Systems, L.P. The case is styled as Yalitza Senquiz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Paramount Recovery Systems, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-00166
(W.D. Tex., March 3, 2020).

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

Paramount Recovery Systems LP is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Adams, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Parts Distribution Xpress, Inc., PDX North, Inc. and
PDX South, Inc. and PDX West, LLC., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00697, (E.D. Pa., February 6, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the fair Labor Standards Act.

PDX operates as delivery/courier service where Adams worked as a
Driver/Courier. PDX allegedly misclassified her as an independent
contractor thus denied her overtime pay and minimum wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd.
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 967-5377
      Fax: (954) 327-3016
      Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Kimberly D. Archangelis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
      Email: kimd@forthepeople.com


PINPOINT PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cameron Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CAMERON, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. PINPOINT PIPELINE INSPECTION & TESTING, LLC and BUCKEYE
PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 4:19-cv-04419 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants do not pay their day rate workers
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Defendants, instead, pay their Day Rate Workers a flat daily
rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess
of 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff argues
that the Defendants' day rate pay plan violates the FLSA, the PMWA
and the Ohio Acts because the Day Rate Workers are owed overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rates.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Safety Inspector from
October 2017 to August 2018 in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

Pinpoint is a Texas limited liability company with its headquarters
in Rotan, Texas.  Pinpoint provides pipeline inspection and testing
services, line locating services, NDE services, welder
certifications, anomaly assessments, GPS marking & locating
services, and cathodic protection related services.

Buckeye is a publicly traded master partnership organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware and with its principal executive
offices in Houston, Texas.  Buckeye "owns and operates a
diversified global network of integrated assets providing midstream
logistic solutions, primarily consisting of the transportation,
storage, processing and marketing of liquid petroleum
products."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mburke@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Zalmen Lebron, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 7:20-cv-01894 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA, LLC) was founded in 1996
and is one of the nation's largest debt collectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com




PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action in NJ Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. was
smacked on Feb. 11 with a proposed class action in New Jersey
federal court alleging that the energy company made prerecorded
telemarketing calls to thousands of consumers' cellphones without
their prior consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. [GN]


Q FIFTY ONE: Taylor Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Q Fifty One LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Todd
Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Q Fifty One LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00057-LMM
(N.D. Ga., March 3, 2020).

Q Fifty One is a Texas-based retailer and operator of menswear
marketplace, Rye 51 and custom-suit store, Q Clothier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
   The Oaks Firm
   3895 Brookgreen Pt.
   Decatur, GA 30034
   Tel: (404) 725-5697
   Fax: (775) 320-3695
   Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com



ROCKWELL TIME: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
Rockwell Time Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rockwell Time Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01902
(S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Rockwell Time Inc. offers watches for men & women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEMIHANDMADE INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Semihandmade Incorporated is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Semihandmade Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01903 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Semihandmade makes custom doors for Ikea kitchen cabinets,
bathroom, media and storage systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




SILL INC: Crosson Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------
The Sill, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Aretha
Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. The Sill, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01181 (E.D. N.Y., March 4, 2020).

The Sill, Inc. provides Internet based services. The Company sells
potted plants through online and in stores. Sill serves customers
in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



SIX FLAGS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G"), on Feb. 12, 2020, filed a class action
lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation ("Six Flags" or the "Company") and
certain of the Company's current and former senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants"), on behalf of investors in Six Flags
common stock between April 25, 2018 and January 9, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

BLB&G filed this action on behalf of its client, the Electrical
Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., and the case is
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-00346 (N.D. Tex.).
The complaint is based on an extensive proprietary investigation
and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the
complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here.   

Six Flags' Alleged Fraud

Six Flags is the world's largest regional theme park operator. The
claims alleged in this case arise from Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions relating to the Company's
prospects of developing Six Flags-branded parks in China through
licensing agreements with Chinese real estate developer, Riverside
Investment Group Co. Ltd. ("Riverside"), and the financial problems
at Riverside.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and growth prospects related to its
agreements with Riverside to develop parks in China. As development
of those parks began to face delays, Defendants misled investors by
downplaying the problems as "short-term" and "not material in the
context of the long-term opportunity."  Defendants also assured
investors that Riverside was "work[ing] through" the macroeconomic
issues in China and that Riverside was in "great shape"
financially. In truth, Riverside was in severe financial distress
and did not have the resources to timely complete its projects with
Six Flags. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of
Six Flags' common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

The truth emerged through a series of disclosures, beginning on
February 14, 2019, when Six Flags announced a negative $15 million
revenue adjustment for the fourth quarter of 2018 due to delays in
the expected opening dates of some of its China parks, which the
Company falsely blamed on macroeconomic issues in China.

Then, on October 23, 2019, Six Flags again postponed the timing of
its park openings in China, stating "it's unrealistic to think it's
going to be exactly as we've outlined."

