---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 191

                            Headlines

38 WATER: Guit FLSA Suit Settlement Amendment Advised
565 BROOME STREET: Hit With Class Suit Over Missing Wine Cooler
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
AIR CANADA: Judge Authorizes Class Action Over Fuel Surcharges
ALLERGAN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

ALLSTATE FIRE: Banks Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
ANYTIME FITNESS: Pittman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
BEVERAGE MARKETING: Lockhart PI Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
BIO-NUTRITIONAL: Baez Files Suit in New York for Fraud
BLACKTHORNE CORP: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BRYN MAWR BANK: Gantt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Thornton, Rochon Commences Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Gershen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
CARILLON TOWER: Ct. Certifies Chinese Nationals Class in Dou Suit

CENGAGE: Textbook Authors File Class Action in New York
CHARLES SCHWAB: 401(k) Court Ruling Could Hurt Retirement Savers
CHARLOTTE FLOORING: National Trust Suit Removed to South Carolina
CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Responds to Former Teacher's Class Action
CHOICE BANCORP: Parshall Sues over Nicolet Bankshares Merger Deal

CNG RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Bid in Alford Suit Denied
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class Action
CONNECTICUT: Plans to Test, Treat Inmates with Hep C Amid Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Martinez Suit to N.D. California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Files Fraud Class Action in E.D. New York

CROMWELL MANOR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CUMBERLAND FARMS: Musikar Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
D&D ELECTRICAL: NY Supreme Court Dismisses Gardner Labor Suit
DEFENDERS, INC: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Judge Gives Nod to $28MM Deal With Investors

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay
FACEBOOK INC: SmithAmundsen Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action
FIRST FEDERAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Chase Suit
FIRST FINANCIAL: Lawrence Seeks to Certify FDCPA & UCSPA Classes
FIVE STAR REALTY: Benson Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Illinois

FLORIDA: Rights Groups Sue to End Solitary Confinement of Minors
FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
GAW MINERS: Hit With Class Suit Over Virtual Currency
GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Sues Over Insurance Policy
GENESEE & WYOMING: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Pixel Owners Have Until Oct. 7 to Claim Payout
GRANT PASS, OR: Court Allows Homeless Class Action to Proceed
GRANTS PASS, OR: Court Certifies Class in Blake Suit
GREEN ROADS: Snyder Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Fla.
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Hammond Files Suit Over Share Price Drop

GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Hit With Class Suit Over School Abuses
HAPPIEST MINDS: Sulzberg Sues over Employment Discrimination
HOME CARE: Lee et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Home Care Aides
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Roundup Herbicide
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Riaubia Suit Has Preliminary Approval

JUUL LABS: 3 New Jersey Vapers Sue Over E-Cigarettes
KEVIN MARSH ET AL: Removes Luquire et al Case to District Court
LEGACYTEXAS: Parshall Balks at Prosperity Bancshares Merger
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Consolidates Securities Suit
MED-SPEC TRANSPORT: Washington May Refile Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 2

MERCEDES-BENZ VANS: Moore Sues over Racial Discrimination
MEREDITH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit
MEREDITH CORP: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
MEREDITH CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
MEREDITH CORP: Wirthwein Sues over Share Price Drop

METALS USA: Wilson Deal Final Approval Bid Filing Cont. to Oct. 18
MIDLAND CREDIT: Teiner, et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York
MINDBODY, INC: Financial Statements Misleading, Walleye Says
MLB HOTEL: Nelson Seeks Minimum & OT for Tipped Employees
MONDA WINDOW: Mims Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

MONTREAL: Class Action Chance to Address Racial Profiling
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
NORTHWOODS BANK: Stuckey Files FCRA Suit in Minnesota Ct.

PENNSYLVANIA UNION: Workers Forced to Pay Union Dues
PLURALSIGHT INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
POP WARNER: Class Cert. Bid in Archie Suit Denied
PREMIER CADBURY: Brown Seeks Refund of Unlawfully Retained Funds
PURDUE PHARMA: Triad Sues Over Sale of Prescription Opioids

RABOBANK N.A.: Placed Insurance Proceeds in Non-interest Accounts
RIPPLE: Investor Amends XRP Class Action
RITE AID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Josten Suit
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit
SAKS INC: Reply to 4th Amended Nunez FTCA Suit Due Oct. 1

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
SEALED AIR: Rosen Probing Potential Securities Claims
SEATIDE FISH: Veloz Seeks Minimum Wages & OT for Market Workers
SOLI-BOND INC: Removes Sanchez Suit to E.D. California
SUGAR CREEK GLEN: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: Bacerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUTTER HEALTH: Legal Reckoning Over Medical Pricing
TACOMA, WA: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Fecteau Prisoner Suit
TE CONNECTIVITY: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Approved
TECH PACKAGING: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California

TRAVELERS HOME: Butler Files Class Suit in South Carolina
TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action
UNITED PARCEL:  Burroughs Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UNITED STATES: Flores Valle Files Suit v. Homeland Security

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: OT Pay for Part-Time Lecturers Sought
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
US SOCCER: Morgan Moves for Class Cert. of 3 Classes Under FLSA
VALARIS PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
VALARIS PLC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

VMSB, LLC: Marmol Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Employees
WELLS FARGO: Harrelson PI Suit Transferred to South Carolina
YAHOO! INC: Settlement Reached in Data Breach Class Action
[*] Legal Costs, Lack of Timely Resolution May Stymie Class Suits

                            *********

38 WATER: Guit FLSA Suit Settlement Amendment Advised
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCO TULIO TUY GUIT, et al., Plaintiff, v. 38 WATER &
STREET INC., d/b/a "Obao," et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ.
7466 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York advised the
parties to agree to either an amended settlement agreement or an
amendment to the settlement agreement that allocates the settlement
proceeds between the Plaintiffs on a reasonable basis.  

On March 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge presided over a settlement
conference in the matter that was attended by the parties and their
counsel.  The parties reached a settlement at that conference.  The
matter is now before the Court on the parties' joint application to
approve their settlement.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were employed as delivery workers
at a restaurant operated by the Defendants.  They bring the action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL"), primarily seeking recovery for allegedly unpaid
overtime premium pay.  They claim that they frequently worked more
than 40 hours per week but did not receive overtime premium pay at
the rate of 150% of their regularly hourly rate.

The Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs are owed some additional
compensation for overtime work but claim that the amount actually
owed is far less than that claimed by the Plaintiffs.   Plaintiff
Guit claims that he is owed $30,251.06 in unpaid overtime wages;
Plaintiff Lopez claims that he is owed $22,055.59 in unpaid
overtime wages.  The Plaintiffs also seek an award of liquidated
damages which would result in a doubling of their unpaid overtime
claims.  They also assert claims based on the Defendants' alleged
failure to provide wage statements and wage notices as required by
the NYLL.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs off the books and have time
records for only one of the Plaintiffs.

Following a protracted discussion at the settlement conference of
the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions,
the parties agreed to resolve the dispute for the total amount of
$47,500 to be paid as follows: $15,000 is to be paid upon the
Court's issuance of an Order approving the parties' settlement and
four equal installments of $8,125 are to be paid 30, 60, 90 and 120
days after the issuance of the approval Order.  The parties also
agreed that approximately one-third of this amount will be paid to
the Plaintiffs' counsel as a fee.

First, Magistrate Judge Pitman holds that although the settlement
amount represents a modest percentage of the Plaintiffs' total
claimed damages, this fact does not render the settlement
unreasonable.  Although both sides' credibility can be impeached by
their interests in the outcome of any trial, the Plaintiffs have no
evidence corroborating their claims and they would bear the burden
of proof at trial.  Given the risks at a trial and the risks of
collection, the settlement amount is reasonable.

Second, he finds that the settlement will entirely avoid the
expense and aggravation of litigation.  As noted, the Defendants
dispute the amounts claimed by the Plaintiffs, and they have some
documentary evidence with respect to at least one of the
Plaintiffs.  A trial would likely require depositions of the
parties to explore the Plaintiffs' claims and the accuracy of the
Defendants' records.  The settlement avoids the necessity of
conducting these depositions.

Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risk
of litigation and the risk of collection.  It also minimizes the
risk that the Plaintiffs may not be able to collect a larger
judgment.

Fourth, because he presided over the settlement conference and the
settlement number was suggested by mhim as a mediator's proposal,
the Magistrate know that the settlement is the product of
arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.  Both the
counsel represented their clients zealously at the settlement
conference.

Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud.  The material terms of the settlement were reached at a
judicially-supervised settlement conference.  This fact further
negates the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Finally, the settlement agreement provides that the Plaintiffs'
counsel will receive slightly less than one-third of the total
settlement amount -- $15,675.00 -- as a contingency fee.
Contingency fees of one-third in FLSA cases are routinely approved
in the Circuit.

Although he cannot approve the settlement as it currently stands,
Magistrate Pitman is willing to do so if the parties agree to
either an amended settlement agreement or an amendment to the
settlement agreement that allocates the settlement proceeds between
the Plaintiffs on a reasonable basis.  The Plaintiffs' counsel is
to advise him no later than Aug. 21, 2019 whether they can provide
such an amendment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/4UiYmT from Leagle.com.

Marco Tulio Tuy Guit, Indivudually, Marco Tulio Tuy Guit, On behalf
of others, Anibal Jesus Baten Lopez, Individually & Anibal Jesus
Baten Lopez, On behalf of others, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Alan Tannenbaum, Michael Faillace & Associates P.C., Shawn Raymond
Clark -- sclark@tpglaws.com -- Phillips & Associates & Michael
Antonio Faillace -- Michael@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C.

38 Water & Street Inc., doing business as Obao, Kanruthai Makmuang
& Luck Watanasuparp, Defendants, represented by Bingchen Li --
eric.li@ncny-law.com -- Law Office of Z. Tan PLLC.


565 BROOME STREET: Hit With Class Suit Over Missing Wine Cooler
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Diduch, writing for The Real Deal, reports that across the
city, residents sometimes have to tussle with landlords to make
sure they are getting basic necessities like heat and hot water.

But at 565 Broome Street, a luxury development in Soho, one
resident is fighting to make sure they get their state-of-the-art
wine cooler.

Ayal Martin Hayes, who through an LLC bought the $3.6 million unit
at the development, alleges in a new lawsuit that buyers-to-be were
promised the specialty coolers, which were supposed to be
integrated into at least some of the kitchens' white oak cabinetry.
Instead, the owner's kitchen is missing the feature.

