/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200318.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 56

                            Headlines

251 WEST 51 HOSPITALITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
55 BOND STREET: Faces Hedges ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
AEGEAN MARINE: Page Limit Order in Securities Suit Briefings Issued
AGC LLC: Faces Fischler Suit in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
AK STEEL: 8 Stockholder Suits over Cliffs Merger Deal Pending

AVOCADO & TOAST: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Faces Akarsoy Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BACTES IMAGING: Denial of Webber's Permanent Injunction Bid Flipped
BAPTIST HEALTH: Court Resolves Class Notice Issues in Whitley Suit
BAY AREA CREDIT: Faces Guzman FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida

BOULEY TEST KITCHEN: Bishop Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Guzman Suit
CITY BREW TOURS: Faces Bishop ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Dismisses Amended Degroot FDCPA Suit
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Kasper Files Suit in Florida Under FDCPA

CONVERSE INC: Chavez Obtains Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit
COOKIE DO INC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Orion Suit Stayed Pending 1050 West Settlement
DEBT RECOVERY: Shepherd Sues in Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA
DEPOSITORS INSURANCE: Sylvester Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

DERMALOGICA LLC: Bishop Sues Over Violation of Disabilities Act
EARTH CAR WASH: Sued by Meza for Not Properly Paying Washers
ENERGI PROS: Misclassifies Specialists as OT Exempt, Chappie Says
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Amended Dimercurio Suit Denied
FORD MOTOR: Faces El-Rifai Suit Over Defective MT82 Transmission

GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
GENERATOR HOSTELS: Bishop Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GLOW CONCEPT INC: Bishop Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
GREASE STOP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Ritter Says
GULF STATES: Nave Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

HEALTHSPARK FOUNDATION: AG Shapiro Appeals Ruling in Harley Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lloyd Appeals Ruling in Glenn Suit to 9th Circuit
JACK IN THE BOX: Faces Popov TCPA Suit Over Unauthorized Text Ads
JALEO MANAGEMENT: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
KEVIN B. WILSON LAW: Faces Zevon FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida

LOUIS GARNEAU: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
LOVESHACKFANCY: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
LYFT CAPITAL: Benitez Sues in Southern District of California
MEDEX CLEANING: Cholula-Vilchis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces Kim FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: $700K Counsel Fees Awarded in Pemberton Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Pemberton Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Mumin FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ORIBE HAIR CARE: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PAUL MICHAEL: Rizzo Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA

PD FLORIDA: Fails to Notify Workers Under WARN Act, Drummond Says
PFIZER INC: Viola Suit Moved From S.D. New York to S.D. Florida
POLY-COR ENTERPRISES: Bradford Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PTT LLC: Wilson Files Suit in Northern District of California
PURDUE PHARMA: Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court

RADIUS GLOBAL: Brach Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
RADIUS GLOBAL: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Mo. Eastern Dist. Dismisses Amended Pietoso Suit
RING LLC: Faces Sheth Suit in Central District of California
ROAN RESOURCES: Burfeind Suit Challenges Sale to Citizen Energy

ROSS STORES: Fails to Offer Rest Periods or Premiums, Dennis Says
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Pontones
SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
SHIVA SHAKTI: Class in Bolyard FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
SKAGIT BONDED: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Adams FDCPA Suit Okayed

SNAP FINANCE: Faces Wesley Class Suit in District of Utah
SRG OPERATING: Faces Alvarez Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
STEWART'S SHOPS: Gregory Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
TAX RISE INC: Cyrus Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks
THEATER LA MAMA: Faces Bishop ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

TIGERLYFE WEALTH: Faces Abante Rooter TCPA Suit in N.D. Calif.
TOO FACED COSMETICS: Faces Olson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
TRANSCANADA CORP: PFRS Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TRY THE WORLD: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
UNITED STATES: Onosamba-Ohindo Brings Suit in New York Ct.

USHA FOOD INC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces Coffman Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
VMSB LLC: Ruiz ADEA Suit Alleges Discrimination Based on Age
XANADU MASSAGE: Faces Ditmar Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA

                            *********

251 WEST 51 HOSPITALITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 251 West 51
Hospitality Corp. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. 251 West
51 Hospitality Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-02061 (S.D.N.Y., March 8,
2020).

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

251 West 51 Hospitality Corp. is a company located at 232 West 48Th
Street, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


55 BOND STREET: Faces Hedges ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 55 Bond Street, LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, v. 55 Bond Street, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02019 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

55 BOND STREET LLC (doing business as FISH CHEEKS) is a licensed
liquor authority in the county of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


AEGEAN MARINE: Page Limit Order in Securities Suit Briefings Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 18 Civ. 04993 (NRB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York has entered an order on the Parties' page limit
protocol for the Defendants' anticipated Motions to Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint And related briefing.

In response to the Court's Nov. 18, 2019 Order,  Lead Plaintiff
Utah Retirement System and Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP,
Deloitte Certified Public Accountants, S.A., Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited, Peter C. Georgiopoulos, George Konomos, Dimitris
Melissanidis, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A., E. Nikolas
Tavlarios, and John P. Tavlarios respectfully submit the proposed
page limits for briefing on the Defendants' anticipated motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  All
the parties who have appeared in the case via the counsel have
consented to the protocol.

The Complaint is 220 pages and asserts claims against 16 different
Defendants under eight different theories of liability across a
putative class period of nearly five years.  To avoid repetitive
briefing on legal issues by parties facing similar theories of
liability, the Moving Defendants believe the most efficient way to
proceed is to organize their motions to dismiss into joint briefs
that roughly parallel the theories of liability asserted in the
Complaint with similarly situated entities submitting joint briefs.


Therefore, the Moving Defendants propose the following page limits
(exclusive of exhibits) for their anticipated motions to dismiss,
listed in the order in which the parties are listed in the Table of
Contents of the Complaint:

     a. 35 pages combined for Defendant Dimitris Melissanidis.

     b. Mr. Melissanidis was the founder, principal shareholder and
Head of Corporate Development of Aegean Marine Petroleum Network
Inc. (Aegean). This brief will address the claims against Mr.
Melissanidis under Sections 10(b), 20(b) and 20A and Rules 10b-5(a)
and (c) of the Exchange Act in Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the
Complaint.

     c. 40 pages combined for Defendants Peter C. Georgiopoulos,
George Konomos, E. Nikolas Tavlarios, and John P. Tavlarios.

     d. These individuals were directors or officers of Aegean
based in the United States. This brief will address the claims
asserted against them under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rules
10b-5(a), (b), and (c) of the Exchange Act in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4
of the Complaint.

     e. 40 pages combined for Defendants Deloitte Certified Public
Accountants, S.A. (Deloitte Greece) and PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A.
(PwC Greece)

     f. These entities are accounting firms based in Greece that
each served as Aegean's independent auditor during a portion of the
Class Period.  This brief will address the claims asserted against
them under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act in
Count 7 of the Complaint;

     g. 25 pages combined for Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

     h. These entities are accounting firms based in the United
States that are alleged to be control persons of Deloitte Greece
and PwC Greece, respectively.  This brief will address the claims
asserted against them under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
Count 8 of the Complaint.

     i. 20 pages combined for Defendants Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Limited and PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited

     j. These entities are private companies that do not provide
accounting or other client services and are alleged to be control
persons of Deloitte Greece and PwC Greece, respectively.  This
brief will address the claims asserted against them under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act in Count 8 of the Complaint.

The foregoing briefing represents a total of 160 pages.  If each
the Moving Defendants filed their own memorandum of law in support
of their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 2(D) of the Court's
Individual Practices, such briefs would have totaled 275 pages in
the aggregate.

In response to the Moving Defendants' proposal, which it finds
acceptable, the Lead Plaintiff proposes that it be permitted to
submit up to 160 pages of opposition briefing in the aggregate
(reflecting the total number of pages provided to the Moving
Defendants) to be divided or combined in one consolidated brief at
the Plaintiff's discretion after reviewing the Moving Defendants'
opening briefs.

The Moving Defendants propose that they be permitted to file reply
briefs of no more than one half the page limits of their moving
briefs in response to the Plaintiff's opposition brief(s) unless
some other configuration is warranted in light of the substance
and/or structure of those opposition papers.

Finally, the Parties respectfully request the right to seek
modifications to the applicable page limit protocol with respect to
the Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief(s) and Defendants Reply Briefs
after receiving the respective brief(s) to which those filings will
respond.

Judge Buchwald so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/O0CbFx from Leagle.com.

Utah Retirement Systems, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Aidan
Chowning Poppler -- cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco,
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermantabacco.com -- Berman
Tabacco & Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
-- One California Street.

Nick Simco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eduard Korsinsky, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP.

Andreas Litsas, Plaintiff, represented by Peretz Bronstein --
peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman.

Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan, Movant, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP &
Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP.

Stephen R. Waite, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC.

Friedrich Koesters, Movant, represented by Daniel Sadeh --
dsadeh@bernlieb.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

E. Nikolas Tavlarios, Defendant, represented by Joshua Aaron
Goldberg -- jgoldberg@pbwt.com -- Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler
LLP.

Dimitris Melisanidis, Defendant, represented by Jonathan David
Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,
Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP & Sara Klinger
Winik, Boies Schiller Flexner LLLP.

Peter C. Georgiopoulos, Defendant, represented by Amanda Ravich --
aravich@shertremonte.com -- Sher Tremonte LLP & Michael Tremonte,
Sher Tremonte LLP.

John P. Tavlarios, Defendant, represented by Joanna Ka Wai Chan --
jchan@cohengresser.com -- Cohen & Gresser, LLP & Jonathan Sloan
Abernethy, Cohen & Gresser, LLP.

George Konomos, Defendant, represented by Eric Samuel Olney --
eolney@shapiroarato.com -- Shapiro Arato Bach LLP & Jonathan Bach,
Shapiro Arato Bach LLP.


AGC LLC: Faces Fischler Suit in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AGC, LLC. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. AGC, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01263
(E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

American Greetings Corporation (AGC) designs, manufactures,
distributes, and sells social expressions products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


AK STEEL: 8 Stockholder Suits over Cliffs Merger Deal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation remains a defendant in eight
stockholder lawsuits related to its merger deal with
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.

On December 2, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement of Plan
of Merger (as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement") among the Company, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. ("Cliffs") and
Pepper Merger Sub Inc., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
(to the extent permissible) waiver of the conditions set forth
therein, Cliffs will acquire AK Holding by way of the merger of
Merger Sub with and into AK Holding (the "Merger"), with AK Holding
surviving such Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs.

Six actions, including one putative class action lawsuit, have been
filed in federal court in Delaware, Michigan and New York by
purported AK Steel stockholders in connection with the Merger:

   * Stein v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00054 (D.  Del., filed January 14, 2020) (the "Stein
Action");

   * Spuhler v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 16, 2020) (the "Spuhler
Action");

   * Franchi v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00078 (D.  Del., filed January 17, 2020) (the "Franchi
Action");

   * Raul v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00611
(S.D.N.Y., filed January 23, 2020) (the "Raul Action");

   * Ruiz v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00620
(E.D.N.Y., filed February 4, 2020) (the "Ruiz Action"); and

   * Rubin v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No.
2:20-cv-10379-BAF-DRG (E.D.  Mich., filed February 12, 2020) (the
"Rubin Action").

The Stein Action, Spuhler Action, Franchi Action, Raul Action, Ruiz
Action and Rubin Action are collectively referred to as the "AK
Steel Stockholder Federal Actions."

A seventh action, Pate v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
CV 2020 01 0196 (Ohio Common Pleas, Butler County, filed January
28, 2020) (the "Pate Action"), has been filed by a purported AK
Steel stockholder as a putative class action in state court in
Ohio.

The Pate Action and the AK Steel Stockholder Federal Actions are
collectively referred to as the "AK Steel Stockholder Actions."

Each of the AK Steel Stockholder Actions names AK Steel and its
directors as defendants, and the Franchi Action and Pate Action
name Cliffs and Merger Sub as additional defendants.

An eighth action, Nessim v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00850 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 31, 2020) (the "Nessim
Action"), has been filed in federal court in New York against
Cliffs and its directors by a purported shareholder of Cliffs.  The
Nessim Action and the AK Steel Stockholder Federal Actions are
collectively referred to as the "Federal Stockholder Actions," and
all eight actions are collectively referred to as the "Stockholder
Actions."

Each of the Federal Stockholder Actions alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Cliffs
in connection with the Merger is false and misleading and/or omits
material information concerning the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange
Act.