Finally, on January 10, 2020, the Company disclosed that the
development of its Six Flags-branded parks in China continued to
encounter challenges and had not progressed as expected, placing
the future of its China parks in jeopardy. The Company also
revealed that Riverside continued to face significant financial
challenges, which caused Riverside to default on its payment
obligations to Six Flags. As a result of these disclosures, the
price of Six Flags common stock declined precipitously.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than April 13, 2020, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of February 12, 2020. Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Michael D.
Blatchley of BLB&G at 212-554-1281, or via e-mail at
michaelb@blbglaw.com.

                          About BLB&G

BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- is widely recognized worldwide
as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues
related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities
litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an
international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered
the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting
governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained
several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries
in history, recovering over $33 billion on behalf of defrauded
investors. [GN]


STAMPS.COM INC: Loses Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.

                    About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- 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. Attorney advertising. Past
results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


SUN TAN CITY: Caraboolad Telemarketing Row Moved to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Caraboolad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sun Tan City, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-CV-444-CRS (W.D. K.Y., June 19, 2019), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on January
27, 2020 under Case No. 20-cv-80109.

Caraboolad seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. His phone is registered with the Do Not Call
Registry.

Sun Tan City is a chain of sun tanning salons that are located
throughout the United States. It engages in text message
telemarketing and sent 10 unsolicited text messages to Caraboolad
cellular 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, Florida 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

             - and -

      Larry D. Ashlock, Esq.
      ASHLOCK LAW GROUP, PLLC
      236 W. Dixie Ave.
      Elizabethtown, KY 42701
      Tel: (270) 360-0470
      Email: info@ashlocklawgroup.com

Sun Tan City, LLC is represented by:

      Ian M. Ross, Esq.
      STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
      Two S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 614-1400
      Email: iross@sfslaw.com

             - and -

      Stephen Beville Pence, Esq.
      PENCE & WHETZELL, PLLC
      9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 1205
      Louisville, KY 40222
      Email: (502) 736-6200


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Bartle et al. Suit for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE BARTLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDINGS CORP, Defendant, Case
No. 2016-CV02520 (Mo. Cir., 16th Judicial, Jackson Cty., March 4,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to the Missouri Rules of
Civil Procedure.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated individuals entered into a brokerage account
agreement with Scottrade, Inc., a stock brokerage firm acquired by
the Defendant in 2017. Scottrade breached the agreement by
hypothecating securities in their accounts during the 10-year
period preceding the filing of the complaint, and failed to
compensate them for the amount that they should have received. As a
result of the company's hypothecation activities, the Plaintiff and
all others brokerage account owners suffered losses.

TD Ameritrade Holdings Corp. is a brokerage firm based in Omaha,
Nebraska. It acquired financial services companies Scottrade, Inc.
and Scottrade Financial Services, Inc. in 2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 256-4699
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: Dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -
           
          Jared A. Rose, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE
          919 West 47th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-4335
          Facsimile: (816) 873-5406
          E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com

TELEFLORA LLC: Rodriguez Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Teleflora LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Angel
Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Teleflora LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01179 (E.D. N.Y., March 4, 2020).

Teleflora is a floral wire service company which brokers orders to
local florists for delivery. It has been a subsidiary of The
Wonderful Company since 1979.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TESLA INC: Issa Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Issa, on behalf of himself and all persons and entities
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Tesla, Inc. and Does 1 - 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV04975, (Cal. Super., February
6, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide meal/rest breaks and itemized wage
statements pursuant to California labor code, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Tesla is a manufacturer of electric vehicles where Issa worked as a
Gallery Advisor and Energy Advisor from April 9, 2018 to May 16,
2019, at Tesla's various stores and galleries throughout Southern
California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Telephone: (818) 221-2800
     Fax: (818) 221-2900
     Email: armand@kizirianlaw.com


TK SUPPLEMENTS: Cunningham Wants TCPA Privacy Provisions Enforced
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham v. TK Supplements, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00816
(E.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought on behalf of a class of all
other persons or entities similarly situated to the Plaintiff
throughout the United States to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, TK sent automated text message calls to
cellular telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff's, which is
prohibited by the TCPA.  The Plaintiff contends that he never
consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for
telemarketing purposes.

TK Supplements, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Pennsylvania.  The Company sells
medical supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., #800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


TOWNCREST PHARMACY: Summary Judgment in Catamaran Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Catamaran Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Towncrest Pharmacy; Clark's Pharmacy; Meyer's Healthmart Pharmacy;
Osterhaus Pharmacy, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 17-3501 (8th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the district court order granting Catamaran's motion for summary
judgment.

Catamaran is a pharmacy benefit manager.  It contracts with
entities that sponsor, administer, or otherwise participate in
prescription drug benefit plans.  Among other services, Catamaran
reimburses pharmacies that furnish prescription drugs to plan
members.