"This devalues the kitchen and the apartment; particularly to wine
enthusiasts," states the complaint, a class-action lawsuit filed
Sept. 11 in New York County Supreme Court.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for 565 Broome said the
sponsor has provided "multiple options" to deal with the issue.

"This lawsuit, which is being filed by one person over not having a
$2,200 wine cooler, is frivolous and completely without merit...We
look forward to vigorously responding to this issue in court," the
spokesperson said.

Hayes bought the 12th-floor, 1,447-square-foot pad in April.  In
advertisements and in the condo's offering plan, some units, such
as the owner's two-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath condo, were
supposed to come equipped with the integrated wine coolers, the
complaint says.

The complaint only lists the single owner as a plaintiff, but it
was filed as a class-action lawsuit intended to cover any
purchasers impacted by the lack of wine coolers.

Bizzi & Partners Development, Aronov Development and Halpern Real
Estate Ventures developed the Renzo Piano-designed project, which
is comprised of two glass towers standing 30 stories tall.  The
building's amenities include a 55-foot indoor swimming pool,
fitness center and spa.

Former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick snapped up a $36.4 million
penthouse at the property, and tennis star Novak Djokovic purchased
two condos in the tower in 2017. [GN]


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Aclaris Therapeutics Inc. ("Aclaris" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:  ACRS) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 19-cv-08284, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Aclaris securities
between May 8, 2018, and June 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aclaris securities during
the class period, you have until September 30, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Aclaris is a biopharmaceutical company that identifies, develops,
and commercializes therapies to address unmet needs in medical and
aesthetic dermatology and immunology.  The Company's lead product
ESKATA is a hydrogen peroxide topical solution to treat raised
seborrheic keratosis, a common non-malignant tumor.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's advertising
materials minimized the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA
to generate sales; (ii) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
stated that an advertisement for ESKATA "makes false or misleading
claims" regarding the product's risk and efficacy.  Specifically,
"a direct-to-consumer video of an interview featuring a paid
Aclaris spokesperson" was "especially concerning . . . because it
fails to include information regarding the serious risks associated
with ESKATA, which bears warnings and precautions related to the
risks of serious eye disorders . . . in the case of exposure to the
eye and severe skin reactions including scarring."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.57 per share, or
over 11%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.54
per share on June 21, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

Contact:

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


AIR CANADA: Judge Authorizes Class Action Over Fuel Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has
authorized a class-action lawsuit against Air Canada over fuel
surcharges.

The lawsuit, approved on Aug. 12, argues the country's largest
airline "illegally overcharged its customers" by more than doubling
the cost of fuel on some flights.

Michael Vathilakis, the petitioners' lawyer, said Air Canada
misrepresented the stated purpose of the surcharge, which was to
partially offset the fluctuating price of jet fuel.

"What Air Canada did was represented to passengers that they were
collecting this amount in order to offset volatility, when in fact
the allegations are that they were in many cases actually reaping a
real profit on it," Vathilakis said in a phone interview.

"In multiple cases, they charged an amount that was equal to or
higher than the entire cost of fuel for the flight."

The lawsuit cites one example in which Air Canada allegedly charged
business and economy passengers 105 per cent more than the fuel
cost on a flight to Paris in January 2014.

Each economy passenger on that flight allegedly paid $238 in fuel
surcharges alone -- $163 more than they should have according to
Air Canada's contract definition of the charge.

The airline took in $73,878 in fuel supplements on the flight,
rather than the $23,164 it should have charged, according to the
lawsuit.

The suit states Air Canada's contract with consumers allows it to
charge them up to 33 per cent more than the cost of fuel.

The class action concerns customers in Quebec who bought
international tickets to destinations outside the U.S., Mexico and
the Caribbean between April 2012 and November 2014.

Air Canada said it disagrees with the allegations.

"We intend to vigorously defend our position through the courts,"
spokesperson Angela Mah said in an email. [GN]


ALLERGAN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
August 6, 2019, Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to
dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  In re Allergan
Generic Drug Pricing Sec. Litig., No. 16- CV-9449, 2019 WL 3562134
(D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that a pharmaceutical
company and several of its executives participated in a
price-fixing conspiracy that caused the prices of six generic drugs
sold by the company to increase dramatically during the alleged
class period -- as ultimately revealed through a U.S. Department of
Justice investigation -- and that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions regarding the alleged conspiracy.  The
Court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded their claims,
including with respect to material misstatements, scienter and loss
causation.

The Court first determined that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that
the company participated in a price-fixing conspiracy.  In
particular, the Court pointed to plaintiffs' allegations concerning
drug price increases during the relevant period, communications
between the company and its competitors and information about the
market for the generic drugs, and found these allegations were
sufficient to establish that the alleged conspiracy was plausible.
Id. at *6-7.

The Court next turned to whether plaintiffs adequately alleged
material misstatements or omissions, premised on defendants'
failure to disclose the underlying alleged wrongdoing.  As for
statements regarding market competition for generic drugs, the
Court noted that the statements plaintiffs identified resembled
statements that have been held not actionable under the securities
laws, because they merely reflected vague and optimistic statements
about the nature of the market.  Id. at *7-10.  But the Court
reasoned that these statements must be viewed in the overall
context of the company "attributing its generics business's
revenue, growth, and pricing strategy to legitimate business
factors and conditions," and therefore found these statements
actionable.  Id. at *10.  The Court held that the company's
statements downplaying the significance of the federal
investigation were also misleading, rejecting defendants' argument
that the investigation did not have anything to do with the six
specific drugs identified by plaintiffs in the complaint, and
holding that if the company was engaged in any type of
price-fixing, a federal investigation into such conduct would be
material.  Id. at *11.  Similarly, because plaintiffs plausibly
alleged the company's participation in a price-fixing scheme, the
Court held that the company's income statements, Sarbanes-Oxley
certifications and its discussion of its code of conduct, were
"natural corollaries to the alleged conduct" and that the pleadings
were sufficient to allege they were misleading at this stage of
litigation.  Id.

The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter.
The Court credited allegations that the company had received a
subpoena in a federal investigation of price-fixing and had been
named in suits filed by state attorneys general.  Id. at *12.  The
Court concluded that, notwithstanding the company's "minimization"
of these investigations, the investigations had already revealed
particularized facts and evidence, and the complaint affirmatively
alleged that "there was no reasonable explanation for the price
hikes" such as other market forces.  Id.  And the Court also held
that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter based on a "core
operations" theory—which permits scienter to be imputed to
individual defendants where the alleged fraud relates to the core
business of the company—because in this case, the company's
generic drug sales accounted for a significant portion of its
revenue.  Id.

The Court next determined that plaintiffs had adequately alleged
loss causation based on significant stock drops following two
alleged corrective disclosures:  (i) when the company disclosed it
had received a subpoena as part of the federal investigation into
the generic pharmaceutical market, and (ii) when the company
disclosed it understood the federal government might press criminal
charges against generic drug manufacturers as a result of its
investigation.  Id. at *13.  The Court emphasized that corrective
disclosures relating to regulatory investigations support loss
causation if they reveal the truth underlying the alleged false
statements and if they cause a drop in stock price, both of which
were alleged by plaintiffs here.  Id. at *13-14.

As for plaintiffs' Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 claims concerning
an alleged material misstatement or omission in the company's proxy
statement, the Court refused to dismiss these claims based on its
holding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the company's
participation in a price-fixing conspiracy, and also based on the
conclusion that the claims were plausibly timely at this stage.
Id. at *15.  While defendants argued that these claims were subject
to a one-year statute of limitations, accruing from the time when
plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the facts necessary
to bring the claims, the Court noted that within the Third Circuit
such a timeliness argument can only be made on a motion to dismiss
if the necessary facts are contained on the face of the complaint,
which was not the case here.  Id. [GN]


ALLSTATE FIRE: Banks Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as JANINE BANKS, SPINE SURGERY ASSOCIATES,
AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, individually and as Class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-17117 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 19,
2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01617-RDM.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company that is
in the United States. The company also has personal lines insurance
operations in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER, ESQ.
     104 W. HIGH STREET
     MILFORD, PA 18337
     Phone: (570) 296-6471
     Email: kannebecker@wskllawfirm.com

          - and -

     CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA, ESQ.
     COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC
     127 MAPLE AVENUE
     RED BANK, NJ 07701
     Phone: (732) 747-9003
     Fax: (732) 747-9004
     Email: cplacitella@cprlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     ANUPAMA PRASAD, ESQ.
     COZEN O'CONOR
     45 BROADWAY
     16TH FLOOR
     Phone: (212) 453-3859
     Email: aprasad@cozen.com

          - and -

     MELISSA BRILL, ESQ.
     LAURA BEA DOWGIN, ESQ.
     COZEN O'CONNOR
     45 BROADWAY ATRIUM, SUITE 1600
     NEW YORK, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 453-3775
     Email: ldowgin@cozen.com
            mbrill@cozen.com


ANYTIME FITNESS: Pittman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ANYTIME FITNESS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-62236-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 7, 2019), contends
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To solicit new clients, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing
with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those
messages.

Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
the Defendant.

Defendant is a 24-hour health and fitness club headquartered in
Woodbury, Minnesota. The company operates over 4,000 franchised
locations in 50 countries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          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


BEVERAGE MARKETING: Lockhart PI Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Nicole Lockhart, Bobbi O'Sullivan,
Alexis Jade Hunter on behalf of themselves, the general public, and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beverage Marketing USA,
Inc., Arizona Beverage Company, LLC, Arizona Beverages USA LLC,
Arizona Iced Tea LLC, Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01711 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 19, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-05345-PKC-SJB.

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

Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., is a public relations agency using
public relations initiatives as part of its overall communication
strategy to heighten brand awareness among consumer audiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
     Adam Gutride, Esq.
     Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Esq.
     Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
     Gutride Safier LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 789-6390
     Fax: (415) 449-6469
     Email: marie@gutridesafier.com
            adam@gutridesafier.com
            Kristen@gutridesafier.com
            seth@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     David Allen Ring, Esq.
     Derek Henry Lim, Esq.
     Demler, Armstrong, Rowland, LLP
     4500 E Pacific Coast Highway, 4th Floor
     Long Beach, CA 90017-5556
     Phone: (562) 597-0029
     Fax: (562) 494-3958
     Email: rin@darlaw.com
            lim@darlaw.com

          - and -

     Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
     McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1500
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 622-7711
     Email: rodono@mdmc-law.com



BIO-NUTRITIONAL: Baez Files Suit in New York for Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bio-Nutritional
Research Group, Inc. The case is styled as Hipolito Baez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bio-Nutritional Research Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08729 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

BIO-Nutritional Research Group Inc. was founded in 1991. The
Company's line of business includes manufacturing dry, condensed,
and evaporated dairy products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     15 Morris Lane
     Great Neck, NY 11024
     Phone: (516) 236-6456
     Fax: (516) 773-7931
     Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


BLACKTHORNE CORP: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Blackthorne
Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. The
Blackthorne Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08568 (S.D.
N.Y., Sept. 15, 2019).