The Pate Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
AK Steel directors and aiding and abetting claims against AK Steel,
Cliffs and Merger Sub in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the
registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Cliffs in connection
with the Merger is false and misleading and/or omits material
information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

The plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, among other things, seek
to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company said, "We believe that the allegations in each of these
complaints lack merit and plan to contest the matters vigorously."

AK Steel Holding Corporation is a steelmaking company headquartered
in West Chester Township, Butler County, Ohio.


AVOCADO & TOAST: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avocado & Toast, Inc.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Avocado & Toast, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02021 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

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

Avocado & Toast operates a restaurant in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Faces Akarsoy Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. BRAUN MEDICAL,
INC. The case is styled as Adam Akarsoy, Individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-01325-JLS (E.D. Pa.,
March 6, 2020).

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

B. Braun Medical is a provider and manufacturer of healthcare
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          FIRST LAW STRATEGY LAW, LLC
          121 S. Broad Street, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 258-4700
          Email: dsenoff@firstlawstrategy.com


BACTES IMAGING: Denial of Webber's Permanent Injunction Bid Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA WEBBER, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Appellant, v. BACTES IMAGING SOLUTIONS,
INC., n/k/a SHARECARE HEALTH DATA SERVICES, LLC, Appellee, Case
Nos. 2D18-2964, 2D18-4813, Consolidated (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge
Robert Morris of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the
Second District reversed the trial court's order denying Webber's
motion for permanent injunction and granting final partial summary
judgment in favor of Bactes.

In these consolidated class action appeals, Webber, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, appeals the order
denying her motion for permanent injunction and granting final
partial summary judgment in favor of Bactes.  

Webber filed an amended complaint seeking declaratory relief, an
injunction, and damages based on a violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), as well as
damages for unjust enrichment.  The basis for Webber's complaint
was that Bactes routinely overcharges for copies of a patient's
medical records when the records request is made by the patient's
legal representative rather than by the patient directly.

The undisputed facts reflect that when Bactes received Webber's
request and those of the class members for copies of their own
medical records (via the requesting parties' lawyers), Bactes
charged $1 for each page after the first 25 pages, which is four
times the maximum charge set forth in Florida Administrative Code
Rule 64B8-10.003(2) for patients who request such records.  Bactes
asserted that it was authorized to charge the $1 rate instead of
the 25-cent rate charged to patients because the requests were
being made by lawyers on behalf of the patients and, therefore, the
requests were being made by "other entities" for which the $1 rate
is permissible under rule 64B8-10.003(3).

The trial court denied Webber's motion for a permanent injunction
and granted Bactes' motion for summary judgment as to the FDUTPA
claim, concluding that no FDUTPA violation occurred.  In the
appeal, Webber challenges that finding, and the Florida Justice
Association has appeared amicus curiae, filing a brief in support
of Webber's arguments.

Judge Morris concludes that Bactes' conduct in charging the "other
entities" rate when a lawyer submits a request for copies of
medical records on behalf of his or her client, the patient, is an
unfair act or practice under section 501.204(1).  The only way the
patient -- who is being represented by legal counsel -- can obtain
his or her records is to either pay the "other entities" rate
merely because the medical records request was submitted by his or
her lawyer or for the patient to submit a separate medical records
request directly to the practitioner.  But Bactes has already been
instructed by the trial court that its policy of charging the
"other entities" rate in such circumstances violates rule
64B8-10.003.  And requiring a patient to jump over an additional
hurdle to obtain his or her own medical records is a practice that
the Court construes to be offensive to public policy.

Judge Morris likewise concludes that it is oppressive, unscrupulous
or substantially injurious to consumers where a party frustrates
patient access to medical records by charging higher than
permissible rates for copies despite already being instructed that
it was not permitted to do so.  This is especially so where, as in
the case, the request is actually made by the patient herself, but
merely submitted by the lawyer.

Because he has already determined that Bactes' conduct constitutes
an unfair act or practice under FDUTPA, it is unnecessary for Judge
Morris to decide whether that conduct is also deceptive.
Similarly, it is unnecessary for him to resolve whether Bactes'
conduct constitutes a "per se" violation of FDUTPA.  And his review
of rule 64B8-10.003 along with cases involving FDUTPA claims in
other contexts suggests that there are both arguments for and
against concluding that rule 64B8-10.003 "proscribes" the charging
of the "other entities" rate to lawyers who submit requests for
medical records on behalf of their clients such that a violation of
the rule results in a violation of FDUTPA pursuant to section
501.203(3)(c), despite the fact that the rule does not expressly
reference "unfair or deceptive" acts.

The trial court erred in denying Webber's motion for permanent
injunction and in granting partial final summary judgment in favor
of Bactes on the FDUTPA claim because the act of charging the
"other entities" rate when a lawyer submits a patient's request for
copies of his or her medical records pursuant to rule
64B8-10.003(2) constitutes a violation of section 501.204(1).
Judge Morris, therefore, reversed the trial court's order and
remanded for proceedings in conformance therewith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WNJOM8 from Leagle.com.

Steven L. Brannock -- sbrannock@bhappeals.com -- of Brannock &
Humphries, Tampa; David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert,
P.A., Tampa; J. Daniel Clark of Clark & Martino, P.A., Tampa; and
Scott R. Jeeves Law Group, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Michael Fox Orr -- mfo@dawsonorr.com -- and John W. Leonard --
jwl@dawsonorr.com -- of Dawson | Orr, Jacksonville; and Louis M.
Ursini III, of Adams and Reese LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.

Nichole J. Segal -- njs@flappellatelaw.com -- of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Jeffrey M. Liggio of Liggio
Law, West Palm Beach, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association
in Support of Appellant Patricia Webber.

BAPTIST HEALTH: Court Resolves Class Notice Issues in Whitley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST
HEALTH HOSPITALS; DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE LLC; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY; ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY;
IRONSHORE INDEMNITY, INC.; and IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-624-DPM (E.D. Ark.), Judge D.P.
Marshall of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Central Division, has entered an order on the parties'
joint report on notice of class certification and of pendency of
class action.

Judge Marshall resolves the parties' few disagreements as noted in
the attached mark-up of Baptist's redline of the notice.  He agrees
with Whitley about other Baptist facilities.  Otherwise, he mostly
adopts Baptist's suggestions with some tweaks.  The scope of the
"other sources" remains a fighting issue, which the Court will
resolve in the next round of motions.  Baptist must continue
producing information about all of the individuals covered by
Whitley's listed categories.  They're in the class for now.  All
must get notice.  But there's no need to get into these particulars
in the notice.

The Judge notes Baptist's comment about the March discovery cutoff.
The parties must do their best to stick to the schedule and to
continue to collaborate.  And the Court is open to creative
proposals, especially joint ones, to keep the older case on track
for trial in September 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DGT3z6 from Leagle.com.

Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Donald K. Campbell, III --
don@campbellgrooms.com -- Campbell & Grooms PLLC, Erik S. Heninger
-- erik@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis LLC, pro hac
vice, Frank H. Bailey -- fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com -- Bailey
& Oliver Law Firm, Geoff Hamby -- ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com --
Bailey & Oliver Law Firm, Jeffrey P. Leonard --
jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis LLC, pro hac
vice, Kendel W. Grooms -- kendel@campbellgrooms.com -- Campbell &
Grooms PLLC, Sach D. Oliver -- soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.co --
Bailey & Oliver Law Firm & Timothy Ryan Scott --
rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com -- Bailey & Oliver Law Firm.

Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals & Diamond Risk Insurance
LLC, Defendants, represented by James D. Robertson --
jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm PLLC, Robert L.
Henry, III -- rhenry@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm PLLC &
Adam D. Franks -- afranks@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm
PLLC.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by David P.
Glover, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings & David Chan Jung, Wright,
Lindsey & Jennings.


BAY AREA CREDIT: Faces Guzman FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Area Credit
Service Inc. The case is styled as Andy Guzman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bay Area Credit Service
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-21016-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Bay Area Credit Service, Inc. operates a debt collection agency.
The Company offers services from early-age collections to post
charge-off collections including bankruptcy, deceased, and legal
processing, as well as provides electronic collection and letter
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOULEY TEST KITCHEN: Bishop Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bouley Test Kitchen
21 LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Bouley Test
Kitchen 21 LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02067 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

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

The Test Kitchen allows the Bouley team to develop and advance
gastronomic approaches. Bouley Test Kitchen can host seated events
for 120 guests and cocktail receptions for up to 180 people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Guzman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIANA GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE
MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02606-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for
class certification filed by Plaintiffs Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana
Lira, and Jonathan Poot.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on Feb. 17, 2017, in
San Francisco County Superior Court, asserting claims for
employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under
California law.  Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and
Chipotle Services, LLC, removed the action on May 5, 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and their corporate
policies "systematically discriminate" against their employees
based on employees' "Hispanic race and/or Mexican national origin."
In the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs allege several types of
discriminatory conduct against individuals who are Hispanic or of
Mexican national origin, including: failing to promote otherwise
qualified individuals because they either speak English poorly or
speak English with an accent; falsifying or providing
unsubstantiated poor performance reviews; subjecting individuals to
verbal taunting, offensive language, and racial jokes; and
wrongfully terminating individuals who would not quit on their own.


Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring several causes of
action against the Defendants under the California Fair Housing and
Employment Act ("FEHA") for disparate treatment employment
discrimination; disparate impact employment discrimination;
harassment on the basis of race or national origin; failure to
prevent discrimination and harassment; and retaliation.

For purposes of class certification, however, the Plaintiffs have
narrowed the scope of their allegations.  Specifically, they
contend that the Defendants have two uniform and facially
discriminatory policies that support class certification as to
their disparate impact, harassment, and failure to prevent
discrimination claims: (1) an unwritten English-only policy, by
which the Defendants prohibit their employees from speaking Spanish
in the workplace ("English-Only Policy"); and (2) a promotion
policy, which requires employees to demonstrate a subjective level
of English proficiency before they are eligible for promotion to
management positions ("Promotion Policy").  The Plaintiffs allege
that both the English-Only Policy and the Promotion Policy served
to harass employees who are Hispanic or of Mexican national origin;
are facially discriminatory; and are a per se FEHA violation.   

They conclude that the Defendants had no business necessity for the
English-Only Policy or the Promotion Policy, and on the basis of
these allegations, move to certify a single class, defined as:  All
current and former hourly employees of Chipotle, who are Hispanic
and/or of Mexican national origin, and worked at Chipotle
restaurant locations in California during the period November 14,
2011 until the resolution of the action.

The parties agree that the class consists of approximately 43,000
employees from 400 different California Chipotle restaurants.

In response, the Defendants assert that (1) the Plaintiffs lack
constitutional standing; (2) the class definition is overly broad;
(3) the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a); and (4) the Plaintiffs have failed
to the meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b).

In addition to their opposition to the motion for class
certification, the Defendants also filed briefs styled as
"evidentiary objections" to the declarations and accompanying
exhibits that the Plaintiffs submitted in support of their motion
for class certification.  However, their submissions do not comply
with the Civil Local Rules, which require that any evidentiary and
procedural objections to the motion must be contained within the
opposition brief or memorandum, and that any such brief or
memorandum may not exceed 25 pages.  

Judge Gilliam accordingly strikes the evidentiary objections from
the record and does not consider them for purposes of the Order.

As for the motion for class certification, Gilliam finds that the
Plaintiffs do not satisfy commonality or typicality.  The
Plaintiffs have not proffered the significant proof that an
employer operated under a general policy of discrimination required
to satisfy commonality.  Also, there simply is no basis to conclude
based on the record before it that the Plaintiffs' experiences were
typical of those of the class.  His concerns do not rest on
superficial factual distinctions such as potential variation in the
severity or duration of the policies across stores, but rather more
fundamentally go to whether all members of the class were even
exposed to these policies at all such that they can claim
discrimination or harassment from them.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing
for class certification and, accordingly, Judge Gilliam denied the
motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3iTfcV from Leagle.com.

Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira & Jonathon Poot, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Adalberto Corres-Morales, Villegas Carrera,
LLP, David Christopher Leimbach, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Karen C. Carrera, Villegas Carrera, LLP, Mira Pearl
Karageorge, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Ori
Edelstein, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns & Virginia
Villegas, Villegas / Carrera, LLP.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amish
Ashok
Shah -- ashah@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP, Charles C.
Cavanagh -- ccavanagh@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP & Kathleen
June Mowry -- kmowry@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, pro hac vice.

CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles C.
Cavanagh, Messner Reeves LLP, Amish Ashok Shah, Messner Reeves LLP
& Kathleen June Mowry, Messner Reeves.

CITY BREW TOURS: Faces Bishop ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Brew Tours NYC
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. City Brew Tours NYC LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02073 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

City Brew Tours (CBT) is a curator of craft beer experiences for
visitors, locals, and the community as both an ambassador and an
advocate for the brewing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Court Dismisses Amended Degroot FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH DEGROOT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-C-951 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C.
Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted CSI's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
lack of standing and for failure to state a claim.

Degroot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed the action on July 1, 2019, alleging that CSI
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") when CSI
sent a letter to Degroot seeking to collect a debt he owed to
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.  Degroot, a Wisconsin resident,
originally incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation owed to
Capital One, a corporation formed under the laws of Missouri,
regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer debts
owed to others.

On Aug. 6, 2018, AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., a debt
collector, mailed a letter to the Plaintiff.  The letter advises
that Capital One referred Degroot's account to AllianceOne for
collections.  The letter states that the amount of his debt is
$425.86.  Capital One later assigned, placed, or transferred the
account to CSI for collection.  CSI mailed Degroot a letter dated
March 11, 2019.  The letter was CSI's first written communication
with Degroot to collect the debt.  The top left-hand corner of the
letter contained CSI's logo and address, as well as the following
information related to Degroot's debt.

Degroot filed the putative class action lawsuit on July 1, 2019, on
behalf of himself and all other persons to whom CSI mailed its
letter at a Wisconsin address.  He alleges that CSI's letter
falsely implies to unsophisticated consumers that Capital One would
begin to add interest and possibly fees to their previously
charged-off debts if the consumers fail to resolve their debts with
CSI and it elects to stop its collection efforts within 40 days of
the date on the collection letter.  He claims that he was confused
by the discrepancy between the AllianceOne letter's statement that
interest and fees are no longer being added to his account and the
March 11, 2019 Letter's implication that Capital One would begin to
add interest and possibly fees to the Debt once CSI stopped its
collection efforts on an unspecified date.  Degroot asserts that
the letter uses false, deceptive, and misleading representations or
means to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and
fails to disclose the amount of the debt in a clear and unambiguous
fashion in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.

Presently before the court is CSI's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim.
CSI asserts that Degroot has not alleged that he suffered or faced
a real risk of suffering a concrete harm.

Judge Griesbach finds that the alleged FDCPA violation in the case
is not a failure on the debt collector's part to provide required
statutory disclosures to debtors; it is a substantive violation by
a debt collector to improperly entice debtor action.  Degroot
alleges that CSI sent him the type of false, deceptive, and
misleading letter that Congress sought to prevent through the
FDCPA.  The amended complaint also contains allegations that
Degroot was personally confused and harmed by the letter.  In
short, Degroot has alleged that CSI's actions harmed or posed a
real risk of harm to his interests under the FDCPA.  Judge
Griesbach finds that Degroot has standing to bring the claims in
his amended complaint.

As for Degroot's FDCPA claims, Judge Griesbach finds that it takes
a fair amount of sophistication to even come up with Degroot's
argument.  CSI's letter is not false, misleading, or deceptive.
The itemization showing $0 owed in interest and other charges does
not imply that CSI or Capital One will increase the interest if the
"Account Resolution Offer" is not paid.  That CSI will not increase
the interest is made clear by the statement "Please note that no
interest will be added to your account balance through the course
of Client Services, Inc. collection efforts concerning your
account."  The letter says nothing about whether interest or other
charges could increase in the future, but that does not make it
misleading or deceptive.

For these reasons, Judge Griesbach granted CSI's motion to dismiss.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment of dismissal forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/46026q from Leagle.com.

Joseph Degroot, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson --
Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern
-- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Francis R.
Greene -- Francis@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Client Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eugene X. Martin,
IV -- xmartin@mamlaw.com -- Malone Frost Martin PLLC & Robbie L.
Malone -- rmalone@mamlaw.com -- Malone Frost Martin PLLC.

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Kasper Files Suit in Florida Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial System, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Kasper,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60516-AHS (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2020).

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

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. provides financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONVERSE INC: Chavez Obtains Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. CONVERSE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-03746-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M.
Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Chavez's motion for partial summary judgment.

In the chapter of his employment class action, Chavez moves for
partial summary judgment as to whether the Defendant's retail store
employees were under its control when they underwent security
checks before leaving.  Under the exit search policy as written,
Converse exercises control over its employees during exit searches.
Employees are required to make sure a manager inspects their
belongings.  Failure to comply with exit searches could have
significant consequences including termination.  And employees are
foreclosed from numerous activities during searches.  Employees
are, for example, required to carry and not wear their coats and
jackets during the inspections.   Nor can employees barge through
the exit and ignore store management.  As of Nov. 19, 2019,
Converse no longer requires its employees to submit to an exit
search.

Chavez filed his first amended complaint on Dec. 4, 2015, for
various violations of the California Labor Code stemming from
Converse's alleged failure to compensate its employees for time
spent on exit searches.  On Sept. 22, 2016, the Court certified a
class of all current and former non-exempt retail store employees
of Converse who worked in California during the period from July
10, 2011, to the present.

On Oct. 11, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Converse based on the federal de minimis doctrine.  Chavez
appealed.  Shortly after, the California Supreme Court decided
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. and held that the federal de minimis
doctrine did not apply to wage claims under California law.  In
light of Troester, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the
instant case for further proceedings.

Chavez now moves for partial summary judgment.  The sole issue in
Chavez's motion is whether Converse exercises control over its
employees when they undergo an exit search.  Pending before the
Court is Converse's own motion for summary judgment, which is set
for hearing on March 4, 2020.  The Order does not resolve that
motion.

Converse raises a few arguments in response.  First, Converse
points out that the exit search policy does not require employees
to spend any amount of time undergoing exit searches.  But just as
the search policy permits zero-second searches, it also permits
exit searches that last several minutes.  And for the duration of
the search, Converse's employees are not free to do whatever they
wish. The mere possibility that zero-second searches can happen
does not mean Converse's employees are free from its control.

Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that there is a dispute of material
fact as to whether exit searches took any amount of time or if
searches were even conducted when employees did not bring a bag.
That dispute, however, goes to damages.  If Converse's employees
spent literally no time getting searched, then there is simply no
time for Converse to compensate.  But if its employees spent some
time getting searched or waiting for store management, then that
time may be compensable.

Converse also argues that employee exits necessarily include
"walking time" and its employees are not subject to their control
during that time.  Chavez, however, has disclaimed "walking time"
as part of exit searches.  The Plaintiff seeks a ruling that class
members are subject to Defendant's control while waiting for and
undergoing the security inspection.  Thus, the Defendant's
walk-time argument is completely irrelevant.

Finally, Converse contends that its employees were not under their
control because they could avoid incurring additional time in
connection with exit searches by choosing to not bring a bag, coat,
or jacket. However, even if Converse is correct, their own expert
opined that employees spent an average of 9.2 seconds waiting for
or engaging in exit inspections and only 5.4 seconds of that time
is attributable to bag checks.  In other words, the fact that some
exit search time can be avoided does not help Converse.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted Chavez's motion
for partial summary judgment.  As to claims one, three, four, five,
six, and seven, the Magistrate Judge finds as a matter of law that
Converse exercised control over its employees when it subjected its
employees to exit searches.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/I1cnK0 from Leagle.com.

Eric Chavez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun --
dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Kristen Michelle Agnew ,
Diversity Law Group, APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com --
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Max William Gavron, Diversity Law Group,
Nicholas Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law
Group & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris
Law Group, LLP.

Converse, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrea Rose Ortega, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jonathan Douglas Meer
-- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Joshua David Kienitz,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melanie Marie Campili Cole, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Robert G. Hulteng, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Sheryl Lyn
Skibbe -- sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

COOKIE DO INC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cookie Do, Inc. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Cookie Do, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02063 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

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

Cookie Do, Inc. sells raw cookie dough.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CSC SERVICEWORKS: Orion Suit Stayed Pending 1050 West Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ORION PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARK HJELLE,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-0044(JS)(GRB)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Joanna
Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted the Defendant's motion to stay the action pending
approval of settlement proceedings in a parallel action against CSC
in 1050 West Columbia Condominium Association, et al. v. CSC
ServiceWorks, Inc., No. 2019-CH-07319 (Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois).

On Dec. 29, 2017, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, commenced the putative nationwide civil
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
class action against Defendant Hjelle, CEO of CSC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that the
Defendant orchestrated a fraudulent plan to steal 9.75% of gross
receipts each month from CSC customers, including the Plaintiff.
On Jan. 3, 2019, the case was transferred to the Court.

The Defendant is a Maryland resident and an attorney who, on July
14, 2016, was appointed as CSC's CEO.  CSC is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Plainview, New York.  It leases space
from owners of multi-family residential and commercial apartment
buildings and other entities to install, maintain, and operate
coin-operated and/or card-operated laundry equipment at more than
80,000 locations across the country.  Under the lease agreements,
CSC pays "rent" for the leased space most commonly in the form of a
portion of the money collected from the equipment.  Many of the
laundry leases at issue are between putative class members and
"Coinmach," a division of CSC.

The Plaintiff is a limited liability company headquartered in
Kansas that manages properties in more than twenty states across
the country.  It signed a laundry vending machine license agreement
with CSC for vend-based laundry equipment at properties it manages
and also on behalf of another property it operates as an agent.

After his appointment to CEO, the Defendant devised a scheme to
increase CSC's revenues by imposing an "administrative fee" to
siphon off 9.75% of gross collections under laundry leases.
Specifically, on May 17, 2017, Defendant wrote, signed, and mailed
a letter to all CSC Customers, including the Plaintiff, that misled
CSC customers into believing that their lease agreements authorized
CSC to charge the Administrative Fee.  

The May 17 Letter falsely stated that the Administrative Fee
resulted in a "net gain to customers" and that CSC would "waive"
other costs that it could have collected, but did not, under
existing lease agreements.  Further, the May 17 Letter provided for
a purported "additional benefit" of up to $200 to cover events
related to vandalism.  In an effort to conceal his scheme, the
Defendant created a website dedicated to "fee transparency."
Thereafter, CSC customers' monthly statements and/or payments
reflected the improper 9.75% Administrative Fee deduction.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on Dec. 29, 2017
in the District of Kansas and filed an Amended Complaint on Feb.
28, 2018.  The Amended Complaint asserts a single cause of action
against the Defendant for a violation of RICO.  

Currently pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to
stay the action pending approval of settlement proceedings the
Illinois Action.  The Defendant primarily argues a stay is
necessary because the "Settlement encompasses and releases the very
claims asserted.

In opposition, the Plaintiff repeatedly argues that the Court has
no way of determining whether the Settlement encompasses and
releases the claims asserted here because the Defendant did not
attach a copy of the Settlement or its terms to its motion, and
urges the Court to decline to consider any evidence proffered by
the Defendant in reply.  In reply, the Defendant attached the
motion for preliminary Settlement approval, currently before the
Court in the Illinois Action, that includes the Settlement terms.

Judge Seybert holds that while the Plaintiff is generally correct
that a party may not attempt to cure deficiencies in its moving
papers by including new evidence in its reply to opposition papers,
the argument misses the mark.  By attaching the Settlement to the
reply, the Defendant did not present new theories or new evidence
that would prohibit the Court from considering the Settlement.  To
the contrary, the Defendant's moving papers put the Plaintiff on
notice that the claims asserted may be subsumed by a nationwide
settlement in the Illinois Action.  

Accordingly, the Settlement, although submitted in reply, does not
cure a deficiency in the moving papers but instead serves to
provide a more detailed picture of the proposed Settlement, rules
Judge Seybert.  In any event, the Settlement clearly encompasses
the Plaintiff's claims—a fact that weighs in favor of a stay.

The fact remains that the same "factual predicate" that underlies
the action underlies the Illinois Action: the alleged improper
Administrative Fee that CSC charged its customers.  Thus, where
claims arise from the same 'nucleus of facts' or there exists
'significant overlap,' a stay is warranted.  Accordingly, a stay
will promote the interests of the Court, the Defendant, persons not
parties to the action, and the public, and will not unfairly
prejudice the Plaintiff, rules the Court.

As final point, Judge Seybert agrees with the Defendant that to the
extent the Plaintiff has any disagreements with the Settlement in
substance or procedure, it can choose to remain in the class and
bring those objections to the court overseeing the National Class
Settlement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Seybert granted the Defendant's
Motion.  She stayed the case for 90 days.  On April 15, 2020, the
parties are directed to submit a joint letter updating the Court on
the status of the Illinois Action, including the outcome of the
proposed Settlement.  The Court will then determine whether to
extend the stay.