At issue are two agreements for such reimbursements between the
pharmacies and Catamaran's predecessors-in-interest, SXC Health
Solutions Corp. and Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc.  The pharmacies
entered into these agreements through a pharmacy services
administration organization, AccessHealth, of which the pharmacies
are members.  AccessHealth acted as attorney-in-fact for the
pharmacies and signed the agreements on their behalf.  Both
agreements contain arbitration provisions.  

After a dispute between the parties arose, the pharmacies filed a
demand for class arbitration with the AAA.  Catamaran initiated an
action in the district court seeking to prevent the pharmacies from
pursuing class arbitration.  Catamaran then moved for summary
judgment and the district court denied the motion, finding that the
agreements committed the class arbitration question to an
arbitrator.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the question
of whether the agreements provide for class arbitration is a
substantive question of arbitrability, and thus presumptively a
question for the court to decide, and the agreements did not
otherwise commit the question to an arbitrator.  It remanded the
case to the district court to determine whether such a 'contractual
basis' for class arbitration exists in the agreements between
Catamaran and the pharmacies.  On remand, the district court found
that there was no such contractual basis.  The district court thus
granted Catamaran's motion for summary judgment and entered the
requested declaratory judgment prohibiting class arbitration.  

The pharmacies now appeal.  They argue the district court erred
because the agreements establish a contractual basis for class
arbitration.

The Eighth Circuit must determine whether there is an affirmative
contractual basis to conclude that the parties agreed to class
arbitration.  The Eighth Circuit finds that the pharmacies offer
several textual arguments in support of their claim that the
parties implicitly authorized the pharmacies to proceed as a class
in the event of a dispute.  Specifically, they cite the fact that
one attorney-in-fact brokered and signed the two agreements on
behalf of all of the pharmacies, that the arbitration provisions
are broad in scope, and that the agreements refer to the pharmacies
as a single entity.  However, the pharmacies have not presented any
relevant authority for the proposition that such facts support a
finding of implicit authorization of class arbitration.  The
pharmacies offer only Illinois state court decisions for the
general principle that the court will find an implied term when it
was so clearly in contemplation of the parties as that they deemed
unnecessary to express it or that it is necessary to imply such a
covenant in order to give effect to and effectuate the purpose of
the contract as a whole.

The Eighth Circuit concludes the agreements are not inconsistent
with individual arbitration and do not support the conclusion that
the parties intended class arbitration and believed that intent was
so evident from the terms of the written agreements that it was
unnecessary to express that intent within the agreements
themselves.  Accordingly, there is no contractual basis to conclude
that the parties implicitly authorized class arbitration.

Because there is no contractual basis to conclude that the parties
agreed to class arbitration, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
district court ruling.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's Jan. 10, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/og5vJs from Leagle.com.

Bruce Henry Stoltze, Sr., for Defendant-Appellant.

Jacqueline K. Samuelson -- samuelson@whitfieldlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Michael Casini -- casini@whitfieldlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bruce Henry Stoltze, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Fund Appeals Dismissal of Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund, et al. filed an appeal from a
court decision in the case captioned, THE ARBITRAGE EVENT-DRIVEN
FUND; THE ARBITRAGE FUND AND THE WATER ISLAND MERGER ARBITRAGE
INSTITUTIONAL COMMINGLED MASTER FUND, L.P.; FNY PARTNERS FUND LP;
and FNY MANAGED ACCOUNTS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY;
PETER M. KERN; CHANDLER BIGELOW; CRAIG A. JACOBSON; ROSS LEVINSOHN;
PETER E. MURPHY; LAURA R. WALKER; OAKTREE TRIBUNE, L.P.; OAKTREE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06175 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2018).

The appeal was filed on February 4, 2020, before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and captioned as, THE ARBITRAGE
EVENT-DRIVEN FUND; THE ARBITRAGE FUND AND THE WATER ISLAND MERGER
ARBITRAGE INSTITUTIONAL COMMINGLED MASTER FUND, L.P.; FNY PARTNERS
FUND LP; and FNY MANAGED ACCOUNTS, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY; PETER M. KERN; CHANDLER BIGELOW; CRAIG A. JACOBSON; ROSS
LEVINSOHN; PETER E. MURPHY; LAURA R. WALKER; OAKTREE TRIBUNE, L.P.;
OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01183 (7th Cir.).

In a Jan. 6, 2020 decision, Illinois District Judge Charles Kocoras
granted three separate motions by (1) Defendants Tribune Media
Company, Peter Kern, Chandler Bigelow, Craig A. Jacobson, Ross
Levinsohn, Peter E. Murphy, and Laura R. Walker; (2) Defendants
Oaktree Tribune, L.P. and Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.; and (3)
Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, seeking dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint over the Company's
failed merger deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group.