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

The Blackthorne Corporation is a multipurpose corp with experienced
members specialising in many different activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


BRYN MAWR BANK: Gantt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
L. GANTT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRYN MAWR BANK CORPORATION d/b/a BRYN MAWR
TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04141-PD (E.D. Pa., Sept. 10,
2019) is an action initiated to redress Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the common law of
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay her and those
similarly situated owed overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and
PMWA and owed non-overtime wages in violation of the PWPCL and
Common Law.

Plaintiff worked at least one workweek in which her aggregate work
hours, including both the time recorded by Defendant and the
off-the-clock time worked, exceeded 40 hours. The Defendant's
policies require that two employees open the bank each day the bank
is open for business. The Defendant routinely require the Plaintiff
and Class Plaintiffs to assist in opening the bank branch where
they were employed. However, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs only for
the time they were clocked into work. Much of this uncompensated
time consists of time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Accordingly, by failing to pay the Plaintiff, for time spent
performing the Opening Procedures, Defendant failed to pay proper
overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a teller for approximately one
and one-half years ending in February 2019.

Defendant is a company doing business in Pennsylvania at various
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carley A. Doyle, Esq.
     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (NYSE:  GOOS) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-08204, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Canada Goose securities between March 16, 2017 and
August 1, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Canada Goose securities
during the class period, you have until November 4, 2019, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Canada Goose operates in two segments—Wholesale and Direct to
Consumer.  The Company offers parkas, jackets, shells, vests,
knitwear, footwear, and accessories for fall, winter, and spring
seasons.  Canada Goose uses, among other materials, animal down and
furs for its winter jackets and other apparel.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canada Goose sourced the down
and fur used in its clothing products in a way that treated animals
in an unethical and inhumane manner; (ii) Canada Goose was thus
non-compliant with relevant FTC regulations pertaining to false
advertising with respect to its sourcing practices; (iii)
accordingly, Canada Goose was the subject of an ongoing FTC
investigation regarding false advertising; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 2, 2017, the non-profit organization People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") issued a press release
alleging that Canada Goose suppliers used unethical measures to
obtain the down and fur used in creating the Company's clothing
merchandise (the "PETA Press Release").  The PETA Press Release
also stated that PETA had issued a complaint to the FTC regarding
these practices because the Company represented in communications
and promotional materials that its clothing was produced with down
and fur from sources that treated the animals used in sourcing
those materials ethically and humanely.

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
roughly 3.27%, to close at $20.72 per share on November 2, 2017.

Nevertheless, even after the PETA Press Release, Canada Goose
continued to represent that the down and fur used in producing its
clothing products were collected using humane and ethical
practices.

Then, on June 17, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") issued a closing letter to Canada Goose's legal counsel.
The FTC Closing Letter stated that the FTC had investigated Canada
Goose's advertising practices for possible violations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), citing "concern[s] that
Canada Goose may have made false or misleading representations
about the treatment of geese whose down is used in Canada Goose's
apparel."  The FTC further stated that it had not recommended
enforcement action against Canada Goose because the Company had
"remov[ed] the advertising claims at issue from the marketplace and
clarify[ied] its business practices in marketing materials."
However, the FTC expressly stated that "[t]his action is not to be
construed as a determination that a violation of law did not occur"
and "reserve[d] the right to take further action as the public
interest may warrant."  (Emphasis added.)

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or
1.36%, to close at $36.17 per share on June 17, 2019.

According to an article published on July 12, 2019 by Truth In
Advertising ("TINA")—a well-known watchdog for deceptive
marketing practices—Canada Goose continued to deny that it had
changed the substance of its prior statements, telling TINA: "We
continuously update language in our marketing materials and in our
communications, and in this instance the substance of our prior
statements has remained the same."  At least in part as a result of
Canada Goose's refusal to admit it had changed the substance of its
prior marketing materials and communications, the Company's
securities continued to trade at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

Finally, on August 1, 2019, the New York Post published an article
entitled "Canada Goose pulls claims about its ‘ethical' treatment
of animals" (the "New York Post Article").

According to the New York Post Article, Canada Goose had abandoned
its claims of ethical treatment of animals used in making its
winter jackets and clothing in response to the FTC's regulatory
review.  The New York Post Article also reported that Canada Goose
had removed from its website previous claims that the Company
sourced coyote fur from animals in overpopulated areas, as well as
videos purporting to show where Canada Goose obtained down for its
parkas.  The New York Post article also reported PETA's assertion
that its complaint to the FTC in 2017 had precipitated the FTC's
investigation into Canada Goose for potential violations of the FTC
Act.

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $2.21 per share, or
over 4.7%, to close at $44.58 per share on August 1, 2019.

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

Contact:

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


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Thornton, Rochon Commences Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP and Rochon Genova LLP have together
commenced a class action in Ontario on behalf of shareholders of
CannTrust Holdings Inc. (TSX: TRST, NYSE: CTST) who acquired their
CannTrust common shares between October 1, 2018 up to and including
July 8, 2019. The class action seeks damages from CannTrust,
certain of its officers and directors, and its auditors KPMG,
arising out of alleged misrepresentations in CannTrust's required
public disclosure, including its 2018 audited annual financial
statements.

Joel P. Rochon, Managing Partner at Rochon Genova, said: "Accurate
and timely public disclosure is the lifeblood of our capital
markets. Investors are entitled to full, true and plain disclosure
about Ontario reporting issuers. Proper disclosure levels the
playing field among all investors and enables them to make informed
decisions."

John L. Finnigan, Founding Partner at Thornton Grout Finnigan,
said: "The integrity of our capital markets depends upon timely and
accurate corporate disclosure. Gatekeepers, such as auditors, play
a critical role in protecting investors; and this is particularly
so when dealing with a nascent industry like cannabis." [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Gershen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY GERSHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL
ONE, N.A. AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01174-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., Sept. 11, 2019) is a class action
against Capital One for its failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding consumers' sensitive personal
information, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, dates
of birth, credit scores, credit limits, account balances, payment
histories, social security numbers, and bank account numbers
(collectively, "PII").

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that on "July 19, 2019, it
determined there was unauthorized access by an outside individual
who obtained certain types of personal information [i.e., PII]
relating to people who had applied for its credit card products and
to Capital One credit card customers."

The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was the result of
Capital One's inadequate data security and inadequate protection of
PII it collected during the course of its business.

Capital One disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class by:
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected; failing to disclose to its customers the material
fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard customer PII; failing to take available
steps to detect and prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and
timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
the Class prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. As a
result of Capital One's Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class members'
PII have definitively been exposed to criminals for misuse, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff applied for and received a Capital One credit card on
January 16, 2015.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation. It
offers a broad spectrum of financial products and services to
consumers including credit cards and is among the biggest banks in
the United States with $373.6 billion in total assets as of
2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (212) 524-4291
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: etripodi@zlk.com

          - and -

     Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
     David J. Stone, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 308-5858
     Fax: (212) 486-0462
     Email: eagel@bespc.com
            stone@bespc.com


CARILLON TOWER: Ct. Certifies Chinese Nationals Class in Dou Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles P. Kocoras grants Plaintiff Lina Dou's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned LINA DOU, et al. v.
CARILLON TOWER/CHICAGO LP, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07865 (N.D.
Ill.).

The class is defined as:

    "The 89 Chinese nationals who are limited partners in the
     Carillon Tower/Chicago LP and who have each paid $550,000.00
     into that partnership."

The Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and as a class
action seeking a refund of their investment from Defendants
Carillon Tower/Chicago LP, Forefront EB-5 Fund (ITC) LLC, Symmetry
Property Development II LLC, and Jeffrey Laytin.[CC]


CENGAGE: Textbook Authors File Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that for
the second time in just over a year, a group of textbook authors
has filed a proposed class action suit against publisher Cengage,
alleging that the company's digital pivot violates their author
agreements.

The suit, filed on Aug. 12 in the Southern District of New York by
authors Douglas Bernstein, Elaine Ingulli, Terry Halbert, Edward
Roy, Louis Penner, and the Estate of Alison Clarke-Stewart, claims
that Cengage is cheating their authors out of proper royalties for
sales through its digital products -- Cengage Unlimited, the
company's subscription platform, and MindTap, a more than five-year
old service that enhances Cengage digital texts with multimedia
capabilities, such as quizzes.

"Rather than paying authors pursuant to the terms of their
contracts, Cengage has made its own decisions about how and from
what pool of money to pay authors' royalties," the suit alleges,
adding that Cengage has "stopped paying Plaintiffs royalties" on
net receipts from sales set forth in their contracts. "This class
action therefore alleges a breach of contract for damages due to
Cengage's uniform violations of its Publishing Agreements. The
advent of new digital sales channels for academic textbooks is not
an excuse to somehow start cheating the textbooks' authors and
violate their binding contracts with Cengage."

The suit is the second legal battle for Cengage involving royalty
payments following its 2018 switch to a digital subscription model.
Last October, Cengage settled a similar proposed class action suit
with two of its authors, filed in May of 2018. In that suit,
authors David Knox and Caroline Schacht had claimed the publisher
had "wrongfully" implemented "a unilateral change to the
compensation structure for its authors," switching from "the
contractual royalty-on-sale" compensation model, to a "relative
use" model, which pays authors a "fractional percentage of
Cengage's subscription fees, based on the relative use of the
work."

In its 12-page answer to that suit, filed prior to settling with
the authors, Cengage attorneys claimed that the new subscription
service does not breach the authors' contracts. And among its
defenses, Cengage attorneys pointed out that the author agreements
include both a full and complete transfer of copyright to the
publisher, and the explicit right to publish digital editions in
exchange for a cut of net receipts.

"The advent of new digital sales channels for academic textbooks is
not an excuse to somehow start cheating the textbooks' authors."

But even with those sweeping terms, Cengage's "unilaterally"
implemented author payment formulas for both Cengage Unlimited and
MindTap are invalid, the new class action suit argues, because they
do not adhere to the royalty schemes laid out in the author
contacts.