In light of the stay, Judge Seybert terminated the pending motion
to dismiss, subject to reinstatement at such time as the stay is
lifted and the case proceeds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/7IeYnv from Leagle.com.

Orion Property Group, LLC, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland,
Rex A. Sharp, PA, Brennan P. Fagan, Fagan Emert & Davis, L.L.C.,
pro hac vice, Christopher C. Gold, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Larkin E. Walsh, Rex A. Sharp, PA, Rachel L.
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice, Rex A.
Sharp, Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson, Sharp Barton, LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott B. Goodger, Rex A. Sharp, PA, William Skepnek, Skepnek
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bradley Beall -- BBeall@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David Slarskey --
dslarskey@slarskey.com -- Slarskey LLC & Vincent Michael Serra --
vserra@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Mark Hjelle, Defendant, represented by Kelly H. Foos --
kfoos@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L. L. P., pro hac vice, Paul
A. Williams -- pwilliams@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.,
pro hac vice, Robert J. McCully -- rmccully@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P., pro hac vice & William Edward Vita --
wvita@westermanllp.com -- Westerman Ball Ederer Miller &
Sharfstein, LLP.

DEBT RECOVERY: Shepherd Sues in Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery
Solutions of Ohio Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jared
Shepherd, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio Inc. and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00520 (N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio Inc. is a debt collection agency in
Mansfield, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


DEPOSITORS INSURANCE: Sylvester Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Salvatore Sylvester, Alicia Edwards-Gutzman,
Eaunice Hill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 191203184, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01322-ER to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as insurance contract.

Depositors Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers powersports equipment, home, auto, personal
protection, and life insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Fax: (215) 238-1968
          Email: jshub@kohnswift.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6404
          Phone: (312) 876-8000
          Email: mark.hanover@dentons.com

               - and -

          Pamela A. Carlos, Esq.
          BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP
          1500 Market St., 32nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 561-4300
          Email: carlos@bbs-law.com


DERMALOGICA LLC: Bishop Sues Over Violation of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dermalogica, LLC. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Dermalogica, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02068 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Dermalogica is an American personal care company headquartered in
Carson, California. Dermalogica's products include cleansers,
exfoliants, toners, masques, eye treatments, and moisturizers, as
well as an acne treatment line for teens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


EARTH CAR WASH: Sued by Meza for Not Properly Paying Washers
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANO MEZA, in his representative capacity under the Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA") v. EARTH CAR WASH LLC, a California
limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 19STCV40856 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13,
2019), alleges that Earth misclassifies its washers as independent
contractors to deprive them of fundamental employment rights,
including the right to minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a washer.  He
alleges that the Defendants deprived him and other washers of
fundamental employment rights to mandated meal breaks, mandated
rest breaks, premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks,
accurate itemized wage statements, prompt payment of full wages
within time limits designated by law, and be reimbursed for
necessary business expenses.

Earth Car Wash LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and transacts
business throughout the State of California, including the County
of Los Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

Earth is an on-demand mobile carwash company.  To get a carwash,
customers make an appointment on Earth's Web site.  Earth then
sends a uniformed washer to the customer's desired destination.
Washer must wash cars to Earth's standards and cannot set their own
prices or services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524


ENERGI PROS: Misclassifies Specialists as OT Exempt, Chappie Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND CHAPPIE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ENERGI PROS LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04456 (S.D. Tex.,
Nov. 13, 2019), seeks relief from the Defendant's misclassification
of its Green Energy Technology Specialists as exempt from overtime
pay, resulting in its violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Brazoria County, Texas, and was
employed by the Defendant as a Green Energy Technology Specialist
from July 1, 2019, through August 21, 2019.

Headquartered in McKinney, Texas, Energi Pros LLC provides
commercial energy saving solutions, including: site specific
engineering analysis and project design, implementation of energy
conservation, power generation, energy storage (thermal and
electro-chemical), retrofit, new construction, energy supply, and
risk management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP
          302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 722-5990
          Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
          E-mail: tbranham@dobslegal.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Amended Dimercurio Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EQUILON
ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Dimercurio, Charles Gaeth, John Langlitz, and Malcolm
Synigal sue Equilon, doing business as Shell Oil Products US,
alleging various wage and hour violations under California law.
The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Shell, which
operates an oil refinery in Martinez, California.  They work or
worked at the Martinez facility as refinery operators.  Shell
requires its refinery operators "to work regular 12-hour shifts."
In addition to their regular 12-hour shifts, operators at Shell's
Martinez refinery must regularly be available for designated
12-hour standby shifts twice a day.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaint is that Shell's failure
to compensate the Plaintiffs for the standby periods violates
reporting-time pay requirements under California law.  They bring
the action on behalf of themselves and all operators working at the
Martinez refinery at any time from four years prior to the filing
of the complaint and final judgment.

In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their original class action
complaint in California state court bringing a claim for "Failure
to Pay Reporting Time Pay" in violation of Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Order 1-2001, and derivative claims for
"Failure to Pay All Wages Earned at Termination" in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 200-203; "Failure to Provide
Accurate Wage Statements" in violation of Labor Code Sections 226,
226.3; and "Unfair Business Practices" in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL).

The Defendant timely removed the complaint pursuant to the
diversity jurisdiction provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act,
and purported federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331.  The Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint
in October 2019, asserting their previous claims and adding a claim
under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss thereafter.  The
Court heard oral argument on Jan. 15, 2020.

In conjunction with its motion to dismiss, the Defendant requests
judicial notice of: (1) collective bargaining agreements and
related agreements ("CBA") between the Plaintiffs' union and the
Defendant, which were previously filed with the Court in support of
the Defendant's notice of removal; and (2) court documents filed in
connection with the settlement in Berlanga, et al. v. Equilon
Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US, et al., N.D. Cal. Case
No. 3:17-cv-00282-MMC.  The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's
request for judicial notice because the documents are not
"relevant" to adjudicating the instant motion.

Judge Corley disagrees in part.  She finds that two of the named
plaintiffs in Berlanga -- Charles Gaeth and John Langlitz -- are
Plaintiffs in the action.  Thus, their release in Berlanga of all
wage-related claims against Shell for a specified time period is
directly related to the case and is indeed relevant.  However, the
Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Berlanga documents are
not relevant to resolving the instant motion.

Accordingly, Judge Corley granted the Defendant's request for
judicial notice of the CBAs and related agreements because they are
proper subjects of judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence
201(b).  She declined to take judicial notice of the Berlanga
documents at this time because they are not relevant to the instant
motion.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) on the grounds that: (1) section 301(a) of the LMRA
preempts the Plaintiffs' claims; and (2) the complaint otherwise
fails to state a claim for the wage and hour violations alleged.

Judge Corley finds that the Defendant's motion fails to cite any
specific provisions of the CBA that are in dispute and require
interpretation.  The Defendant's belated oral argument
identification of the provision stating that "Standby Coverage and
Requirements" are set forth as a guide which should cover most
circumstances that arise and that exceptions should be carefully
considered and kept to a minimum does not persuade the Court
otherwise.  What "guide" means will not have to be interpreted by
the Court; instead, the question will be how Defendant actually
implements the policy.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the
Defendant's motion to the extent it asserts that the Plaintiffs'
claims are preempted by the LMRA.

Next, construing the factual allegations as true, the Judge cannot
say as a matter of law that Shell's standby policy requiring the
Plaintiffs to be on call for pre-scheduled 1.5-hour periods did not
require the Plaintiffs to "report for work" within the meaning of
the Wage Order.  Shell's standby policy is similarly "inconsistent
with being off-duty" in that it requires assigned employees to make
themselves available for 1.5 hours on a scheduled date to possibly
receive a phone call to work a standby shift.  During those
1.5-hour periods the Plaintiffs were in limbo and could not engage
in an activity that would interfere with receiving a phone call.
As a result, the Plaintiffs were not truly off-duty during the
standby period because Shell limited what they could do and when
they could do it.  The Plaintiffs have thus sufficiently alleged
that the Wage Order's reporting-time pay mandate is triggered,
rules the Court.

Judge Corley also finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that they
did report and were not put to work.  First, the complaint alleges
that all operators at the Martinez refinery are subject to the
mandatory standby policy and that all named Plaintiffs are current
or former operators who worked at the Martinez refinery and "were
scheduled to cover standby shifts."  Second, whether the Defendant
pays reporting-time wages to standby employees who are actually
called in to cover a shift but then sent home because the person
they were called to replace showed up in time to not be considered
AWOL does not defeat the Plaintiffs' claim that failing to
compensate standby employees for the 1.5-hour standby period when
they are not actually called in violates the Wage Order.

Accordingly, Judge Corley denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' reporting-time pay claim.  

She next addresses the independent grounds the Defendant asserts
regarding dismissal of the Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  She
finds that the Defendant asserts no other basis for dismissing the
second and third causes of action.

As for the UCL claims, Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs'
Labor Code claims survive dismissal.  Thus, their UCL claim based
on the Defendant's allegedly "unlawful" conduct survives as well.
And absent authority that reporting-time pay cannot constitute an
"earned wage" recoverable as a restitutionary remedy under the UCL,
the Judge cannot say that the Plaintiffs' UCL claim fails as a
matter of law.

Finally, the Defendant further argues that even if analyzed under
state law, the underlying Labor Code claims fail.  For the reasons
she previously discussed, Judge Corley holds that the Plaintiffs'
Labor Code claims survive dismissal.  Accordingly, she denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim.

Based on the foergoing, Judge Corley denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.  Her Order disposes of Docket No. 19.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0b8BMa from Leagle.com.

Marco Dimercurto, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Charles Gaeth, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, John Langlitz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated & Malcolm Synigal, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristina L. Hillman
-- khillman@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld,
Alexander S. Nazarov -- anazarov@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg,
Roger and Rosenfeld & Jannah Vanessa Manansala --
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A
Professional Corporation.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US,
Defendant, represented by Barbara Louise Lyons -- blyons@lkclaw.com
-- Lafayette and Kumagai LLP, Brian H. Chun -- bchun@lkclaw.com --
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette --
glafayette@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.

FORD MOTOR: Faces El-Rifai Suit Over Defective MT82 Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZIAD EL-RIFAI, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individual v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:19-cv-09773 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought on
behalf of all persons in the state of California and the United
States, who purchased or leased any 2011-2019 model year Ford
Mustang vehicle and equipped with a defective MT82 Manual
Transmission.

The Plaintiff alleges that these Class Vehicles were delivered to
consumers by Ford with inherent defects in design, manufacturing
process and/or materials.  The defect, which was latent, but
existed at the time that the Class Vehicles left Ford's possession
and control, manifests itself over time.  The Transmission is
defective in its design, manufacturing, and or materials in that,
among other problems, the transmission slips, jerks, clashes gears,
and harshly engages; has premature internal wear, increased shift
efforts, inability to drive, and eventually suffers a catastrophic
failure (the "Transmission Defect").

Based on Ford's inability to resolve the Defect, it appears all
consumers will need replacement of transmission components
including the shift forks, shift shaft, synchronizers, clutch
assembly, or even the entire transmission, the Plaintiff notes.
The Plaintiff insists that due to the Transmission Defect, the
Class Vehicles are prone to and exhibit premature transmission
failures at rates and in a manner that do not conform to industry
standards.  The Plaintiff adds that the Transmission Defect
endangers the drivers and passengers of the vehicles.

Plaintiff Ziad El-Rifai is a resident of Glendale, California.  On
July 18, 2018, he purchased a new 2018 Ford Mustang GT from
AutoNation Ford Valencia, an authorized Ford dealer in Valencia,
California.

Ford Motor Company is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the
California Department of Corporations to conduct business in
California.  Ford is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and/or selling automobiles and motor vehicle components in
California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          GORDON & PARTNERS PA
          4114 Northlake Blvd.
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: SCalamusa@ForTheInjured.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levine, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: levine@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com


GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LIRJON MECO, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GATESTONE & CO.
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00326-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On March 2, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

By this motion, the plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

State Collection provides account recovery services. The company
offers services to healthcare, financial, utilities, commercial and
retail, and government sectors.[CC]

GENERATOR HOSTELS: Bishop Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generator Hostels
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Generator Hostels Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02027 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Generator provides accommodation options in the central locations
across the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GLOW CONCEPT INC: Bishop Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glow Concept Inc. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, v. Glow Concept Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02069 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Glow Concept is a provider of online platform intended to provide
natural beauty products. The company offers paraben free,
cruelty-free, non-toxic and heavily pigmented color cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GREASE STOP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Ritter Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ritter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREASE STOP, LLC, and GREG FISHER, Case No.
5:20-cv-01343-EGS (E.D. Pa., March 9, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff and others regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that they
were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate
of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Grease
Buster/Technician and Lead Technician.