By the close of trading on July 16, 2018 -- when the Federal
Communications Commission unveiled concerns over the deal --
Tribune's stock price had fallen 16%, or $6.44 per share, wiping
out more than $564 million in market capitalization.  On August 9,
2018, Tribune issued a press release announcing that it was
abandoning the merger and disclosing Sinclair's refusal to divest
stations to achieve regulatory approval.

The District Court, however, held that the Plaintiffs have failed
to plead an actionable misstatement, scienter, or loss causation.
A full-text copy of the decision is available at
https://is.gd/T3iDbE from PacerMonitor.com.

Tribune Media Company operates media businesses. The Company
provides nationwide television broadcasting and distribution which
include news, entertainment and sports programming. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J.Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCILLP
          500W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
          Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCILLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (212)894-7200
          E-mail: jporter@entwistle-law.com
                  bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
          MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY,LLC
          135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 614-1260


TRUDY GILMOND: Orso Granted Summary Judgment vs. 3 Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW E. ORSO, in his capacity as court-appointed
Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com,
Plaintiff, v. TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his
capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust; TRUDY GILMOND;
TRUDY GILMOND, LLC; JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA GATES;
DAVID SORRELLS; INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS; SHARA
ANDREWS; GLOBAL INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER; KAREN
SILVER; MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER; MARY
KETTNER; P.A.W.S. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and a
Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM; Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-cv-91 (W.D. N.C.), Judge Graham C. Mullen of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, granted the Receiver's Motion for Summary
Judgment against Remaining Defendants Disputing Receiver's Net
Winnings Calculations.

Ninety-seven of the Net Winners failed to respond to the Receiver's
motion after the Court's issuance of a Roseboro notice, and the
Court entered an Order on Dec. 3, 2019 granting the Receiver's
motion as to these Net Winners.  Defendants Brett Gurney, Darlene
Armel, and Damon Welch timely filed a memorandum in opposition to
the Receiver's motion, and the Receiver filed a Reply.

Judge Mullen addresses the Receiver's motion as to these three Net
Winners only.

In the Summary Judgment Order entered on Dec. 29, 2016 in favor of
the Receiver against the named Defendants in the action, the Court
also granted summary judgment against the Net Winner Class as to
all liability issues. These judgments were finalized in the Final
Judgment Order.  

Certain members of the Defendant class appealed the District
Court's 2016 Summary Judgment Order, arguing, inter alia, that the
Court erred in (1) failing to appoint class counsel at the time of
certification and (2) failing to consider the factors set forth in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).  The appellants appealed the final judgments
that had already been entered, as well as all rulings and
statements that contributed to these final orders, including the
orders denying the motions to decertify the class.

Although the Fourth Circuit agreed that the District Court erred in
not appointing class counsel at the time of class certification and
in "failing to apply the Rule 23(g) factors" in naming the class
counsel, the Court of Appeals nonetheless affirmed all of the
District Court's orders -- including the 2016 Summary Judgment
Order, the Process Order, and the Court's Jan. 2, 2018 Order
denying a motion to decertify the class -- in light of the "unique
circumstances of the case."  The Fourth Circuit noted that the
errors regarding class counsel were not raised before the District
Court even when several members of the class (including Armel)
moved to decertify the class.  The Court of Appeals held that their
failure to object had allowed the litigation to progress to an
extent that it would be difficult if not impossible to remedy the
errors that had been raised belatedly on appeal.

The only remaining issue left to resolve in the case is the actual
amount of money that each of the remaining members of the Net
Winner Class is required to return.  To facilitate resolution of
the issue, the Court entered the Process Order which provided a
procedure allowing Net Winners to dispute the calculations offered
by the Receiver, including recourse to a special master to
adjudicate disputes concerning the amounts of net winnings.
Although the Receiver followed the process set forth in the Process
Order, it resulted in no final settlements, and no Defendant sought
referral to the special master appointed by the Court.

Twenty-two Net Winners proposed alternative calculations that the
Receiver found acceptable, and the Court has included these
individuals in its Order of December 3.  The remaining 97 Net
Winners offered varying responses to the notices sent by the
Receiver of their net winning amounts, none of which complied with
the Process Order.  Some submitted responses that failed to comply
with the Process Order because they failed to provide a non-zero
"alternative calculation" of their Net Winnings for the Receiver to
examine.  Some submitted disputes based on grounds previously
rejected by the Court, for example, by denying liability.  Some
failed to submit any evidence corroborating their claim as part of
their response. Defendant Gurney proposed an alternative
calculation of zero, disputed the interest rate ordered by the
Court and claimed he was not liable because he paid income taxes on
the money -- arguments the Court had previously rejected.
Defendants Welch and Armel both submitted self-serving statements
denominated as "affidavits" which provided alternative net winnings
amounts but did not supply any supporting evidence.