"The Publishing Agreements require payment of royalties on the net
receipts from sales. However, for sales that occur through Cengage
Unlimited, Cengage applies a different formula found nowhere in its
contracts with Plaintiffs," the suit claims, calculating payments
based on a "weighted average of the number of uses" of a work. "The
Publishing Agreements, however, do not provide for the application
of this made-up formula that serves to enrich Cengage, and reduce
the royalty-bearing revenue of its authors."

In terms of MindTap products, "even if Cengage is permitted under
the Publishing Agreements to deduct from author royalty bases the
'appropriate value' of additional elements that Cengage
unilaterally included with the sale of the authors' works," the
suit states, "Cengage is still in breach of the Publishing
Agreements because it is not fairly or accurately ascribing
portions of net MindTap revenues as royalty-bearing versus
non-royalty bearing."

The authors are seeking damages and restitution for unpaid
royalties.

The suit comes as opposition is mounting to a proposed blockbuster
merger between Cengage and McGraw Hill.

UPDATE: Cengage has issued a statement in response to the suit: It
reads, in part:

". . . Our authors, like those at our competitors, saw declining
royalties as a result of high prices that lowered students' demand.
The Cengage Unlimited subscription service was created to address
this longstanding problem. It also enables a more sustainable
business model for the company and our authors.

We have communicated clearly with our authors that the subscription
service is consistent with the terms of their contracts, which we
continue to honor. Since the service launched, we are in regular
communication with them about the impact of the subscription on
their royalties. We look forward to vigorously responding to this
complaint as we remain steadfast in our belief that our industry
must do more to contribute to affordable higher education." [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: 401(k) Court Ruling Could Hurt Retirement Savers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment News reports that a recent appeals court decision
allowing Charles Schwab Corp. to force its employees to arbitrate
disputes about the company's 401(k) plan could prove to be a
negative development for 401(k) participants and their financial
security in retirement.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a
class-action lawsuit brought by a Schwab employee, Michael Dorman,
in 2017, alleging that the company had enriched itself at the
expense of plan participants by using poorly performing in-house
investment funds in the company's 401(k) plan.

Schwab argued that the dispute should be dealt with in arbitration,
given that the company had added a clause to its plan in 2014 that
said participants had to settle disputes in binding arbitration and
didn't have the right to pursue a class action.

A district court judge dismissed Schwab's argument, citing a court
ruling from 35 years ago that said claims under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act could not be arbitrated. But the
appeals court overturned that decision, noting a Supreme Court
decision in 2013 that said there's "nothing unfair" about
arbitration on an individual basis.

Currently, the ruling applies only in the 9th Circuit, which covers
California. But if other appeals courts follow the circuit court's
lead, adding arbitration clauses to 401(k) plans could allow plan
sponsors to protect themselves from potentially costly class-action
litigation.

Plaintiff's attorneys have brought a slew of suits against 401(k)
plan sponsors over the past 12 years, generally alleging that
plans' fees were too high or their investments were inappropriate.
Some of the litigation resulted in companies having to pay big
settlements to participants. Nationwide coughed up $140 million in
2014, Lockheed Martin paid $62 million in 2015 and Boeing paid $57
million, also in 2015.

While limiting participants' ability to file 401(k) class actions
would benefit plan sponsors, it would be a step in the wrong
direction for their employees. The 401(k) class-action lawsuits
were among the factors contributing to investors' growing awareness
about the costs of investing. Many industry participants credit the
lawsuits with playing a key role in the marked decline in costs
borne by 401(k) participants, such as investment fees and
administrative expenses, over the past 10 to 15 years.

For example, an Investment Company Institute study shows that
401(k) participants paid an average expense ratio of 41 basis
points for equity mutual funds in 2018, down 47% from the average
of 77 basis points in 2000.

Even if other appeals courts agree with the 9th Circuit, it's not
clear that limiting 401(k) participants' disputes to arbitration
would shield companies from all costs related to unhappy plan
participants. Jerry Schlichter, a St. Louis-based plaintiff's
attorney who has been a driving force in the 401(k) litigation,
told InvestmentNews reporter Greg Iacurci that ERISA allows
participants to bring an action on behalf of the entire 401(k)
plan. Mr. Schlichter thinks that an arbitrator hearing a claim
brought by one participant could award damages to all of the plan's
participants.

In any case, ensuring that 401(k) plans provide decent investments
at a reasonable cost should be of interest to all of us. Paying
fees that are too high can put a serious dent in the nest egg an
individual accumulates over 30 to 40 years of work.

At this point, 401(k)s are the main retirement savings vehicle for
Americans, and we know that many don't have enough saved for a
comfortable retirement. Class-action lawsuits against 401(k) plans
and their sponsors have played a role in lowering plan fees, and as
such they have value. [GN]



CHARLOTTE FLOORING: National Trust Suit Removed to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as National Trust Insurance Company, Plaintiff
v. Charlotte Flooring Inc, Ryland Group Inc, Six Fifty Six Owners
Association Inc and Robert John Nutley, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Defendants, was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston)
on September 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02551-DCN.

Charlotte Flooring Inc is a Flooring store in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Ann Waller, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 724-1722
   Email: jwaller@gwblawfirm.com

     - and -

   Shelley S Montague, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 779-1833
   Email: smontague@GWBlawfirm.com


CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Responds to Former Teacher's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Mallory and Greg Adaline, writing for WIS, report that on
Aug. 13, the Cherokee County School District responded to a lawsuit
brought by a former teacher.

The teacher, Shannon Burgess, claims the district broke state and
federal laws by requiring her to pay for school supplies out of her
own pocket and work for free at school-related events.

In a statement, the district indicated it could not comment on the
specific allegations, but insists it followed all applicable laws
referenced in the lawsuit. Officials also thanked their teachers
for their dedication and willingness to "go the extra mile" for
their students and community.

The lawsuit, filed by Burgess, is open for other teachers in the
district, and around the state, to join the class action.

Burgess' attorney, John Reckenbeil, said he has heard from
approximately 20 other teachers with similar complaints since
filing the lawsuit on behalf of his client.

"They were trying to put operational costs on the backs of
teachers," he said. "That's what made me really dive in and look at
this case as a bigger issue as opposed to just an individual
case."

He added: "I've already had people reach out to me, some teachers
that are buying necessary supplies for students to meet their core
curriculum requirements."

Reckenbeil said the case is still in the early stages, but the
litigation could reach class-action status in approximately three
to four months.

In the lawsuit, Burgess makes a total of five claims, four of which
are open for other teachers to join:

She, and others, were forced to work at after school sporting
events selling concessions to profit the school without being
paid.

The district refused to pay her and her colleagues overtime for
that work, which violates FLSA.

The district refused to pay her and her colleagues at all for
that work, which violates PWA.

She, and others, are forced to buy school supplies and auction
items, both of which benefit the school, with their own money.
While on medical leave, she was required to work by providing daily
lesson plans for students, violating the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA).

The lawsuit names the Cherokee County School District, its board of
trustees, its office of the superintendent, and Granard Middle
School Principal Gavin Fisher as defendants.

The lawsuit says Cherokee County teachers are forced to staff
concession stands at after school sporting events without pay.
Calling the work non-academic, the suit claims teachers should be
paid hourly for that time, separate from their teacher salaries.

"Defendants require Teachers, for no additional compensation, to
work additional hours outside the boundaries of the reasonable
educational functions directly related to academic instructions or
training, and outside the normal hours of classroom teaching," the
lawsuit claims.

The school district has a policy in place claiming teachers are
exempt because they are salaried employees, according to the
lawsuit.

"When you have a contract for a teacher to teach – it must be in
the environment of an educational establishment," Reckenbeil
argued.

The lawsuit seeks to change the practice of teachers buying
necessary supplies for their classrooms with money from their own
pockets.

"It has long been a pattern of practice throughout this nation and
the state of South Carolina that school districts...have
unconscionably and impermissibly shifted operating costs of the
classrooms directly on the financial backs of our Teachers," the
lawsuit reads.

It claims there is a budget for supplies and materials, but
teachers are required to buy additional items with money from their
salaries.

Also, the teacher claims her principal required all teachers to
purchase a gift basket for a school raffle benefiting the Parent
Teacher Organization.

"Principal Fisher would constantly hound each teacher to get the
Gift Basket turned in for the auction" and kept a list of those who
had not yet turned in a basket, the lawsuit claims.

For those in the class action claims, the lawsuit seeks unpaid
wages for teachers, restitution for items purchased by teachers to
benefit the school, damages and attorneys' fees.

"I see this as really a first step of giving the opportunity for
teachers to stand up for themselves and say, 'at least pay us what
you promised to pay us and don't put operational costs on our
backs,'" Reckenbeil said. [GN]


CHOICE BANCORP: Parshall Sues over Nicolet Bankshares Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHOICE BANCORP, INC., RODNEY R.
OILSCHLAGER, AREND A. STAM, GERALD A. THIELE, MARK D. TROUDT,
KENNETH J. BALDA, STEPHEN W. FORD, PAUL R. GETCHEL, MICHAEL L.
HANNEMAN, DAVID A. JANSSEN, THOMAS L. MUZA, JAMES G. POESCHL,
JEFFREY S. ROGGE, THOMAS N. RUSCH, JOHN F. SUPPLE III, and NICOLET
BANKSHARES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01669-UNA (D.
Del., Sept. 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 27,
2019, pursuant to which Choice Bancorp, Inc. will be acquired by
Nicolet Bankshares, Inc. On June 26, 2019, Choice's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Nicolet.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Choice's
stockholders will receive 0.50 shares of Nicolet common stock for
each share of Choice common stock they own.

On August 23, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for October 22, 2019.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

     -- First, the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding Choice's and Nicolet's financial
projections.

     -- Second, the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Stephens Inc.

     -- Third, the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Stephens.

Choice is a $441 million bank holding company. The Company's
wholly-owned bank subsidiary, Choice Bank, is a full-service
community-oriented commercial bank that was chartered in 2006 and
has two branches in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

CNG RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Bid in Alford Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ASHLEIGH ALFORD, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. CNG RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-1225 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson
entered an order on Sept. 6, 2019, denying without prejudice the
motion for conditional class certification to being re-filed, if
appropriate, after resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss.[BN]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bannow, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a federal
judge granted class-action status to shareholders suing Community
Health Systems over the hospital chain's leaders failing to
disclose an alleged fraud that hurt its stock price and downplaying
the scandal's impact.