The Defendant is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-273-1054
          Facsimile: 215-525-0210
          Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                 mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


GULF STATES: Nave Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUINTEN NAVE v. GULF STATES SERVICES GROUP LLC and MARCUS PICKETT
HEUCHAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00546-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., Feb. 14, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and
former similarly situated employees, who worked for the Defendants
on construction projects, seeking to recover overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The events that give rise to this complaint occurred in connection
with the construction of cellphone tower sites, which includes,
among other things, laying a concrete slab and running conduit and
preparing the site for the cellphone tower to be affixed
(Construction Projects). The Construction Projects were rarely
located in Louisiana but rather throughout the southern United
States.

The Plaintiff earned $22.50 per hour and typically worked six or
more days per week. During his employment, from January 2017
through July of 2019, the Plaintiff never received overtime pay,
despite regularly working overtime hours, says the complaint.

During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he was the
"lead technician," which essentially assumed the role of foreman.

Defendant Mr. Heuchan is the sole member of Gulf States and had the
power to hire and fire employees and to set company pay policies
and practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Chopin, Esq.
          Adam P. Sanderson, Esq.
          THE CHOPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 1550
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-229-6681
          Facsimile: 504-324-0640
          E-mail: Justin@ChopinLawFirm.com
                  Adam@ChopinLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


HEALTHSPARK FOUNDATION: AG Shapiro Appeals Ruling in Harley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Harley, P., et
al. v. Healthspark Foundation, et al., Case No. 2405 EDA 2019, in
the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

The appellate case is captioned as Patricia M. Harley, R.N., Martha
Moody R.N., Holly DiCarlo, R.N. and Wendy Poyner, R.N., for
themselves and as representatives of others similarly situated v.
David T. Shannon, and HealthSpark Foundation (f/k/a North Penn
Community Health Foundation), and Josh Shapiro, Attorney General,
Case No. 3191 EDA 2019, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Patricia M. Harley, et al., filed an appeal from a lower court
order dated July 17, 2019. That appellate case is styled as
Patricia M. Harley R.N., Martha Moody R.N., Holly DiCarlo R.N., and
Wendy Poynor, R.N., for themselves and as representatives of others
similarly situated, Appellants v. Healthspark Foundation (f/k/a
North Penn Community Health Foundation) and David T. Shannon,
Defendants, and Josh Shapiro, Attorney General, Intervenor, Case
No. 2512 EDA 2019, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The case is a civil class action lawsuit arising from
employment-related disputes. The case type is stated as
contracts/assumpsit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Wendy Poyner, M. Moody, P. Harley, & H.
Dicarlo are represented by:

          Charles J. Weiss, Esq.
          Christine Marie Gordon, Esq.
          TIMONEY KNOX LLP
          400 Maryland Drive
          P.O. Box 7544
          Fort Washington, PA 19034-7544
          Telephone: (215) 540-2641
          Facsimile: (215) 646-5679
          E-mail: CJWeiss@timoneyknox.com
                  CGordon@timoneyknox.com

Defendants-Appellees North Penn Community Health Foundation & David
T. Shannon are represented by:

          James C. Sargent, Jr., Esq.
          Maureen Murphy McBride, Esq.
          LAMB MCERLANE, PC
          24 E Market St.
          PO Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19380
          Telephone: (610) 430-8000
          E-mail: jsargent@lambmcerlane.com
                  mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com

Intervenor-Appellant Josh Shapiro, Attorney General, is represented
by:

          Nancy Anne Walker, Esq.
          Mary Catherine Kenney, Esq.
          Claudia M. Tesoro, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1600 Arch St., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 560-2704


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Lloyd Appeals Ruling in Glenn Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Carol Lloyd filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled BILLY GLENN, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Settlement Approval and Award of Attorney's Fees in the case.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons and entities who bought or leased a Class
     Vehicle in the United States, excluding its territories, as
     of the date of Preliminary Approval (February 25, 2019), and
     all persons who bought or leased a Class Vehicle while on
     active military duty in the Armed Forces of the United
     States as of the date of Preliminary Approval.

The appellate case is captioned as Carol Lloyd, et al. v. Hyundai
Motor America, et al., Case No. 19-56310, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Objector-Appellant Carol Lloyd, of Blackwood, New Jersey, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees BILLY GLENN, et al., are represented by:

          James Bulthuis, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-682-5600
          E-mail: jbulthuis@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com

               - and -

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
          David K. Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-350-9723
          E-mail: ccc@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (510) 350-9710
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY are represented by:

          Carlos M. Lazatin, Esq.
          Adam Golden Levine, Esq.
          Jason Orr, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-430-6000
          E-mail: clazatin@omm.com
                  alevine@omm.com
                  jorr@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee EXPONENT, INC., is represented by:

          James Joseph Ficenec, Esq.
          NEWMEYER & DILLION
          1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: 925-988-3200
          E-mail: james.ficenec@ndlf.com


JACK IN THE BOX: Faces Popov TCPA Suit Over Unauthorized Text Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Popov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00485 (D. Nev., March 9, 2020), is brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Defendant to stop its
practice of sending unauthorized text messages promoting its
restaurants, and to obtain redress for all persons similarly
injured by its conduct.

The case challenges the Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized text messages to consumers promoting its fast food
restaurants. The Defendant's text messages violated the TCPA, and
caused the Plaintiff to suffer actual harm, including the
aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that
result from the receipt of such calls, lost value of cellular
services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their
phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data, memory,
software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Popov is a Las Vegas, Nevada resident.

The Defendant is a company that owns, operates, and/or franchises
Jack in the Box's branded fast food restaurants nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
          4760 South Pecos Rd., Ste. 103
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Phone: (702) 435-7968
          Email: attcbf@cox.net


JALEO MANAGEMENT: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaleo Management LLC.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Jaleo Management LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02066 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Jaleo Management LLC is in the management services business in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


KEVIN B. WILSON LAW: Faces Zevon FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin B. Wilson Law
Offices. The case is styled as Randi Zevon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kevin B. Wilson Law
Offices, Case No. 6:20-cv-00401 (M.D. Fla., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Kevin B. Wilson Law Offices is a firm that was established in
September 1982 and its attorneys are engaged in a varied
practice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUIS GARNEAU: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Garneau U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. Louis Garneau
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01261 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Louis Garneau U.S.A., Inc. provides sporting equipment. The Company
offers cycling shoes, gloves, helmets, and apparels, bags and
belts, and other multisport apparels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


LOVESHACKFANCY: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loveshackfancy, LLC.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Loveshackfancy, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02070 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

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

LoveShackFancy is a womenswear line and is an extension of Rebecca
Hessel Cohen (the founder)'s world, rooted in travel and inspired
by her mother--the original LoveShack muse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


LYFT CAPITAL: Benitez Sues in Southern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyft Capital Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mariano Benitez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyft Capital Inc., DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
3:20-cv-00429-L-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Lyft Capital is a small business financial solutions company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (877) 206-4741
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


MEDEX CLEANING: Cholula-Vilchis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS CHOLULA-VILCHIS and JENNY PINZON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDEX CLEANING CORP,
MEDEX CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, and MARTHA LUCIA LENIS, as an
individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-06408 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs, who were previously employed by the Defendants,
allege that the Defendants suffered and permitted the Plaintiffs
and the Collective Class to work more than 40 hours per week
without appropriate overtime compensation.

Medex Cleaning Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in East Elmhurst, New
York.  Medex Cleaning Service, LLC, is a corporation organized
under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in
East Elmhurst, New York.  Martha Lucia Lenis is the owner, operator
or agent of the Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces Kim FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MORGAN AND MORGAN,
P.C. The case is styled as Chang Y. Kim, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.C. d/b/a
MORGAN BORNSTEIN & MORGAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-02463-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.,
March 6, 2020).

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

Morgan & Morgan is an old public accounting firms in the Boston
area. For over nine decades, the professionals at this firm have
provided accounting, auditing, and tax services to individuals and
a broad range of business clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: $700K Counsel Fees Awarded in Pemberton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PEMBERTON and SANDRA COLLINS PEMBERTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Federal Savings Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-01024-BAS (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Named Representative Award.

Over five years ago, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed the lawsuit on
behalf of a class of the Plaintiffs who had obtained an adjustable
rate mortgage ("ARM") loans that permitted them to defer payment of
accrued interest.  The Plaintiffs argued that the unpaid accrued
interest that was added back to the principal balance ("negative
amortization") should have been included as interest in the
Mortgage Interest Statement ("Form 1098") that Nationstar provided
to each class member.

The class counsel has spent five long years litigating the case.
The litigation included multiple motions to dismiss, briefing on
motions to stay, extensive discovery and related disputes, attempts
to get the IRS to respond to the Court's request for a directive,
and mediation with both Judge Ronald Sabraw (Ret.) as well as
Magistrate Judge Michael Berg.

Eventually, the counsel achieved their primary goal -- to get
Nationstar to change the way it reported interest on its Forms
1098.  

On Dec. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Named Representative Award in connection with the class action
settlement reached in the case.  The Plaintiffs request $700,000 in
attorneys' fees, with a waiver of all costs, and $10,000 for each
named Plaintiff.  The Defendant does not oppose the request.
However, two class members have objected to the amount being
requested for the two named Plaintiffs.

The attorneys' fee amount will be paid by Nationstar outside of any
settlement pool.  Additionally, the counsel indicates it will waive
any request for reimbursement of costs.

The Court held a hearing on the issue on Jan. 13, 2020.  At the
hearing, no objectors appeared.

After reviewing the time sheets and considering the arguments of
the counsel both oral and written, Judge Bashant concludes that the
request is reasonable and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award.  She awarded the Plaintiff
$700,000 in attorneys' fees and $10,000 each to the two class
representatives as an incentive award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1RCfF3 from Leagle.com.

Michael Pemberton, individually, and on behalf of the class &
Sandra Collins-Pemberton, individually, and on behalf of the class,
Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Vendler -- dvendler@mpplaw.com
Law Offices of David J. Vendler & Michael R. Brown --
mike@browntaxlaw.com -- Michael R Brown APC.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Federal Savings Bank, Defendant,
represented by Erik Wayne Kemp -- ek@severson.com -- Severson and
Werson, John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- Severson and Werson
& Mary C. Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- Severson and Werson, PC.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Pemberton Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order granting final approval of a
class action settlement in MICHAEL PEMBERTON and SANDRA COLLINS
PEMBERTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Federal Savings Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-01024-BAS (MSB) (S.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge certified a class for settlement purposes only.  The class
will consist of all persons who, according to Nationstar's
reasonably available computerized computer records, had or have
Option ARM loans serviced by Nationstar and made payments to
Nationstar in any tax year from 2010 to 2018.

The Judge appointed (i) Michael Pemberton and Sandra Collins
Pemberton as the Class Representatives; and (ii) Michael R. Brown
and David J. Vendler as the Class Counsel.  

The Court approves the Settlement Agreement, which provides, among
other things, that:

* The Class Members may submit Claim Forms with documentation
sufficient to establish that the Class Member paid more in taxes
than was owed, for one or more tax years between 2010 and 2018.
Nationstar will conduct an investigation of each claim submitted to
verify from its records whether or not Class Members' Form 1098
included deferred interest.  

* For tax years 2016, 2017 and 2018, if Nationstar determines the
amount reported on Form 1098 does not include deferred interest and
documentation provided by the Class Member establishes that the
Class Member paid more in taxes than was owed based on the failure
to include deferred interest in the Form 1098, Nationstar will
issue an amended IRS Form 1098 including the negative amortization
not previously reported to the IRS.  

* For tax years 2010 through 2015, where Nationstar determines
that the amount reported on Form 1098 did not include deferred
interest "and the documentation provided by the Class Member
establishes that the Class Member paid more in taxes than was owed
based on the failure to include deferred interest in the Form 1098,
Nationstar will issue the Class Member a payment of $50.

The Action, all claims asserted, and all Released Claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

Judgement is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendant.  The Parties are ordered to carry out the Settlement
Agreement in the manner provided in the Settlement Agreement.  The
Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AGbUte from Leagle.com.