The Receiver has now moved for summary judgment as to the remaining
members of the net winner class against whom judgment was not
previously entered.  Defendant Class Members Gurney, Armel, and
Welch ("Disputing Net Winners") have objected to entry of judgment
against them.  They argue that any judgments against them would
violate their constitutional rights to due process because of the
Court's failure to appoint the class counsel at the time of class
certification, the Court's failure to conduct the Rule 23(g)
inquiry prior to entry of the order appointing the class counsel,
and the absence of adequate representation at all times throughout
the class action proceeding.

Judge Mullen holds that the Disputing Net Winners' Response does
not even attempt to show that a genuine dispute of material fact
exists.  They have filed no declarations or affidavits, offered the
Court no evidence, and indeed, not even addressed the merits of the
Receiver's Motion, which concerns the calculations of their net
winnings made by the Receiver pursuant to the Process Order.
Nowhere does the Response contend that any of the individual
calculations made against the Disputing Net Winners are incorrect,
or that the Receiver failed to adhere to the procedures required by
the Process Order.

Because the Disputing Net Winners merely rehash arguments already
considered and rejected by the Fourth Circuit and because they do
not even attempt to satisfy their burden in opposing summary
judgment, Judge Mullen will grant summary judgment to the
Receiver.

Accordingly, Judge Mullen granted the Receiver's Motion for Summary
Judgment against Remaining Defendants Disputing Receiver's Net
Winnings Calculations as to Defendants Gurney, Armel, and Welch
only in the following amounts: Gurney - $310,730.63; Armel -
$297,218.84; and Welch - $1,082,091.03.

A full-text copy of Judge Mullen's Jan. 10, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/m3J1kN from Leagle.com.

Matthew E. Orso, in his capacity as Receiver for Rex Venture Group,
LLC doing business as Zeekrewards.com, Plaintiff, represented by
Irving M. Brenner -- ibrenner@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Jacob Richard Franchek, McGuireWoods, Joshua Daniel Davey,
McGuireWoods LLP, Kelly Anderson Warlich, McGuireWoods & Nicole S.
Giffin -- ngiffin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.

Matthew E. Orso, in his capacity as Receiver for Rex Venture Group,
LLC doing business as Zeekrewards.com, Plaintiff, pro se.

Durant Brockett, Edward Rourke, Tim Rice, Frank Scheuneman, Ronald
Cox, Theresa Bridie, Marc Kantor, Paola Kantor, Eddy Layne, Te Ha,
Clyde Garrett, Larry Alford, Aaron Piha & Wayland Woods,
Appellants, represented by Paul Augustus Capua --
pcapua@capualawfirm.com -- Capua Law Firm, PA.

Trudy Gilmond, Defendant, pro se.

Trudy Gilmond, LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Jerry Napier, Defendant, pro se.

Darren Miller, Defendant, pro se.

Rhonda Gates, Innovation Marketing LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara
Andrews & Durant Brockett, Defendants, represented by James Kevin
Edmundson -- kevin@beswlaw.com -- Edmundson PLLC, pro hac vice.

Global Internet Formula, Inc., T. Lemont Silver & Karen Silver,
Defendants, represented by William James Jonas, III --
onas@wjamesjonas.com -- W. James Jonas III, P.C., pro hac vice.

David Kettner, Defendant, pro se.

Mary Kettner, Defendant, pro se.

a Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZeekRewards.com, Defendant,
represented by James Kevin Edmundson, Edmundson PLLC, pro hac vice
& Gabriel L. Mathless, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, pro hac vice.

Paul St. Simon, Defendant, pro se.

Durant Brockett, Brett Gurney & Damon Welch, Movants, represented
by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua Law Firm, PA.

Matthew E. Orso, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver for
Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, Counter Defendant,
represented by Irving M. Brenner, McGuireWoods LLP, Jacob Richard
Franchek, McGuireWoods, Joshua Daniel Davey, McGuireWoods LLP &
Kelly Anderson Warlich, McGuireWoods.

Matthew E. Orso, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver for
Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, Counter Defendant,
pro se.

Innovation Marketing LLC, Shara Andrews, Aaron Andrews & Rhonda
Gates, Counter Claimants, represented by James Kevin Edmundson,
Edmundson PLLC, pro hac vice.

Matthew E. Orso, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver for
Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, Counter Defendant,
pro se.


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an investor in Trulieve Cannabis on Feb. 12
filed the latest proposed class action in New York federal court
alleging the medical marijauana company inflated the value of its
real estate transactions and exaggerated its products' quality in
public disclosure, causing stock prices to drop when the alleged
mistruths came to light. [GN]




UTRECHT MANUFACTURING: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01907 (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation distributes art supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VENUS ET FLEUR: Blind Can't Access Website, Rodriguez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VENUS ET FLEUR LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01183 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website --
https://www.venusetfleur.com/ -- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and all others blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff alleges that the website
contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website.