The U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee certified the class in
the $891 million securities fraud lawsuit to include anyone who
bought stock in Franklin, Tenn.-based CHS between July 27, 2006,
and April 8, 2011, excluding company executives, officers and
directors and their immediate family members and legal
representatives, among others.

In his July 26 decision, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson
appointed NYC Funds, a group of pension funds serving more than
750,000 active and retired NYC employees, as the class
representative. NYC Funds, which has about $194 billion in assets
managed by outside managers, acquired about 825,000 CHS shares
during the class period. Richardson also appointed White Plains,
N.Y., law firm Lowey Dannenberg as class counsel.

"The NYC Funds are pleased that the court has certified the class
and that our years of work on behalf of CHS investors will advance
this case," Barbara Hart, CEO of Lowey Dannenberg, wrote in an
email.

The exact number of people who acquired CHS stock during the class
period is unknown, but court records show at least 834 major
institutional investors owned CHS common stock during the period.

CHS spokeswoman Tomi Galin wrote in an email that the company has
appealed the judge's decision to certify the class. "Community
Health Systems believes this consolidated matter is without merit
and will vigorously defend this case," she said.

The investors originally wanted the class to include people who
bought stock until Oct. 26, 2011, but Richardson determined those
who bought stock after April 2011 had access to vital information
that those who bought it before April 2011 did not have. That's the
month CHS' alleged Medicare fraud came to light.

In a separate April 2011 anti-takeover complaint, Tenet Healthcare
Corp. accused CHS of billing Medicare for expensive, unnecessary
hospital stays. Tenet claimed CHS, which derived 30% of its revenue
from Medicare between 2006 and 2011, did so using its Blue Book, a
guide that directed physicians to classify patients with certain
conditions as inpatient, even though standard medical care would
classify them as outpatient.

A federal judge dismissed Tenet's lawsuit in 2012 on the grounds
that only shareholders could recover damages.

In December 2017, a three-judge panel for the 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the shareholders plausibly
alleged CHS' shares plummeted in value due to secret practices
surrounding a Medicare fraud scandal.

The shareholders originally sued CHS; the company's CEO, Wayne
Smith; and its former chief financial officer, Larry Cash.
Plaintiffs said Smith and Cash were repeatedly warned that CHS' use
of Blue Book and a policy of never granting observation status to
Medicare patients created substantial risk of Medicare fraud
enforcement action. After Tenet filed its lawsuit, CHS' stock price
fell nearly 36%. The company's stock value dropped by $1.3 billion
in a single day.

The plaintiffs also allege that Smith and Cash sold 980,000 in CHS
shares in 2009 and 2010 knowing CHS would need to make changes that
would reduce emergency department volume, reaping millions in
unlawful profits in each year. Meanwhile, both executives
downplayed the effects of the Blue Book lawsuit and assured
analysts the transition away from the protocol wouldn't impact
financial results. Cash later conceded that 75% of hospitals that
converted saw inpatient admissions decline. [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Plans to Test, Treat Inmates with Hep C Amid Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kovner, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that facing a
class action lawsuit, the Department of Correction has said it will
begin testing and treating inmates for the hepatitis C virus, which
can be spread by unprotected sex, intravenous drug use and
tattooing, and thrives in a prison climate.

Lawmakers were concerned about the plodding pace of the prison
system's response to the growing recognition across the country
that 30 percent or more of the prison population may have the
virus. The legislature's fiscal office in March estimated the cost
of treatment at up to $158 million, depending on how many of the
13,000 prisoners have hepatitis C.

Commissioner Rollin Cook, who arrived in December, announced the
plan in an Aug. 7 memo.

The moves came eight years after the Food and Drug Administration
approved a course of treatment with a 90 percent or greater success
rate, three years after emails obtained through a Connecticut class
action lawsuit show the state was aware of, and even tracking, the
growing number of other states being sued and one day after the
federal case here cleared early but crucial legal hurdles.

"In keeping with our commitment to provide quality health care to
all offenders . . . the department has developed a plan to test and
treat all offenders for the exposure and/or presence of the
hepatitis C virus," Cook wrote in a department-wide memo.

Testing will begin within a month and include the several thousand
pretrial inmates who are in jail because they haven't been able to
make bond. These pretrial detainees, who are in and out of prison,
typically have serious mental health, medical and substance abuse
conditions. A disproportionate number of these inmates are women.
Once they are inside the walls, it becomes the responsibility of
the prison system to treat them and the public to pay for it out of
the state budget. Medicaid reimbursements are not available in
prison — a factor that has prompted discussions in the
legislature about community-based alternatives for nonviolent,
indigent offenders who can't make bail and who require treatment.

After two rounds of tests, Cook writes in the memo, "agency
health-services staff will treat those who are infected, starting
with the most serious cases first, in accordance with [federal
Bureau of Prisons guidelines]."

"The support of the entire agency will be essential to the success
of this program," Cook added.

A federal judge denied a state motion to dismiss the hepatitis C
lawsuit.

The case was filed by lawyers DeVaughn Ward and Kenneth Krayeske of
Hartford on behalf of four infected inmates, and it alleges medical
indifference and civil rights violations against the state prisons
and Cook, as commissioner.

Ward said the Aug. 13 Cook's announcement was good for the public
health of the state, but it "doesn't negate or nullify their
inaction over the last several years. This is a directive from the
commissioner; it's a long way from a policy and from being able to
say to a judge that this issue is resolved."

U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea also certified the lawsuit as a
class action case, meaning the four prisoners can represent all
inmates, now and in the future, who have tested positive for the
virus and have at least 16 weeks left on their sentences.

Krayeske and Ward have obtained an email string from 2016 from a
state Department of Public Health official to prison medical
administrators referencing a hepatitis C lawsuit in Tennessee.

The DPH official, Andrea Lombard, the agency's hepatitis
coordinator, told Dr. Kathleen Maurer, the Department of
Correction's medical director at the time, that advocates were
alleging Tennessee prison officials were knowingly denying
hepatitis C treatment to inmates.

Maurer thanked Lombard and said she knew of similar cases in
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois. She asks Lombard if there
are any others.

"California," Lombard says.

Yet despite the mounting litigation, the Department of Correction
did not put in place a comprehensive screening and treatment
regimen, Ward and Krayeske allege in the lawsuit. More than a dozen
states are now facing these cases, with the American Civil
Liberties Union filing multiple lawsuits.

Last year, in response to one of those ACLU cases, the state prison
system in Colorado agreed to spend $41 million over two years to
treat 2,200 prisoners diagnosed with hepatitis C.

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a series of
oral medications that proved far more effective in treating
hepatitis C than any other previous approach. The rate of patients
cured jumped from 33 percent to 90 percent or greater, but the
lawsuit says the Connecticut Department of Correction failed to
take advantage of the medical advances and adopt a workable policy
on screening and treatment.

Lawmakers are worried about the financial impact on taxpayers and
the public health threat of infected inmates being released to the
community.

With each course of hepatitis C medication costing $30,000 or more,
and estimates that as many as 15 percent to 30 percent of the
state's 13,349 inmates are infected with the virus, "we need to
look at how to provide screening and treatment in a way that
doesn't bankrupt the state," state Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown,
said earlier this year.

Assistant State Attorney General Steven R. Strom argued in the
state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that "there are no reported
decisions in the United States Supreme Court or this circuit that
would clearly establish a right to the treatment plaintiffs seek or
the other relief contained in their complaint."

Strom also argued that the inmates bringing the lawsuit "are
receiving treatment for [hepatitis C]."

Ward said that every time he and Krayeske added a plaintiff to the
case, the state would provide them treatment on an individual
basis. [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Martinez Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation remove case captioned as BENJAMIN
FERNANDO MARTINEZ on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG19022389 (Filed June 11, 2019), from the
Alameda County Superior Court, to the United States District Court
Northern District of California on Sept. 6, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-05624-EMC to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay lawful wages
including overtime wages and minimum wage, failed to provide lawful
meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failed to provide
rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and failed to timely
pay wages due at termination pursuant to the California Labor
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          Justin T. Curley, Esq.
          Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  cdacre@seyfarth.com
                  jcurley@seyfarth.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Files Fraud Class Action in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale
Corporation. The case is styled as Suseel Thomas individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05278 (E.D.
N.Y., Sept. 16, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, doing business as Costco, is an
American multinational corporation which operates a chain of
membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Fax: (516) 234-7800
     Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


CROMWELL MANOR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cromwell Manor Inn,
L.L.C.. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Cromwell Manor Inn, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08698-AJN
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 19 2019).

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

Cromwell Manor Inn is a place for weddings or any type of events of
up to 100 people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


CUMBERLAND FARMS: Musikar Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Musikar, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-08410 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 10, 2019) seek
damages under  Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's
misleading representations on their products' packaging.

Cumberland Farms, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells ice cream and/or novelties labeled as types of, or
containing vanilla ice cream under its Farmhouse Creamery brand,
Deluxe Ice Cream. Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Products
for personal use or consumption.

According to the complaint, the Products' vanilla ice cream is not
flavored only by vanilla but contains flavors derived from
not-vanilla sources. Thus, the Defendant's listing of "natural
flavor" is deceptive and misleading.

Had Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products
are sold at premium prices, approximately no less than $8.79, per
1.5 quart (1.42L), excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


D&D ELECTRICAL: NY Supreme Court Dismisses Gardner Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKEY GARDNER Plaintiff, v. D&D ELECTRICAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., Defendant, Docket No. 160249/2018,
Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Andrew Borrok of the New
York County Supreme Court granted D&D's motion to dismiss Mr.
Gardner's complaint pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(a)(1), (2) and
(7).

Mr. Gardner was employed by D&D as an electrical technician and
auto mechanic from approximately April 21, 2016 to Sept. 27, 2016,
during which time he performed manual and physical work attendant
to his duties.  In the six-year period prior to the commencement of
this action, D&D paid its employees, including Mr. Gardner, salary
and overtime compensation on a bi-weekly basis.

Mr. Gardner commenced the putative class action on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated current and former
employees of D&D asserting claims under the New York Labor Law for
failure to pay members of the putative class on a weekly basis and
for failure to provide them with proper notice and wage statements.
Specifically, Mr. Gardner asserts causes of action for (i)
untimely overtime payments under Labor Law Section 650 et seq.,
(ii) untimely wage payments under Labor Law Sections 191 and 198,
and (iii) failure to provide the required notices and wage
statements under Labor Law Sections 190, 191, 195, and 198.