Michael Pemberton, individually, and on behalf of the class &
Sandra Collins-Pemberton, individually, and on behalf of the class,
Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Vendler -- dvendler@mpplaw.com
Law Offices of David J. Vendler & Michael R. Brown --
mike@browntaxlaw.com -- Michael R Brown APC.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Federal Savings Bank, Defendant,
represented by Erik Wayne Kemp -- ek@severson.com -- Severson and
Werson, John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- Severson and Werson
& Mary C. Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- Severson and Werson, PC.

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Mumin FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ayana Mumin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02041 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORIBE HAIR CARE: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oribe Hair Care, LLC.
The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Oribe
Hair Care, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01232 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

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

Oribe Hair Care, LLC operates as a salon. The Company offers hair
styling and treatment services, as well as provides shampoos,
conditioners, and beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAUL MICHAEL: Rizzo Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Michael
Associates. The case is styled as Angelo Rizzo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul Michael Associates,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01241 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Paul Michael Associates Inc., or PMA, is a family-owned and
operated debt collection agency in Queens, New York.[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
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


PD FLORIDA: Fails to Notify Workers Under WARN Act, Drummond Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI DRUMMOND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PD FLORIDA, LLC PARENT, a Foreign Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 5:19-cv-00472-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant is liable under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for its failure to provide
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated at least 60 days
advance notice of their termination.

On November 11, 2019, the Defendant, without warning, and despite
having knowledge of its intention to conduct mass lay-offs, engaged
in a mass lay off without properly notifying the Plaintiff,
according to the complaint.  No prior written notice was provided
to the Plaintiff as required by the WARN act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Bay and Okaloosa County,
Florida.  The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay her and each of the Class Members their respective wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued
vacation for 60 working days following their respective layoffs,
and failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions, provide
other employee benefits under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and pay their medical expenses for 60 calendar days
from and after the dates of their respective terminations.

The Defendant was a Foreign Limited Liability Company conducting
business in St. Lucie County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


PFIZER INC: Viola Suit Moved From S.D. New York to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dana Viola, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00004,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 6, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80390-RLR to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated other fraud.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. Pfizer operates in two segments, Pfizer
Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10106
          Phone: (646) 837-7129
          Email: aobergfell@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Haley L. Wasserman, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONOLLY
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3901
          Phone: (202) 434-5000
          Email: hwasserman@wc.com


POLY-COR ENTERPRISES: Bradford Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BRADFORD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. POLY-COR ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-01483-PLD (W.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant has a policy or practice of failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all overtime hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2012 to 2017 as an
inspector on multiple projects in Pennsylvania.

Poly-Cor Enterprises, Inc., is an oilfield service company
incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and headquartered in
Washington County, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: 281-885-8844
          Facsimile: 281-885-8813
          E-mail: bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


PTT LLC: Wilson Files Suit in Northern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PTT, LLC. The case is
styled as Sean Wilson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PTT, LLC, doing business as: High 5 Games,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
5:20-mc-80058-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.

High 5 Games is a content creator for the land-based, online, and
social gaming markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: (415) 212-9300
          Fax: (415) 373-9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                 bsilverkorn@edelson.com
                 tlogan@edelson.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Plaintiff(s), v. PURDUE PHARMA,
L.P., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-CV-2128 JCM (DJA) (D.
Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the
District Nevada (i) granted the City's motion to remand to state
court, and (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to stay case pending
likely transfer to multidistrict litigation.

The instant action arises from the national and widely publicized
opioid crisis.  The city sued a variety of entities and individuals
responsible for manufacturing, marketing, and selling prescription
opioids, including Oxycontin, Vicodin, and Percocet and their
generic counterparts.  The city groups the Defendants into drug
manufacturers ("Sackler Defendants"), wholesale distributors,
detailers, pharmacies, and health care providers.

The city filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, alleging
public nuisance under Nevada and common law, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment against all the
Defendants.  It also alleges negligence against the distributors,
pharmacies, and health care providers.  Finally, it brings a claim
against certain Defendants for alleged violations of Nevada's
Racketeering Act.  The Defendants timely removed the action on Dec.
11, 2019.

The case is unextraordinary.  In fact, more than 2,600 similar
cases have been filed by government entities throughout the
country.  Many of those cases have been transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio as part of the multidistrict litigation In re
National Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804, ("Opiate MDL").

On Dec. 23, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") entered a conditional transfer order ("CTO"), finding that
the action appears to involve questions of fact that are common to
the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Ohio
and assigned to Judge Polster.  The Defendants moved to stay the
case until the JPML renders a final decision on whether to transfer
the action to the Opiate MDL.

The Defendants removed the case on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction.  They contend that the complaint raises issues under
the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") such that the city's
state-law claims are subject to federal jurisdiction.  They also
argue that the case is otherwise removable pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

Judge Mahan finds that even to the extent that reference to the CSA
may raise a possible federal question, it would not be "necessarily
raised."  The city in the case alleges that the Defendants breached
duties imposed by state statutes and regulations, specifically NAC
Section 453.400.  The city may also successfully argue that the
Defendants breached the general duty of reasonable care.  Thus, the
Defendants' arguments go to the merits of the city's claims, not to
the Court's jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the CSA is not proper
grounds for the removal of the action.  Unless removal was
appropriate pursuant to CAFA, remand is warranted, holds the
court.

Judge Mahan also finds that the city represents that it is not
trying to collect personal damages on behalf of Las Vegas residents
for the residents' injuries.  Instead, the city is a single,
municipal plaintiff seeking damages it incurred as a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, and the city has alleged no claims under
Rule 23.  Because the city is pursuing -- and will only be able to
recover -- its own damages, the case is not a class action and does
not fall within the purview of CAFA.

Accordingly, Judge Mahan granted the city's motion to remand, and
denied the Defendants' motion to stay case pending likely transfer
to multidistrict litigation.  The matter is remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SgZZys from Leagle.com.

City of Las Vegas, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford R. Jerbic,
Las Vegas City Attorney's Office, Richard Hy, Robert M. Adams,
Eglet Prince & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Actavis, Inc.,
formerly known as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson
Laboratories, Inc. & Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Watson
Pharma, Inc., Defendants, represented by Philip M. Hymanson,
Hymanson and Hymanson.

Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. & Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Amanda C. Yen -- ayen@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano Wilson & Patricia K. Lundvall --
plundvall@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

Mallinckrodt LLC & Specgx LLC, Defendants, represented by Ryan
William Leary -- RLeary@laxalt-nomura.com -- Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd.
& Steven E. Guinn, Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Johnson and Johnson, Defendants,
represented by Charles C. Lifland -- clifland@omm.com -- O'Melveny
& Myers.

Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher D. Kircher -- cdk@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher
Rickard, Jarrod L. Rickard, Semenza Kircher Rickard & Lawrence J.
Semenza, III, Semenza Kircher Rickard.

RADIUS GLOBAL: Brach Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mirl Brach,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Radius Global Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-02018 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

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

Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt
collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue
cycle management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic St.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Raymond Junmok Kim,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Radius Global Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:20-cv-01239 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt
collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue
cycle management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Mo. Eastern Dist. Dismisses Amended Pietoso Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case, PIETOSO,
INC. d/b/a CAFE NAPOLI, Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. and
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF
BRIDGETON, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-CV-397 RLW (E.D. Mo.).

Pietoso brings the action as a putative nationwide class action for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment.  On April 26, 2011,
the Defendants entered into a contract ("Service Agreement") with
Pietoso.  The service charges were increased by Republic on a
regular basis.  The increases in Service Charges were presented on
the invoice as authorized service charge increases.  Pietoso argues
that the Defendants improperly increased the service charges
without contractual authorization.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  

Judge White finds that the case involves two business entities who
had an established business relationship involving regular billing
cycles and payment.  Pietoso knew and paid the Defendants'
invoices, which reflected the relevant rate increases, for eight
years.  Pietoso has not alleged that these rate increases were
concealed, that it had insufficient time to investigate the rate
increases before paying the invoices, or that they were prevented
by Defendants from investigating these rate increases.  Finally,
Pietoso did not withhold payment for the increases, which indicates
its acceptance of those increases.  Pietoso, therefore, cannot
state a plausible claim for relief and the Judge granted the motion
to dismiss Pietoso's breach of contract claim.

Pietoso's claim for declaratory judgment is based upon its
allegations that it was charged fees unauthorized under the Service
Agreement.  Thus, the Judge holds that Pietoso's claim for
declaratory judgment must be dismissed because it is based upon the
purported breach of the Service Agreement.  It is well-settled that
declaratory relief is not proper where the real cause of action is
an action at law for breach of contract.  Therefore, the Judge
dismissed Pietoso's declaratory judgment claim.

Accordingly, Judge White granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim.  An appropriate Judgment is filed with the
Memorandum.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/GAbRoM from Leagle.com.

Pietoso, Inc., a Missouri corporation, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated doing business as Cafe Napoli,
Plaintiff, represented by Nathaniel Richard Carroll --
nathaniel@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC, Ryan A. Keane --
ryan@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC & Michael C. Seamands, LAW
OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC.

Republic Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Allied Services,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Allied
Waste Services of Bridgeton, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S.
Russell -- jsrussell@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Steven J.
Alagna -- steven.alagna@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.

RING LLC: Faces Sheth Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ring LLC. The case is
captioned as Abhi Sheth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ring LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01538-ODW-PJW
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II.

The suit demands $5 million in damages.

Ring provides security products. The Company offers alarms, video
doorbells, security systems, cameras, and lighting products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com


ROAN RESOURCES: Burfeind Suit Challenges Sale to Citizen Energy
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BURFEIND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ROAN RESOURCES, INC., RICK GIDEON, JOSEPH A. MILLS,
MATTHEW BONANNO, EVAN LEDERMAN, JOHN V. LOVOI, PAUL B. LOYD, JR.,
MICHAEL RALEIGH, ANDREW TAYLOR, and ANTHONY TRIPODO, Case No.
1:19-cv-02135-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 14, 2019), is a stockholder class
action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Roan against
it and its Board of Directors for violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a
result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Citizen
Energy Operating, LLC, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Citizen
Energy Pressburg Inc., as a result of an unfair process for an
unfair price.

Ms. Burfeind, who is and has been a stockholder of Roan during all
relevant times, challenges and seeks to enjoin an upcoming
stockholder vote on a proposed transaction by which Citizen will
acquire each issued and outstanding share of Roan for an inadequate
and insufficient price (the "Proposed Transaction"
or "Merger").  Pursuant to the terms of the definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger entered into by and among Roan and Citizen on
October 1, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), Citizen will acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Roan common stock, in compensation for
which, Roan stockholders will be entitled to receive only $1.52 in
cash for every Roan share they own.

On October 25, 2019, Citizen filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction, followed by the
November 4, 2019 filing of the Definitive Proxy Statement.
Notably, the Plaintiff alleges, the Proxy is wholly insufficient
and provides either materially misleading and or insufficient
information for Roan stockholders to properly analyze whether to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and is, therefore, a
continuation of the Board's breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Proxy describes an insufficient sales process in which the
Board only paid lip service to its fiduciary duties, the Plaintiff
contends.  She adds that the deal may also be tainted by conflicts
of interest of the directors and Company executives.  She notes
that certain of the Company's directors and senior executive
officers may have been motivated to enter into the Proposed
Transaction in order to receive benefits not shared equally with
her and members of the proposed class.  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, all illiquid Company options and other incentive
awards will vest no later than seven days before the effective date
of the Proposed Transaction.

Roan is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place
of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Roan engages in the acquisition, exploration, development,
production, and sale of oil and natural gas reserves.  Roan holds
interest in the Merge, SCOOP, and STACK plays covering an area of
approximately 170,000 net acres located in the Anadarko Basin,
Oklahoma.  The Company was incorporated in 2018 and is a subsidiary
of Roan Holdings, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: mackerman@brodskysmith.com
                  rcardona@brodskysmith.com


ROSS STORES: Fails to Offer Rest Periods or Premiums, Dennis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA DENNIS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. ROSS STORES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV358444
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 14, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code by failing to:

   (1) provide the Plaintiff and other employees with rest
       periods;

   (2) pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
       periods;

   (3) pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked;

   (4) provide them with accurate written wage statements; and

   (5) pay them all of their final wages following separation of
       employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from August 2016 through September 2018.