Venus et Fleur LLC is a New York-based company that owns and
maintains the website at https://www.venusetfleur.com/, which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services,
including the ability to view and purchase various types of
bouquets and flowers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

WISTERIA CORP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Wisteria Corp is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wisteria Corp, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01908 (S.D.
N.Y., March 3, 2020).

Wisteria Corp operates as a venture capital firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WM BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. Bolthouse Farms,
Inc. The case is styled as Rhina Beatriz Carrillo, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM.
Bolthouse Farms, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Bolt House Farms, an
Unknown Business Form, Bolthouse Farms Cuyama Cuyama, an unknown
Business Form, Bolthouse Farms Kern County, an unknown business
form and Ma Medina Farm Labor Services, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-100649 (Cal. Super., March
4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the case type as Other Employment -
Civil Unlimited.

Bolthouse Farms, founded 1915 in Grant, Michigan, is a vertically
integrated farm company specializing in refrigerated beverages. It
is located in the San Joaquin Valley of California and is
headquartered in Bakersfield, California in Kern County. The
company operates facilities in Prosser, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sydney A. Adams, Esq.
   Matern Law Group, PC
   1230 Rosecrans Ave Ste 200
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
   Email: sadams@maternlawgroup.com


WONOLO INC: Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages, Alleges Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WONOLO, INC.; YONG KIM; ASHER J. BRUSTEIN;
FRONTLINE WORK INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV09166 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor Code
including misclassification of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated employees as independent contractors, failure to
pay all minimum wages and all overtime pay, and failure to provide
all meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an independent
contractor from approximately 2016 to present.

Wonolo, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based gig staffing
agency that provides on-demand staffing solutions for businesses.

Frontline Work Inc. is an employment agency based in San Francisco,
California. It provides a third-party payroll company who will act
as the employer of record. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361          
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -
           
          Joseph Tojarieh, Esq.
          TOJARIEH LAW FIRM, PC
          10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067          
          Telephone: (310) 553-5533
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5536
          E-mail: JFT@tojariehlaw.com

YES TO INC: Aughtman Sues Over Allergic Reaction to Face Mask
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josey Parsons Aughtman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yes To Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01223, (C.D. Cal.,
February 6, 2020), seeks injunctive relief and redress for
violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws, Business and
Professions Code, False Advertising Laws and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and for breach of implied warranty of merchantability
and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose.

Yes To Inc. markets "Yes to Grapefruit Vitamin C Glow-Boosting
Unicorn Paper Mask." Aughtman suffered severe facial skin
irritation, redness, burning, blistering, swelling and pain when
she applied said product. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Sara D. Avila, Esq.
      Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
      MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
      10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 396-9600
      Fax: (310) 396-9635
      Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
             savila@mjfwlaw.com
             mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

             - and -

      Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK
      1835 Market St., Suite 2900
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 985-9177
      Fax: (215) 985-4169
      Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


[*] Foreclosure Class Action Filed Against South African Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
IOL reports that the Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation along
with hundreds of their clients have launched a class action suit
against South African banks on Feb. 12 in the Johannesburg High
Court.

The applicants are drawn from all segments of the South African
population and are demanding damages from the major banks for
selling their properties for a fraction of their market worth as a
result of the foreclosure process.

According to the foundation, it is estimated that upwards of
100,000 people have lost their homes since the constitution came
into effect in 1994 in violation of constitutional protections
against arbitrary deprivation of property, as well as protections
to life and dignity.

The foundation said that some of these properties were sold for as
little as R100 following the sale in execution process.

"The case was filed in the Johannesburg High Court after the case
first brought directly to the Constitutional Court in 2017. The
Concourt directed that the case should be first brought before the
high court.  King Sibiya, President of the Lungelo Lethu Human
Rights Foundation, says the case is vital to restoring human rights
and dignity for those stripped of their homes. "Most of those
affected are from poor communities," the foundation said in a
statement.

"The purpose of this case is to restore to people their rights,
property and dignity after 25 years of systematic abuse by the
mortgage banks.  The evidence before the High Court details how the
banks have abused the court processes to have people evicted from
their homes, for arrears amounts that were frequently trivial. The
evidence is incontrovertible. The result of these abusive practices
is that families were left homeless and destitute. The banks have
claimed they resort to sales in execution as a last resort, but our
evidence shows this is not the case. Foreclosure is often used as a
first resort, which is against the law and the Constitution,"
Sibiya said.

The foundation also claimed that some of the applicants in the case
were evicted from their homes after the banks claimed they had
fallen into arrears on their mortgage bond repayments.

The foundation's statement said, "The first they heard about it was
when a "new owner" turned up at the door claiming the right to take
occupation. There was no serious attempt to communicate with the
home owners, nor were many of them served with Section 129 notices
as required under the National Credit Act when a creditor seeks to
recover arrears."

The applicants are applying to the court to be recognised as a
class of applicants with substantially the same complaints.