D&D now moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

The complaint asserts causes of action under the Labor Law for
untimely wage and overtime payments and violations of notice
requirements.  

Judge Borrok holds that both Sections 198 and 663 allow for
recovery only for underpayments found to be due.  Gardner does not
allege that he is owed any unpaid regular or overtime wages.  Mr.
Gardner cannot bring an independent action to enforce the
substantive provisions of the Labor Law because he was paid in full
prior to the commencement of the action.  Without any allegations
of unpaid wages, the first and second causes of action cannot be
sustained.

As to the causes of action in the complaint relating to notice
violations, the documentary evidence utterly refutes the
Plaintiffs' allegations.  Labor Law Section 195 (1) requires
employers to provide employees, at the time of hiring, with a
notice listing: (i) the rate of pay and the basis thereof, (ii) any
allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, (iii) the regular
payday, (iv) the name of the employer, and (v) the employer's
address and telephone number.  In addition to the initial notice at
the time of hiring, Labor Law Section 195 (3) requires employers to
furnish employees with wage statements with each payment of wages
listing: (i) the dates of work for which payment is made, (ii) the
employee's name, (iii) the employer's name, (iv) the employer's
address and phone number, (v) the rate of pay and the basis
thereof, (vi) deductions, (vii) allowances claimed as part of the
minimum wage, and (viii) net wages.

In support of its motion to dismiss, D&D submits a Notice and
Acknowledgment of Wage Rate and paystubs, both of which contain all
of the statutorily-required information.  Accordingly, the
documentary evidence utterly refutes the causes of action alleging
Section 195 notice violations and conclusively establishes a
defense as a matter of law.

Finally, the Plaintiffs also seek class certification pursuant to
CPLR Section 901.  CPLR Section 901(b) provides that actions to
recover a penalty may not be maintained as class actions unless
explicitly authorized by statute.  Labor Law Section 198 allows for
liquidated damages but does not expressly allow for the recovery of
liquidated damages in a class action.  Liquidated damages under
Section 198 constitute a penalty for the purposes of CPLR Section
901(b) and therefore any claims seeking liquidated damages for
violations of the Labor Law cannot be maintained as class actions.
As the first and second causes of action alleging untimely wage and
overtime payments seek only liquidated damages and are pled as
class action claims, the Judge holds they cannot be sustained as a
matter of law.

Accordingly, Judge Borrok granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6J5hEa from Leagle.com.


DEFENDERS, INC: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDERS, INC. d/b/a PROTECT YOUR
HOME, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62235-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept.
6, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant's unsolicited phone calls caused Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's phone
calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his
daily life, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          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

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Judge Gives Nod to $28MM Deal With Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that DeVry
University has agreed to pay $27.5 million -- with plaintiff
attorneys collecting $7.4 million -- to settle a class action suit,
in which an investment group alleged publicity surrounding DeVry's
falsification of graduate success rates caused the value of the
school's publicly traded stock to drop, soaking investors.

Utah Retirement Systems filed the suit in 2016, on behalf of itself
and other investors, against DeVry in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Utah Retirement described itself as
a "highly sophisticated institutional investor" that provides
retirement benefits to Utah's public school employees, managing
about $33 billion in assets as of 2018. DeVry is based in suburban
Downers Grove, with about 60 campuses across the country.

The suit alleged that between 2011 and 2016, DeVry exaggerated the
employment figures and incomes of graduates, so as to lure new
students and give the wrong impression to the public DeVry was in
better financial shape than it was in reality. DeVry has denied
wrongdoing. There have been at least three suits in Chicago federal
court against DeVry, by former students claiming they were misled
by the graduate statistics.

The investors suit alleged DeVry breached the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, causing the school's stock prices to decline at least
$158 million and as much as $230 million, depending on gains
accrued during the time in question.

A proposed settlement was submitted Aug. 30 to U.S. District Judge
Mary Rowland. She granted preliminary approval two days later.

The agreement calls for DeVry to create a $27.5 million fund, from
which to pay all those who acquired DeVry's publicly traded common
stock or exchange-traded call options, between Aug. 26, 2011 and
Jan. 27, 2016, as well as those who sold exchange-traded put
options on such common stock in the same period. Utah Retirement
said there are "likely thousands" of such investors. The $27.5
million figure represents between 12 to 17 percent of the alleged
losses in stock value, according to Utah Retirement.

Utah Retirement noted the median settlement in securities class
actions in 2018 in the U.S. was $11 million, and was $9 million
between 1996 and 2017.

Plaintiffs and class members are represented by: Labaton Sucharow
LLP, of New York City; Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, of Philadelphia;
and Wexler Wallace LLP, of Chicago. These attorneys have asked to
receive $7.4 million, with another $225,000 for expenses, from the
settlement fund. Attorneys said the money they would receive is not
"excessive."

Any money left over after plaintiff, class members and plaintiff's
attorneys are paid, which is not practical to further distribute,
will be donated to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Council of
Institutional Investors, according to Utah Retirement. [GN]


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Workers' Class Action Seek Back Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Ben McIntyre, writing for The Socialist, reports that a class
action law suit has been launched against Domino's Pizza. Workers
claim that the company misled or deceived franchisees about the
rates of pay they were entitled to. Many say they were not paid
proper casual loadings, penalty rates and other allowances. The
workers now want to be paid what they are owed.

The class action focuses on the period between June 2013 and
January 2018. The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union believes more
than 10,000 current and former Domino's workers are owed back pay.

The workers say that Domino's instructed franchisees to pay
in-store workers and delivery drivers according to outdated
employment agreements.

In 2017 the Fair Work Commission terminated outdated enterprise
agreements but Domino's continued to short-change workers well into
2018 when the ruling came into effect. While all this was
happening, Domino's CEO Don Meji was talking home more than $36
million annually, making him one of Australia's highest paid
bosses.

Domino's is but one of a string of high-profile cases of wage theft
in Australia. This incident comes on the back of similar
controversies at 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Caltex service stations, and
at George Calombaris' restaurants.

It highlights a trend of explicit deception by large corporations
in the hospitality sector who predominantly hire young, casual and
part-time workers. These workers are particularly vulnerable given
their age and lack of working experience.

Hopefully the class action is successful and the Domino's workers
get paid what they are legally owed. But more importantly,
hopefully the case can help bring the workers together so that they
can be organised on an ongoing basis.

Industrial organisation and collective action are the best ways to
combat this sort of exploitation. It can be used, not only
defensively, but also to win better wages and conditions.
Socialists fight to help unionise workers in hospitality but also
to make the exploitation of workers by greedy corporations a thing
of the past. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: SmithAmundsen Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arévalo, Esq. -- carevalo@salawus.com -- and Molly Arranz,
Esq. -- marranz@salawus.com -- of SmithAmundsen LLC, in an article
for JDSupra, report that in January 2019, SmithAmundsen reported on
the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, Rosenbach v. Six Flags
Entertainment Corp., where the highest court in Illinois
unanimously found that an individual need not allege (or show) an
actual injury to qualify as an "aggrieved" person under the
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This decision
opened up the floodgates for additional, class action litigation
under this Illinois statute.

Then, in Patel v. Facebook, (a case that was originally filed in
Illinois but later transferred to the Northern District of
California where Facebook is headquartered), the Ninth Circuit
ruled that an Illinois class of Facebook users can proceed in their
class action lawsuit against Facebook over its use of facial
recognition technology. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit panel
answered in the affirmative the question of whether the mere
collection of an individual's biometric data in violation of BIPA
was sufficient to establish standing in federal courts. In order to
have standing, a plaintiff need only show she has suffered an
invasion of a "legally protected interest that is concrete and
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."   

No actual damages from a company's failure to comply with BIPA? The
Ninth Circuit confirmed that is no hurdle to proceeding in a class
action trial. Like the plaintiff in Rosenbach, the plaintiff
contended that violation of the requirements of obtaining written
consent and establishing a compliant retention schedule resulted in
an actual injury. On the other hand, Facebook advanced that these
were only procedural violations and did not amount to "an injury of
a concrete interest."

The NinthCircuit was not persuaded by the defendant's argument. The
three-judge panel concluded that since BIPA provisions were
established to protect the plaintiffs' privacy rights, which
"encompassed an individual's control of information concerning his
or her person," Facebook's development of a face template using
facial recognition technology without consent served as an invasion
of private affairs and affected concrete interests. Plaintiffs had
advanced injury to their substantive privacy rights, not just
complained about procedural failures.

Because BIPA provides for fines between $1,000 and $5,000 per
violation, the ruling exposes Facebook to a potentially massive
class action judgment. It is reasonable to expect that Facebook
will seek an en banc review of this decision—and that this is not
the last petition for review of this holding.

For other companies, like Rosenbach, the Ninth Circuit decision
serves as yet another reminder that BIPA impacts every company that
uses, controls or collects biometric data. For employers, this
means reviewing, auditing and updating practices regarding the use
of your employees' biometric data. All companies with an Illinois
presence should be reviewing policies and protocols regarding the
use of biometric data. SmithAmundsen continues to recommend the
following:

  * Establish and make public (for example, post on the company's
website) a written policy that addresses the purpose(s) of
biometric data use, how it will be collected, and how it will be
stored.

  * Be prepared to address any requests for reasonable
accommodations based on disability, religious, or other reasons.

  * If biometric data might leave a closed system, ensure that
proper safeguards are in place, including contractual liability
shifting.

  * Ensure that employees whose biometric data is used acknowledge
the policy, and authorize its use and collection in writing.

  * Train supervisors on the company's policies and practices to
ensure consistency.

  * Have biometric data systems audited to ensure that data is not
open to the public or a systems breach.

  * Consult with competent counsel to ensure that policies and
practices comply with relevant law. [GN]


FIRST FEDERAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Chase Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Steven Chase, On Behalf of Himself and All Others;
Shawn Penner, On Behalf of Himself and All Others,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. First Federal Bank of Kansas City;
Richard T. Merker; Helen Skradski; Benjamin J. Fries; William W.
Hutton; James R. Jarrett, Defendants-Appellees, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; American Bankers Association; Missouri
Bankers Association, Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s), Case No.
18-1764 (8th Cir.), Judge Raymond Gruender of the Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
Chase and Shawn Penner's putative class action lawsuit against
First Federal Bank of Kansas City and the former directors of
Inter-State Federal Savings and Loan Association of Kansas City.