Ross Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in the
state of California.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Pontones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants San Jose Restaurant, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Laura Pontones v. San Jose
Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00219-D, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at
Raleigh.

The appellate case is captioned as San Jose Restaurant, Inc., et
al. v. Laura Pontones, Case No. 19-445, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Pontones
is a former server.  She sues San Jose Restaurant Incorporated; San
Jose Management, Inc., d/b/a San Jose Mexican Restaurant and Sports
Cantina; San Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc.; San
Jose Mexican Restaurant of Elizabethtown, Inc.; San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of N.C. Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Pembroke,
NC, Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Raleigh Inc.; San Jose
Mexican Restaurant of Shallotte, Inc.; San Jose of Rocky Mount #2
Inc., d/b/a San Jose Tacos and Tequila; San Jose of Zebulon, Inc.;
San Jose of Roanoke Rapids, Inc.; San Jose Wakefield, Inc., d/b/a
San Jose Mex and Tequila Bar; Plaza Azteca Raleigh, Inc., d/b/a San
Jose Tacos and Tequila; Hector Flores; Alberto Flores; Josue
Flores; Jose Perez; Vicente Perez; Pablo Meza; Edgardo Flores; and
Edgar Flores for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate Mexican restaurants in North
Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina.

On May 17, 2018, Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated plaintiffs, filed a complaint against a group of allegedly
related Mexican restaurants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
("NCWHA").  By June 2018, Ms. Pontones amended her complaint.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13,
2020, Judge James Dever III granted conditional certification to
class claims in the case.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent LAURA PONTONES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: 919-741-8693

Defendants-Petitioners SAN JOSE RESTAURANT, INC., et al., are
represented by:

          Elizabeth Kline Dorminey, Esq.
          James Larry Stine, Esq.
          WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, PC
          Lenox Towers
          3400 Peachtree Road, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30326-0000
          Personal: 404-365-0900
          E-mail: ekd@wimlaw.com
                  jls@wimlaw.com


SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida transferred the case, SUSAN SAVAGE, on
Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
SETERUS, INC. and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, as Successor in
Interest to Seterus, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-14256-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD (S.D. Fla.), to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Savage filed the Class Action Complaint in the matter on July 25,
2019.  She alleges that the Defendants are servicers of mortgages
for residential housing loans and contract to collect payments,
fees, and other amounts that homeowners owe.  The Defendants
specialize in servicing mortgage loans that are in default or have
an increased risk of default.  They serviced Savage's mortgage loan
while the loan was in default.

On July 27, 2018, the Defendants sent Savage a letter stating that
her mortgage loan was in default and demanding that she brings the
loan up to date by paying the default amount by the expiration date
of Aug. 31, 2018.  On Nov. 30, 2018, the Defendants sent Savage a
nearly identical demand letter with a higher default amount and an
expiration date of Jan. 4, 2019.

During a deposition for a case in North Carolina, a representative
of the Defendants testified that the Defendants' policy is that
they will not accelerate a mortgage loan if any payment, even a
partial payment, is made by the expiration date that brings the
loan less than 45 days delinquent.  hus, Savage maintains that the
demand letters, by stating that the mortgage loan will be
accelerated if full payment is not received by the expiration date,
constituted a threat and a false, deceptive, and misleading method
to collect a debt.

Savage brings one count of violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), one count of violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), and one count of
negligent misrepresentation.  Savage brings her claims on behalf of
herself and putative classes of all consumers throughout the
Southern District of Florida who received demand letters from the
Defendants substantially similar or materially identical to the
demand letters that she received.

On Jan. 25, 2019, three plaintiff homeowners, Nicole Barilla, Lois
Kerr, and Charles McDonald ("Barilla plaintiffs") filed a Class
Action Complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Seterus,
Inc., later adding Nationstar Mortgage, LLC as a defendant as
successor in interest to Seterus, Inc -- Barilla v. Seterus, Inc.,
2:19-cv-00046 (M.D. Fla.).  The Barilla plaintiffs brought claims
of violation of the FDCPA, violation of the FCCPA, and negligent
misrepresentation. Id. at DE 1. They based these claims on demand
letters that, like the demand letters at issue in this case, stated
that Defendants would accelerate the maturity date of a mortgage
loan if full payment of the default amount was not received by the
expiration date.

The District Court in the Middle District of Florida subsequently
dismissed the Barilla plaintiffs' FCCPA and negligent
misrepresentation claims.  The operative complaint is the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, which the Defendants have answered.
No motion for class certification has been filed to date.

The Defendants seek, in part, a transfer of the case to the Middle
District of Florida under the first-filed rule.

Judge Rosenberg concludes that an analysis of the relevant factors,
consideration of the purposes of the first-filed rule, and the
interests of justice demonstrate that the case should be
transferred to the Middle District of Florida.  Savage has provided
no reason to justify the case remaining in the District.  Savage
and the Barilla plaintiffs raised identical claims of violation of
the FDCPA, violation of the FCCPA, and negligent misrepresentation
against the same Defendants.  Savage and the Barilla plaintiffs are
similarly situated and, in fact, share counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Rosenberg granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  He grated the Motion insofar as the
Defendants seek a transfer of the case to the Middle District of
Florida.  He denied without prejudice the Motion insofar as
Defendants seek dismissal of the Class Action Complaint.  The
Defendants may re-raise their dismissal arguments to the District
Court in the Middle District of Florida.

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close the case.  All the deadlines are
terminated, all hearings are cancelled, and all motions are denied
as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FyMXFF from Leagle.com.

Susan Savage, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield Bryson, Mason.

Seterus, Inc. & Nationstar Mortgage LLC, as successor in interest
to Seterus, Inc., Defendants, represented by Brittney Lauren Difato
-- difato@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Emily Yandle
Rottmann -- erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sara
F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods.

SHIVA SHAKTI: Class in Bolyard FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOLYARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHIVA SHAKTI TWO
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19 CV 2402 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Named Plaintiffs'
Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with conditions.

Named Plaintiff Bolyard, Pamela Sheppard, Meranda Wilder, Jelanne
Shurkry, Mario Paschall, and Audrey Hundley, brought the action
collectively on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, claiming that the Defendants have policies and practices
in place at their Super 8 motel in Westlake, Ohio, which violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  

Specifically, they claim that the Defendants have not paid their
hourly employees minimum wage for all hours worked, and have not
followed overtime pay requirements under the FLSA.  The currently
pending motion seeks to have the case conditionally certified as a
collective action, and seeks Court approval of procedures for
notifying all the putative Plaintiffs of their right to opt-in to
the collective action.

The Defendants did object to certification based on a mistaken
understanding of the procedural requirements for conditional
certification of collective actions.  They challenged certification
based solely on the Plaintiffs' failure to meet the procedural
requirements for class certification under Local Rule 23.1 and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.  However, these rules do not apply to collective
actions brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Defendants also argue that, in the event of certification, the
class definition should not include current employees.  That
objection, likewise, is not well taken.  There is no evidence at
this point in time that would suggest that the Defendants payment
policies have changed since August of 2019.  If, however, such
evidence is uncovered during discovery, the appropriateness of the
class as well as the breadth of the class definition may be
revisited at a later stage of the litigation.

Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendants will provide the
Representative Plaintiffs with discovery containing the identity,
employment location and position(s) held during employment with the
Defendants, dates of employment with the Defendant, last known home
address, last known phone number, and last known email address (if
known), for all the putative class members.  The information must
be provided either by electronic spreadsheet, or in some other
equally legible and organized list/table.

The Plaintiffs have provided a proposed notice for opt-in
notification.  The Defendants have requested several changes to the
wording, many of which the Plaintiffs do not oppose and have
incorporated into their revised proposed notice.  The Plaintiffs do
oppose any changes that eliminate current employees from the
notice, or reference the FLSA's prohibition on retaliation.  They
also oppose removal of the notice that even employees who are owed
only small amounts may join the action, and oppose the addition of
duplicative statements relating to the potential class members'
right to consult their own private attorneys. T

Judge Nugent finds these few objections to the Defendants' proposed
changes to be valid based on the facts alleged and the law
applicable to the case.  Therefore, He adopts and approves the
revised proposed notice attached as Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs
Reply brief.

The notices will be sent by mail and email to the last known
addresses of each potential class member within 14 days after the
Defendants have provided the Plaintiffs with the putative members
contact information.  The Plaintiffs will pay all costs associated
with the mailing of the notice.  If any of the notices are returned
as undeliverable, they will have the right within 30 days of
receiving notice of undeliverable addresses to perform other
investigations to locate more current information and upon
discovery of new contact information may resend the class notice,
and copy the Defendants' counsel by email.

Finally, the Defendants objection to the appointment of the
Plaintiffs' attorneys at the class counsel is unfounded.  The case
was brought as a collective action and not as a Rule 23 class
action.  Therefore, the class counsel requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g), upon which the Defendants' objections rest, do not
apply.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Nugent finds that the Plaintiffs
have met their burden of showing that the case should be
conditionally certified as a collective action, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d) and 83(b), and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The
Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is, therefore,
granted.  The discovery will be permitted as provided in the Order.
The approved notice which is Exhibit A of the Plaintiffs' Reply
will be sent to all the potential opt-in class members as
directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Tyg3AH from Leagle.com.

Christopher Bolyard, Pamela Sheppard, Meranda Wilder, Jelanne
Shukry, Mario Paschall & Audrey Hundley, Plaintiffs, represented by
Carrie J. Dyer -- carrie@MansellLawLLC.com -- Mansell Law & Gregory
R. Mansell.

Myra Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory R. Mansell --
Greg@MansellLawLLC.com.

Shiva Shakti Two Corporation, doing business as Super 8 by Wyndham
Westlake/Cleveland, Hetal Patel & Nehal Petal, Defendants,
represented by Michael K. Rieke -- michael@attorneyrusso.com --
Russo & Rieke & Thomas M. Horwitz.

Shiva Shakti Two Corporation, Counter-Claimant, represented by
Michael K. Rieke, Russo & Rieke & Thomas M. Horwitz.

Christopher Bolyard, Mario Paschall, Pamela Sheppard, Meranda
Wilder & Audrey Hundley, Counter-Defendants, represented by Carrie
J. Dyer, Mansell Law & Gregory R. Mansell.


SKAGIT BONDED: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Adams FDCPA Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRETT ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SKAGIT BONDED COLLECTORS, LLC dba
SB&C, LTD., Defendant, Case No. C19-1005 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, granted the Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c).

Adams brings the putative class action against the Defendant,
alleging violations of two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), namely 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2) and
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.  The Plaintiff received four different
letters from the efendant indicating that the described accounts
had been assigned to the Defendant's office for collection.  Each
letter was dated Jan. 21, 2019, and identified the "Original
Creditor" as Skagit Regional Health.  Each letter referenced a
unique creditor account number, and indicated that "no payment was
received."  The Plaintiff contends that each letter fails to
identify the current creditor as required by the FDCPA.  

The Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the
letters do not violate either Section 1692g(a)(2) or Section 1692e,
and that the Plaintiff lacks standing.

Judge Zilly holds that the FDCPA does not require a debt collector
to use the term "current" when naming the creditor to whom the debt
is owed.  Moreover, when only one creditor is listed in a dunning
letter, as was the situation in the case, no plausible argument can
be made that the least sophisticated debtor, reading the
correspondence as a whole, would be confused about the identity of
"the creditor to whom the debt is owed."  The Plaintiff cannot
establish a violation of the FDCPA, and the Defendant is entitled
to judgment on the pleadings.  In light of this ruling, the Judge
does not address the Defendant's alternative argument that the
Plaintiff lacks standing.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly granted the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's
claims under the FDCPA and the case with prejudice.  In light of
his ruling, the Judge struck as moot the Defendant's motion to stay
discovery, and the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.  The
Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with the Order and
to send a copy of the Judgment the Order to all the counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HSzRNf from Leagle.com.

Brett Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Amorette Rinkleib --
arinkleib@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com -- THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
PLLC.

Skagit Bonded Collectors LLC, doing business as SB&C Ltd,
Defendant, represented by Alex A. Wade -- Wadea@cmtlaw.com --
CARLSON & MESSER LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Kaminski --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael Shannon O'Meara -- michael@defendingchicago.com -- THE
O'MEARA LAW OFFICE PS.


SNAP FINANCE: Faces Wesley Class Suit in District of Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snap Finance. The
case is styled as Brandi Wesley, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Snap Finance, Case No. 2:20-cv-00148-CMR (D.
Utah, March 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions for
FCC--unsolicited telephone sales.