The different classes are:

   * Those whose properties were sold for more than 10% below
     market value since the Constitution came into effect in 1994

   * Those whose properties were sold by the banks in a manner
     which was not a "last resort" as required by law

   * Those who remain in debt to the bank after their properties
     were sold for below market value

   * Those who were over-charged on their bond fees in the
     course of legal action.

All the major banks are cited as respondents, as well as the
National Credit Regulator, the SA Human Rights Commission and the
Minister of Constitutional Development.

Until 2018, foreclosed properties were sold at sheriffs' auctions
without a reserve price, which resulted in some properties being
sold at sheriffs' auctions for 10% (and less) of their market
value.

The high court rules were changed to require the setting of a
reserve price after Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation brought a
case before the full bench of the Johannesburg High Court in 2018.

The widespread sale in execution of homes at below market price
violates Constitutional rights against arbitrary deprivation of
property, argue the applicants. Many properties have been sold for
"50% or even 90% less than they were worth."

"Some of the applicants had their properties sold at auction for a
fraction of their market worth even when they better offers from
private buyers. Some had judgments issued against them even though
they were up-to-date on their monthly mortgage instalments. Others
attempted to have their arrears spread over the remaining term of
the mortgage loans, but were refused by the banks. Some of the
applicants lost their houses even though they had rescission
applications or appeals pending before the court – which should
freezes any attempt to sell the property," the foundation further
said in a statement.

The applicants are asking that the court trial focus "on the
questions of whether the witness's property was sold for
substantially less than value and whether the sale was a last
resort and thus whether the bank is liable to that class and to
avoid issues extraneous to those issues."

Victory for the applicants would result in financial compensation
for their losses, the rescinding of any judgments against them and
expunging adverse listings with the credit bureaus. [GN]


[*] More Class Suits Expected Over "Fair Chance Housing Ordinance"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Blecher, Esq., Pamela Devata, Esq., and Jennifer Mora, Esq.,
of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on
January 21, 2020, the Oakland City Council unanimously passed the
Fair Chance Housing Ordinance ("FCHO"), which will restrict
landlords in their ability to reject a potential tenant because of
prior criminal history. It also impacts background check companies
that offer a tenant screening product ("consumer reporting
agencies") because they will have to modify their processes and
procedures to ensure that information that is "off limits" to
landlords and property managers is not included in a tenant
screening report ("consumer report"). The Council will take a final
vote on February 4, 2020. Given that Oakland is not the first
jurisdiction to enact such an ordinance, and there are other
similar laws pending across the country, background check companies
need to monitor this evolving area of the law and take affirmative
steps to avoid a class action.

Seattle Paved the Way for Laws Restricting Reporting and
Consideration of Criminal History for Rental Housing Purposes

In the context of tenant screening, restrictions on consideration
of criminal history appear to be gaining traction. The first such
law was passed in 2017, when the City of Seattle enacted its own
"Fair Chance Housing Ordinance." In Seattle, it now is an unfair
practice for any "person" (broadly defined to include
landlords/property managers and their agents) to, among other
things, "[r]equire disclosure, inquire about, or take an adverse
action against a prospective occupant, a tenant or a member of
their household, based on any arrest record, conviction record, or
criminal history." The exceptions are quite narrow, however,
Seattle allows landlords and property managers to consider a tenant
applicant's status as a registered sex offender (but an applicant
only can be denied on this basis if there is a "legitimate business
reason" to do so).

While at first blush it appears the Seattle ordinance only
restricts the information that landlords and property managers may
request and consider, Seattle's FAQ expressly states that "[u]nless
there is an exclusion, neither landlords nor any person may run
criminal background checks," adding that "any person" includes, but
is not limited to "property managers, owners, screening companies,
etc." As a result, we previously have recommended that background
check companies consider modifying their processes to ensure that
criminal history information is not reported to Seattle landlords
and property managers, absent clear proof that an exception applies
(e.g., sex offender registry status).

Oakland Follows the Trend With a More Comprehensive Ordinance

Citing a need "to give previously incarcerated persons or other
persons with a criminal history a fair opportunity to compete for
rental housing and to be able to reside with family members and
others," and also to reduce the incidence of homelessness for
persons with a criminal history, the FCHO will make it unlawful for
a housing provider (e.g., landlord, property manager, etc.) to, "at
any time or by any means, whether direct or indirect," inquire
about a rental or leasing applicant's criminal history, require an
applicant to disclose or authorize the release of their criminal
history or, if such information is received, base an adverse action
in whole or in part on an applicant's criminal history. Retaliation
against any individual for exercising or attempting in good faith
to exercise any protected rights under the FCHO is expressly
prohibited.

"Criminal history" is broadly defined to include virtually any type
of criminal record, regardless of how it is transmitted or
obtained, and from whom, including one or more convictions or
arrests, convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, vacated,
expunged, sealed, voided, invalidated, or otherwise rendered
inoperative by judicial action or by statute, juvenile records, or
records reflecting participation in or completion of a diversion or
a deferral of judgment program.