First Federal is a federally chartered mutual savings and loan
association that merged with and then absorbed Inter-State, another
mutual savings and loan association, in 2016.  Federally chartered
mutual savings and loan associations provide their members (i.e.,
depositors) with a federally insured rate of interest.  Though
members are the legal owners of a mutual savings and loan
association, their interest is essentially that of creditors of the
association and only secondarily as equity owners.  They cannot
sell what they 'own,' and if they withdraw savings they receive
only the nominal value of the account rather than a portion of the
mutual's net worth, which is valuable to them only to the extent it
permits the bank to pay higher interest.

Chase and Penner were members of Inter-State and seek to represent
Inter-State's other pre-merger members in their putative class
action lawsuit.  They claim that Inter-State's merger with First
Federal was inequitable because Inter-State had $25 million more
than First Federal in excess capital.  That $25 million surplus,
they allege, should have been distributed to Inter-State's members
instead of becoming part of the merged entity.  They also claim
that Inter-State's decision to merge with First Federal should have
been decided by a vote of Inter-State's members and not by its
directors.

Chase and Penner's Amended Complaint has three counts.  Count I
alleges that the defendant directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Inter-State's members by not fully evaluating the merger,
not ensuring that the $25 million surplus was distributed to
Inter-State's members, not calling for a vote of all Inter-State's
members to approve the merger, not adhering to Inter-State's
charter, and approving the merger.  Count II alleges that First
Federal was unjustly enriched when it retained Inter-State's $25
million surplus.  Likewise, Count III alleges conversion against
First Federal for taking control of Inter-State's surplus.

The district court determined that Chase and Penner failed to plead
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  It reasoned that
Inter-State's members had no ownership interest in the surplus and
therefore that (1) the directors had no duty to distribute the
surplus, and (2) members lost nothing of value when the
associations merged, thereby suffering no damages.  It also
concluded that Inter-State's charter did not give the members a
right to vote on the merger.  Finally, the district court held that
because Inter-State's members had no ownership interest in its $25
million surplus, they could not state claims against First Federal
for unjust enrichment and conversion.  For these reasons, the
district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Chase and Penner appealed.

Judge Gruender holds that the district court correctly concluded
that Inter-State's members did not have an ownership interest in
its surplus.  This conclusion is consistent with long-standing
Supreme Court precedent and the language of Inter-State's charter.

Without an ownership interest in the $25 million surplus, Chase and
Penner have not stated a claim against First Federal or
Inter-State's directors.  They acknowledge that "[e]ach claim was
premised on the theory that Plaintiffs had an ownership interest in
Inter-State's surplus or a right to vote on and approve the
merger."  Thus, the district court properly dismissed their claims
expressly premised on an ownership interest in the surplus.

Their claim for breach of fiduciary duty premised on a right to
vote on the merger was also properly dismissed because, absent a
right to receive surplus distributions when the associations
merged, they pleaded no damages.  The breach of fiduciary duty
section of Chase and Penner's Amended Complaint merely states that
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breaches, the
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.  

Before the district court, they clarified that they were damaged
because (1) they did not receive distributions of capital at any
time and (2) their interest in Inter-State's surplus was diluted
upon the merger.  Similarly, Chase and Penner claim on appeal that
feprived of their equity interest without compensation, they
suffered damages.  They claim no other damages arising from their
right-to-vote claim.  And when pressed on this issue during oral
argument, their counsel referred back to the surplus.  Thus,
because all alleged damages arising from Chase and Penner's
right-to-vote claim rest on the incorrect assumption that
Inter-State's members had an ownership interest in the $25 million
surplus, the district court properly determined that they did not
state a valid claim.

For these reasons, Judge Gruender affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Valc8N from Leagle.com.

John C. Aisenbrey, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee.

Charles W. German -- charlieg@germanmay.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John M. Edgar, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Fisher Edgar -- jfe@edgarlawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jason M. Hans -- jasonh@rhgm.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

George F. Verschelden, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee.

Ryan Thomas Scarborough -- rscarborough@wx.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Adrienne E. Van Winkle, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brendan M. McNeal, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Amber N. Melton, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Lawrence Seeks to Certify FDCPA & UCSPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CRYSTAL LAWRENCE, On behalf
of Plaintiff and Class v. FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00174-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), asks the Court to certify
two classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. FDCPA Class:

      (a) all individuals;

      (b) against whom First Financial;

      (c) filed a debt collection lawsuit in Utah;

      (d) while First Financial was unlicensed as a debt
          collector in Utah; and

      (e) where the lawsuit was filed within the one (1) year
          period immediately preceding the filing of this
          complaint; and

   2. UCSPA Class:

      (a) all individuals;

      (b) against whom First Financial;

      (c) filed a debt collection lawsuit in Utah;

      (d) while First Financial was unlicensed as a debt
          collector in Utah; and

      (e) where the lawsuit was filed within the four (4) year
          period immediately preceding the filing of this
          complaint.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler B. Ayres, Esq.
          AYRES LAW FIRM
          12339 S. 800 E., Suite 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 255-5555
          E-mail: Tyler@AyresLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel Baczynski, Esq.
          BACZYNSKI LAW
          Telephone: (708) 715-2234
          E-mail: Dbaczyn2@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          Tyler M. Hawkins, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          One Utah Center, Suite 800
          201 S. Main Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221
          Telephone: (424) 204-4329
          E-mail: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com
                  hawkinst@ballardspahr.com


FIVE STAR REALTY: Benson Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star Realty
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Martha Benson individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Five Star
Realty Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06253 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations.

Five Star Realty Services, Inc. is a privately held company in
Riverdale, GA and is a Single Location business categorized under
Real Estate Buyer Representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sheryl Melanie Ring, Esq.
     Open Communities Legal Assistance Program
     990 Grove Street, Suite 500
     Evanston, IL 60201
     Phone: (847) 501-5760
     Email: sheryl@open-communities.org



FLORIDA: Rights Groups Sue to End Solitary Confinement of Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Rohtla, writing for Jurist, reports that the Southern Poverty
Law Center (SPLC), Florida Legal Services, and the Florida Justice
Institute filed a suit in the United States District Court Northern
District Of Florida in Tallahassee on September 5 calling for an
end to solitary confinement as a punishment in Florida's juvenile
detention facilities.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of several minor plaintiffs as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23. The class
action alleges that plaintiffs have suffered harm that violates the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments with no adequate remedy at law.
The suit is a federal civil action for deprivation of rights
brought under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 due to the poor conditions in
solitary confinement. Plaintiffs allege other violations of
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act for absence of appropriate mental health
services for the children.

The lawsuit alleges "children are isolated from others in a locked
room for an indefinite period of time with no meaningful social
interaction or environmental stimulation." The lawsuit cites
Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-2.022, which in 4(b) states:

"The time limit for placement of a youth in confinement is no more
than eight hours unless the superintendent or his or her designee
grants an extension because release of the youth would imminently
threaten his or her safety or the safety of others."

The lawsuit alleges children are left in solitary confinement for
"hours or days at a time," notwithstanding the 72 hour limit for
confinement set by 63G-2.022(4)(h).

Plaintiffs additionally assert that these cells are often small,
cramped, dirty, sometimes infested with bugs, and contain poor
plumbing. The children are isolated and are not given any
educational or recreational materials. They are not even provided a
mat for their concrete slab in the cell until nighttime and they
are still subjected to fluorescent lights 24 hours a day.

The suit requests that the Court assume jurisdiction and declare
the conditions in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs (and
the class of Plaintiffs), enjoin Defendants from continuing these
practices, and order Defendants to develop and implement a plan to
eliminate the risks of harm due to these practices.

In a release from the Florida Justice Institute, Dante Trevisani,
the executive director, commented:

"As we learn more about the horrific effects solitary confinement
has on an individual, many places in the United States and
throughout the world are actively seeking to end the use of
solitary."But Florida is an outlier that continues to use the
practice. It's time to join the rest of the world and recognize
there are better ways to deal with children who need help and
rehabilitation." [GN]


FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA WRIGHT on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER
SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN
ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, failed to
authorize and permit and take meal and rest breaks, and failed to
compensate for all hours worked.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain a longstanding
policy and practice of failing to properly compensate non-exempt
employees for work performed during meal periods, for work
performed while "off-the-clock," and for missed rest and meal
periods. These policies denied Plaintiff and other hourly,
non-exempt employees payment for all hours worked, including
overtime, and deny Plaintiff and Class members meal and rest
periods that comply with California law and Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a chain of retirement and assisted living
communities throughout the United States and California, including
Greenhaven, which is located in Sacramento, California. The
Defendants employ hundreds of hourly non-exempt workers similarly
situated to Plaintiff across these facilities.

Wright worked at Greenhaven as a Medication Technician from April
12, 2018 until March 15, 2019. He was paid at an hourly rate of
$14.50 and regularly worked in excess of eight hours a day and 40
hours per week, usually working approximately 44-46 hours per
week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective are:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

GAW MINERS: Hit With Class Suit Over Virtual Currency
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs allege that GAW Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC made false
and misleading statements to potential investors about their
virtual currency mining operations.  Plaintiffs allege that GAW
Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC sold a progressive array of products
and investment contracts to investors that GAW Miners LLC and
ZenMiner LLC claimed would yield profits from mining or otherwise
investing in virtual currency.  Plaintiffs allege that, because GAW
Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC sold far more computing power than
they owned and dedicated to virtual currency mining, GAW Miners,
LLC and ZenMiner, LLC owed investors a return larger than any
actual return GAW Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC were making on
their limited mining operations.

GAW Miners, LLC and ZenMiner, LLC have defaulted and the sole
remaining defendant is Stuart A. Fraser.  Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that Mr. Fraser assisted the other defendants and
exercised control over them such that he is liable for any injuries
caused by the misconduct allegedly perpetrated by GAW Miners, LLC
and ZenMiner, LLC described above.  Mr. Fraser denies all
allegations against him. The Court has not decided that Mr. Fraser
is liable.

The Class includes all persons or entities who, between August 1,
2014, and January 19, 2015, (1) purchased Hashlets, Hashpoints,
HashStakers, or Paycoin from GAW Miners, LLC and/or ZenMiner, LLC;
or (2) acquired Hashlets, Hashpoints, HashStakers, or Paycoin from
GAW Miners, LLC and/or ZenMiner, LLC, by converting, upgrading, or
exchanging other products sold by GAW Miners, LLC and/or ZenMiner,
LLC.  Excluded from the Class certified by the Court are any
defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or employee of any
defendant, any co-conspirator, and any governmental agency.