Snap Finance is a digital-finance company that specializes in
providing consumer financing and rent-to-own purchase options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 928-1423
          Fax: (866) 317-2674
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


SRG OPERATING: Faces Alvarez Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRG OPERATING, INC.,
ET AL. The case is styled as Nubia Alvarez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRG OPERATING, INC. DBA
COVENTRY PLACE, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE,
Case No. CGC20583540 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March 6,
2020).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

SRG OPERATING INC. is in the real estate agents and managers
industry in Solana Beach, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com



STEWART'S SHOPS: Gregory Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY GREGORY, MATTHEW POTTER, and ASTRID HALTEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. STEWART'S SHOPS CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No.
7:14-cv-00033-TJM/ATB (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted
the Class Counsel's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, an
Award of Service Payments to the Named Plaintiffs, and an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

In January 2019, the Named Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf
of the Opt-In Plaintiffs and proposed Rule 23 Settlement Class, on
the one hand, and Stewart's Shops, on the other hand, entered into
a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, contingent on Court
approval.  On May 17, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.

On July 24, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the Settlement and preliminarily certifying the Rule 23
Settlement Class.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
the Court directed that Notice of the proposed Settlement and the
applicable procedures and schedules be sent to the members of the
Rule 23 Settlement Class.  The Class Members were given the
opportunity to object to the Settlement and/or request to be
excluded from the Rule 23 Settlement Class.

On Dec. 18, 2019, the Class Counsel filed a Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement, an Award of Service Payments to the
Named Plaintiffs, and an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, which
motion was not opposed by the Defendant.  The Court held a Final
Approval Hearing on Jan. 2, 2020.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement, and all papers
filed and proceedings held in the Action, Judge McAvoy fully,
finally, and unconditionally approved in all respects the
Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement contained therein.  He
directed the Parties to implement its terms.

The Judge confirmed as final his certification of the Rule 23
Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and in the
Court's July 24, 2019 Preliminary Approval Order.  He confirmed as
final the appointment (i) of the Named Plaintiffs as the class
representatives; and (ii) of David I. Iversen, Esq. of the law firm
of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP as the Class Counsel.

In accordance with Section 3.2 of the Settlement Agreement, the
Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and costs (including the
Plaintiffs' mediation fees and costs) in the amount of $225,000, to
be paid from the QSF as specified in the Settlement Agreement
following the Effective Date of the Agreement.

In accordance with Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the
Named Plaintiffs are awarded service payments in the amount of
$5,000 each, to be paid from the QSF as specified in the Settlement
Agreement following the Effective Date of the Agreement.

Upon the Effective Date, the Action will be deemed dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety.  The Parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and
the Order.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the amount of
fees and expenses incurred by the Settlement Claims Administrator
will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1O7vFt from Leagle.com.

Holly Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Matthew Potter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Astrid Halten, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ryan M.
Finn -- rfinn@obrienwood.com -- O'Brien & Wood, PLLC & David I.
Iversen, E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP.

Stewart's Shops Corp., Defendant, represented by Stephanie L.
Goutos -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson, Lewis P.C.,
Vincent E. Polsinelli -- Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & William J. Anthony --
William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


TAX RISE INC: Cyrus Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Cyrus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tax Rise Inc. and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01125520 (Cal. Super.,
January 21, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure
to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, unfair competition,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. [BN]

Tax Rise is in the business of providing tax resolution services in
California where Cyrus worked as a Certified Tax Specialist.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Joseph M. Szilagyi, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
             jszilagyi@aegislawfirm.com
             swong@aegislawfirm.com
             khaque@aegislawfirm.com


THEATER LA MAMA: Faces Bishop ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Theater La Mama, Inc.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Theater La Mama, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02060 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

La MaMa is a cultural institution and non-profit theatre in New
York's East Village.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


TIGERLYFE WEALTH: Faces Abante Rooter TCPA Suit in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tigerlyfe Wealth
Management LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Tigerlyfe Wealth Management LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01653-KAW (N.D.
Cal., March 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Tigerlyfe Wealth Management, LLC, provides business consulting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (877) 206-4741
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
                 tfriedman@toddflaw.com


TOO FACED COSMETICS: Faces Olson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOO FACED COSMETICS, LLC, a Delaware company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00487-JCM-DJA (D. Nev., March 9, 2020), is brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Defendant to stop its
practice of sending unauthorized text messages promoting its
products and services, including sending texts after consumers
expressly request that the text messages stop.

The Defendant's text messages violated the TCPA, and caused the
Plaintiff to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation,
nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that result from
the receipt of such calls, lost value of cellular services paid
for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including
wear and tear to their phones' data, memory, software, hardware,
and battery components, among other harms, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Olson is a Las Vegas, Nevada resident.

The Defendant is a cosmetics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
          4760 South Pecos Rd., Suite 103
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Phone: (702) 435-7968
          Email: attcbf@cox.net


TRANSCANADA CORP: PFRS Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
TRANSCANADA CORPORATION, ROBERT C. SKAGGS, JR., and STEPHEN P.
SMITH, Case No. 2020-0179 (Del. Ch., March 9, 2020), is brought on
behalf of former stockholders of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.,
against the Individual Defendants for breaching their duties as
fiduciaries of Columbia, and against TransCanada for
aiding-and-abetting the Individual Defendants' breaches and for
unjust enrichment.

Robert C. Skaggs is Columbia's former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, and Stephen P. Smith is the former Chief Financial
Officer.

The action arises because Messrs. Skaggs and Smith exploited their
positions and advanced their own self-interest, Plaintiff PFRS
alleges. Before the merger of Columbia and TransCanada, Skaggs and
Smith were looking to retire with "change-in-control" benefits.
Understanding that Columbia would be an attractive merger candidate
because its position in the Marcellus and Utica shales represented
a "once-in-two-generations opportunity," Skaggs and Smith spun out
Columbia from NiSource Inc. and stayed with Columbia to arrange a
sale and retire. In selling Columbia, PFRS contends, Messrs. Skaggs
and Smith were duty bound to act reasonably and seek out and obtain
the maximum price available.

According to the complaint, on November 25, 2015, Columbia's Board
of Directors decided to terminate all discussions with potential
bidders and focus on an equity offering to ensure that Columbia
would have sufficient liquidity to fund its growth. Columbia
instructed TransCanada, Dominion, NextEra and Berkshire to put
their "pencils down" and destroy all diligence. In December 2015,
Columbia successfully raised $1.4 billion in an oversubscribed
equity offering of common stock. Skaggs told investors that the
offering was "large and successful" and "positions us so that we'll
not need to access the equity markets until well into 2017."
Although good for Columbia and its stockholders, the Board's
decision to terminate all deal discussions left Skaggs and Smith
with retirement plans that would not include change-in-control
benefits.

Messrs. Skaggs and Smith secretly reengaged with TransCanada.
Without Board approval, Skaggs and Smith provided TransCanada with
updated diligence showing the continued strength of Columbia's
finances and operations following the equity offering. Smith
secretly met with TransCanada's Poirier, handing him a playbook for
convincing Columbia's Board to accept a TransCanada proposal, and
informing him that Columbia had "eliminated the competition."
Dominion, NextEra, and Berkshire were not informed of any
discussions and not invited to resume diligence or make a
proposal.

PFRS asserts that the Court has found that Columbia issued a
materially false and misleading Proxy to solicit stockholder
support for the sale to TransCanada. Specifically, the Proxy did
not disclose to stockholders that: (i) TransCanada breached the
"don't ask don't waive" standstill while Dominion, NextEra and
Berkshire were still bound by the standstill and Columbia opted to
ignore TransCanada's breach; (ii) Smith informed TransCanada on
January 7, 2016 that it faced no competition in acquiring Columbia;
and (iii) Skaggs and Smith were planning to retire in 2016. Skaggs
retired on July 1, 2016 with $17.9 million in additional
change-in-control benefits. Smith received $7.5 million in
additional change-in-control benefits.

Because of Mr. Skaggs' and Mr. Smith's breaches of fiduciary
duties, the Plaintiff asserts it and the Class did not receive the
best price for their shares. Putting their own interests ahead of
the interests of Columbia's stockholders, Messrs. Skaggs and Smith
deprived the Plaintiff and the Class of a value-maximizing
transaction and oversaw the issuance of a Proxy that informed
stockholders that the deal was the result of a fair and open
process, and negotiated by fiduciaries acting in good faith, when
the opposite was true, says the complaint.

Plaintiff PFRS held shares of Columbia common stock.

TransCanada is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
          Alla Zayenchik, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Derrick Farrell, Esq.
          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-2540

               - and -

          Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
          Marie M. Degnan, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
          500 Delaware Ave., 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 654-1888


TRY THE WORLD: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Try the World, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Try the World, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02071 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Try the World's online discovery platform helps people to subscribe
and get boxes of foods, produced by local artisans and curated by
chefs coming from around the world, enabling customers to receive
gourmet boxes, curated food and cultural products from a different
country every 2 months.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


UNITED STATES: Onosamba-Ohindo Brings Suit in New York Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Justice. The case is styled as Junior Onosamba-Ohindo
and Antonio Lopez Agustin, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. William Barr, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the Department of Justice, United
States Department of Justice, James McHenry in his official
capacity as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Matthew Albence,
in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Jeffrey
Searls, in his official capacity as the Acting Administrator of the
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00290-LJV (W.D. N.Y., March 10, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit is stated as
Immigration - Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
while the cause of filing is for Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.

The United States Department of Justice, also known as the Justice
Department, is a federal executive department of the United States
government is responsible for the enforcement of the law and
administration of justice in the United States, and is equivalent
to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Victoria Marie Roeck, Esq.
   New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation
   125 Broad Street
   19th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 607-3368
   Email: vroeck@nyclu.org

USHA FOOD INC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Usha Food, Inc. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Usha Food, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02059 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Usha Foods sells a wide variety of sweets, snacks, and fast food.
Usha Foods also offers a comprehensive range of catering and
shipping services all throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces Coffman Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL COFFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC AND LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01324 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in
connection with an attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is allegedly obligated to pay a debt.  LVNV retained
Valentine to collect the Debt.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Valentine's December 20, 2018 collection letter contains a false
representation in connection with the collection of the Debt.

Valentine is an entity, who at all relevant times was engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to
collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.  Valentine is a "debt
collector" as defined by the FDCPA.

LVNV is an entity, who acquires debt in default merely for
collection purposes, and who was engaged in the business of
directly or indirectly attempting to collect a "debt" from the
Plaintiff.  LVNV is a "debt collector" as defined by the
FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@atfclaw.com


VMSB LLC: Ruiz ADEA Suit Alleges Discrimination Based on Age
------------------------------------------------------------
Raimundo Ruiz, and other similarly situated individuals v. VMSB,
LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S, Case No. 1:20-cv-21044-BB
(S.D. Fla., March 9, 2020), is brought under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 to
redress the injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant's alleged
discriminatory treatment based on his age.

According to the complaint, while employed by the Defendant, the
Plaintiff never received a verbal nor written warning for any
work-related issue. However, during his employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff experienced unlawful discrimination and
harassment on the basis of his age. The Plaintiff did not have any
problem until March 2019, when new chef, Walter Mancini, began to
work at CASA CASUARINA.

Chef Walter Mancini subjected the Plaintiff to excessive
surveillance and job scrutiny, and he monitored every movement or
activity of the Plaintiff, according to the complaint. Then Chef
Walter Mancini would criticize the Plaintiff's work, he screamed at
the Plaintiff humiliating him in front of all his co-workers. The
Plaintiff alleges that he was unfairly admonished, humiliated, and
he was blamed for anything that went wrong at work.

On March 15, after the Plaintiff finished his shift, Chef Walter
Mancini called the Plaintiff to his office and told him that he was
not needed anymore. The Plaintiff's position was replaced with the
younger individual that the Plaintiff was training. As a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff has been
damaged and suffered serious economic losses, as well as mental
pain and suffering, which was detrimental to the his health, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a 52 years old male of Cuban national origin, who
was employed by the Defendant.

Casa Casuarina is an Italian/Mediterranean restaurant located in
Miami Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XANADU MASSAGE: Faces Ditmar Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT DITMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. XANADU MASSAGE INC. d/b/a/ XANADU MASSAGE, Case No.
0:19-cv-62838-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Xanadu is a cosmetics and personal care company.  To solicit new
clients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no
regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and proposed Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,

Xanadu Massage Inc., doing business as Xanadu Massage, is a
Michigan company with a principal address in Grand Rapids,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com



                            *********

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 ***