There are limited exceptions. First, it is not unlawful for a
housing provider to comply with federal or state laws that require
the housing provider to automatically exclude tenants based on
certain types of criminal history, including, but not limited to:

   * Ineligibility of Dangerous Sex Offenders for Admission to
     Public Housing (42 U.S.C. § 13663(a).

   * Ineligibility of Individuals Convicted for Manufacturing
     Methamphetamine on Premises of Federally Assisted Housing
     for Admission to Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher
     Programs (24 C.F.R. § 982.553).

If such a requirement applies, however, the FCHO states that the
housing provider may not inquire about, require disclosure of, or,
if such information is received, review an applicant's criminal
history until after the housing provider does the following: (1)
informs the applicant in advance that the housing provider will
check for certain types of criminal history; and (2) requests
written consent, or if the applicant objects, provides the
applicant the opportunity to withdraw the rental application.

Next, a housing provider may review California's sex offender
registry, provided that it (1) has stated the lifetime sex offender
screening requirement in writing in the rental application, and (2)
does not inquire about, require disclosure of, or, if such
information is received, review an applicant's criminal history
until after the housing provider:

   * determines whether the applicant is qualified for the rental
     under all of the housing provider's criteria for assessing
     applicants (except for any criteria related to criminal
     history);

   * provides to the applicant a conditional rental agreement
     that commits to providing the rental to the applicant as
     long as the applicant meets the housing provider's criminal
     history criteria with respect to the registry of lifetime
     sex offenders; and

   * informs the applicant in advance that the housing provider
     will be checking the sex offender registry and requests
     written consent or, if the applicant objects, provides
     the opportunity to withdraw the rental application.

If a housing provider takes adverse action against an applicant
based in whole or in part on their criminal history, it must
provide a written notice to the applicant regarding the decision
that includes, at a minimum:

   * the reason(s) for the adverse action;

   * instructions regarding how to file a complaint about the
     decision with the City;

   * a list of local legal services providers, including contact
     information;

   * a copy of any criminal history, background check report, or
     other information related to the applicant's criminal
     history that served as a basis for the decision; and

an opportunity to respond with rebutting or mitigating information
prior to the denial of the application.

Notably, the FCHO requires that the adverse action notice go above
and beyond what the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA")
require. While both statutes require a notice that simply advises
of the adverse decision, the right to submit a dispute, the right
to request a copy of the report, and the contact information for
the consumer reporting agency that furnished the report, the FCHO
adds to these by requiring a copy of the report, an explanation for
the decision, and an opportunity for rebuttal (in addition to the
other information described above).

The FCHO also makes it unlawful for a housing provider to require
reimbursement or payment from the applicant for providing any
criminal history or criminal background check report.

The FCHO requires housing providers to follow additional
requirements, such as posting a notice advising of applicants'
rights (in a form to be published by the City), including a copy of
that same notice with any rental or leasing application, and
maintaining a record of any criminal history obtained for any
applicant for a period of three years.

Aggrieved applicants can file a complaint with the City, who, upon
the finding of a violation, may issue a civil penalty of up to
$1,000 for each violation, recover the costs of any investigation
or issuance of civil penalties, and/or issue a warning letter and
assess costs in lieu of issuing a civil penalty for a violation.
Alternatively, aggrieved applicants (as well as the City Attorney
or a tax exempt organization whose mission is to protect the rights
of tenants or incarcerated persons in Oakland or Alameda County)
may file a civil lawsuit against the housing provider. Aside from
equitable relief, damages may include liquidated damages (e.g.,
three times the greater of either actual damages (including damages
for mental or emotional distress), one month's rent that the
housing provider charges for the rental unit in question, or the
fair market value of such rental unit); punitive damages; and
attorney's fees and costs. The City Attorney also may include
requests for civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.

Violations of the FCHO also are subject to criminal liability: an
infraction for a violation, and a misdemeanor for a violation that
is knowing and willful. Especially important for background check
companies, the criminal penalties section of the FCHO recognizes an
aiding and abetting theory of liability by stating that any person
who "aids" a housing provider can be criminally responsible. Thus,
like Seattle, background check companies should consider modifying
their processes to ensure that criminal history information is not
reported to housing providers in Oakland unless an exception
applies and any request for such information comports with the
procedural requirements set out above.

Increased Risk of Consumer Class Actions

Given the growing trend of reporting and restrictions on
consideration of criminal history, there is an equivalent growing
risk of consumer class actions against landlords, property
managers, and/or background companies for non-compliance.
Alternatively, an enterprising plaintiffs' bar may look to create a
new basis to bring class action claims against these parties. Both
providers and recipients of criminal history information for any
purpose should evaluate state and local laws that regulate use of
such of information, modify their policies and practices, and take
steps to stay abreast of this evolving area of law. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***