Class Members must choose whether to stay in the Class. If Class
Members stay in the Class, and money or benefits are obtained for
the Class, Class Members will then be notified about how they can
share in any benefits for which they may be eligible. If Class
Members stay in the Class, however, they will be bound by all
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable to them or
not, and they won't be able to sue the defendants for the claims at
issue in this case. If Class Members want to stay in the Class,
they do not have to do anything now, but may be required to show
proof of their transactions at a later time. Class Members who stay
in the Class may (but do not have to) enter an appearance in the
Court through their own counsel.

Class Members who would like to exclude themselves from the lawsuit
must send an email to Info@GAWMinersClassAction.com by October 28,
2019 or letter to Audet, et al. v. Garza, et al., Notice
Administrator, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3578, Portland, OR 97208-3578 by
October 28, 2019 asking to be excluded.  Instructions for making
this request can be found at the
http://www.GAWMinersClassAction.com/or by calling toll-free
1-855-964-0522. Class Members who request exclusion cannot get any
money or benefits from this lawsuit, but will also not be bound by
any orders or judgments in this case that may be unfavorable to
them. Detailed information is available at
www.GAWMinersClassAction.com and toll-free by calling
1-855-964-0522. [GN]


GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Sues Over Insurance Policy
------------------------------------------------
MILIND DESAI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, 22905 North Park Boulevard Solon, Ohio 44139, the
Plaintiff, vs. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, c/o CT Corporation System,
4400 Easton Commons Way Columbus, Ohio 43219, the Defendant, Case
No. CV-19-921035 (Ohio Court of Common pleas for Cuyahoga County,
Sept. 6, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment that:

(1) GEICO's Insurance Policy does not allow GEICO to adjust and pay
total loss claims using the CCC system;

(2) GEICO must pay the $4.50 license fee under the Policy;

(3) GEICO cannot place any conditions on payment of the $15 title
fee under the Policy; and

(4) GEICO must pay dealer fees under the Policy.

GEICO insures Desai and all its other Ohio automobile insurance
policyholders using a policy of insurance nominated as Form A-30-OH
(10-09) policy form, combined with "Automobile Policy Amendment
Ohio" nominated as Form A54OH (06-14); (together, the "Policy").

The Policy on its face, and as amended to conform with Ohio Admin.
Code section 3901-1- 54(H)(7) if necessary, allows GEICO to adjust
and settle a first-party motor vehicle total loss via a cash
settlement based upon the actual cost to purchase a comparable
motor vehicle. Such "actual cost" may be derived from the retail
cost as determined from a generally recognized used motor vehicle
industry source, including an electronic database.

GEICO purported to adjust and settle Desai's and all its other Ohio
automobile insurance policyholders' total loss claims in this
manner, but it did not do so in reality. Specifically, GEICO used
the CCC ONE electronic system (the "CCC system"), a proprietary
product licensed from CCC Information Services Inc. ("CCC"), to
adjust and settle their claims.

According to the complaint, GEICO's practice violates Ohio law and
breaches the Collision and Comprehensive coverages of the Policy in
three respects.

First, the CCC system is not based upon the "actual cost to
purchase a comparable automobile" because it uses advertised prices
and not sales data.

Second, the CCC system is not a "generally recognized used vehicle
industry source" as required by the Policy and Ohio law.

Third, the CCC System is specifically designed to underestimate the
retail cost of comparable motor vehicles, including by using
"condition adjustments" to create reduced vehicle values that are
not indicative of the actual cost to purchase a comparable
automobile.

The result is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the CCC
system undervalues insured vehicles by hundreds or even thousands
of dollars when compared to the retail costs provided by generally
recognized used motor vehicle industry sources such as the National
Auto Dealers Association database and the Kelly Blue Book database,
such that GEICO damages all its Ohio policyholders who suffer total
losses, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the class are:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Tom Merriman, Esq.
          Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
          Thomas Hobbs, Esq.
          MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS &
          KLANG, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-0007
          E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
                  tom@merrimanlegal.com
                  edierse@merrimanlegal.com
                  hobbs@merrimanlegal.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C.
          12222 Merit Dr Suite 1200
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 762-1036
          E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

               - and -

          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: jeeves@jeeveslawgroup. com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: ashultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  ckligler@leoncosgrove.com

GENESEE & WYOMING: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. ("Genesee")
(NYSE:GWR) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Genesee by affiliates of Brookfield Infrastructure and GIC
(collectively, the "Buyers") announced on July 1, 2019 (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Genesee and its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Thompson v. Genesee & Wyoming
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01650 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On July 1, 2019, Genesee entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Buyers. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Genesee will receive
$112.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to, among other things, the
Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by
Genesee's financial advisors. The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Genesee common
stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 11, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

CONTACT:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel: (888) 969-4242
              (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/
         E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
                 sdr@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Pixel Owners Have Until Oct. 7 to Claim Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kan, writing for PCMag, reports that although Google has
denied the allegations, the company decided to settle a class
action lawsuit regarding faults in the Pixel phones by paying $7.25
million. Eligible consumers now have until Oct. 7 to claim as much
as $500 from the money.

If you owned a defective Pixel smartphone from 2016, you can now
file a claim to receive as much as $500 in compensation.

Eligible consumers can submit their claims at the website devoted
to distributing the $7.25 million Google paid to settle a class
action lawsuit regarding defects in the original Pixel and Pixel XL
smartphones.

The lawsuit was filed last year on allegations Google sold the
first-generation Pixel handsets knowing they contained faulty
microphones that prevented them from recording audio. The company
later offered replacements, but they too suffered from the same
problem, the class action lawsuit claimed.

Although Google denied the allegations, the company decided to
settle the case by paying $7.25 million. Eligible consumers now
have until Oct. 7 to claim their share of the money.

The settlement applies to US consumers who bought a Pixel or Pixel
XL smartphone manufactured before Jan. 4 2017. However, eligibility
is lost if the owner received a replacement Pixel unit newly built
after Jan. 3, 2017, or refurbished after June 5, 2017.

The most consumers can claim is $500 per person if they experienced
the audio defect in more than one Pixel device. If the malfunctions
only occurred over one Pixel unit, the compensation falls to $350.
Eligible owners will also need to supply documentation, such as
emails, customer service chat logs, and repair records, to prove
they encountered the microphone issues.

Owners who experienced no faulty microphone problems or who fail to
provide supporting documentation will receive $20 per person. The
compensation will be paid out within three months after the court
is slated to approve the settlement on Dec. 6. If the $7.25 million
fails to fund all the claims, then the $350 compensation amount
will be pro-rated. [GN]


GRANT PASS, OR: Court Allows Homeless Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carsyn Currier, writing for KTVL, reports that U.S. Magistrate
Judge Mark Clarke ruled for a class-action lawsuit for the homeless
in Grants Pass on August 7th, expanding the current city camping
ordinance to include, "all involuntarily homeless individuals
living in Grants Pass," said court documents that were filed in
U.S. District Court in Medford.

Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson, and John Logan stood up for the
homeless community by suing the City of Grants Pass for trying to,
"run them out of town," said the court documents.

According to the court documents, the three individuals do not have
permanent addresses so they are technically homeless. The
ordinances they referred to involved camping laws and sleeping in
public places. The homeless individuals said in the documents that
the ordinances work against people who are homeless.

The court documents also state that there are not enough homeless
shelters in Grants Pass and the only one that fits the definition
of a "homeless shelter" is Gospel Rescue Mission.

Brian Bouteller from Gospel Rescue Mission is against the lawsuit.
Bouteller said the homeless people that want help are willing to
work and live by rules.

"The issue has less to do with how many beds we have, versus who
wants to leave homelessness behind. A lot of homeless people are
comfortable sleeping in the bushes. They want to be left alone and
do things their own way, and not fall into societal norms and not
live according to any kind of standards," said Bouteller.

Gospel Rescue Mission said they have had about thirty beds open for
the past year.

"This is a result of they got forced to pay a penalty and they
refused to pay it, so now they want to go, mean old Grants Pass is
against homeless people. Which, is far from the truth," said
Bouteller.

The Grants Pass City Attorney said he is unable to comment at this
time on the litigation. [GN]


GRANTS PASS, OR: Court Certifies Class in Blake Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBRA BLAKE, GLORIA JOHNSON, JOHN LOGAN, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GRANTS PASS, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01823-CL (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Medford Division,
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, allege that the Defendant has implemented a web of
ordinances, customs, policies, and practices that, in combination,
criminalize the existence of homeless people.  They seek
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief from "enforcement of
GPMC 5.61.020 (the anti-sleeping ordinance), GPMC 5.61.030 (the
anti-camping ordinance), GPMC 6.46.090 (the parks anti-camping
ordinance), and criminal trespass laws, as well as move-along
orders issued by police against homeless individuals in Grants Pass
who are engaged in the life sustaining activities of resting,
sleeping, or seeking shelter from the elements, unless and until
the City provides a place where plaintiffs can lawfully engage in
necessary life-sustaining activities.  

The Plaintiffs are three allegedly homeless individuals in the City
of Grants Pass.  As alleged, Plaintiff Blake has been homeless in
Grants Pass for about eight to 10 years.  Although she currently
lives in temporary transitional housing, she is beyond her 90-day
stay and faces the imminent possibility of returning to the
streets.  Plaintiff Logan alleges he has been intermittently
homeless for the past 10 years.  Currently, he works as an in-home
care provider, and his clients let him sleep on a mattress in their
storage room approximately four or five nights a week.  He has no
legal right to stay at his clients' homes, and he spends the
remaining nights sleeping in his car at a rest stop north of town.
Plaintiff Johnson allegedly lives full-time in her van.

The Plaintiffs allege that each of their situations fall under the
definition of homelessness adopted by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").  HUD's definition
encompasses a variety of living situations, including youth
homelessness; individuals fleeing domestic violence; individuals
living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter
designed to provide temporary living arrangements; and individuals
whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not
designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation
for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or
train station, or camping ground.

The Plaintiffs allege that their situations are just three
representations of modern homelessness in the United States.  While
their exact circumstances and stories may vary, they all share the
need to conduct the life sustaining activities of resting,
sleeping, and seeking shelter from the elements while living in
Grants Pass without a permanent home.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, through a combination of
ordinances, customs, and policies, has unconstitutionally punished
them for conducting these life-sustaining activities and
criminalized their existence in Grants Pass.  They seek prospective
declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the
ordinances in the City of Grants Pass Municipal Code.

The Plaintiffs seek relief not only for themselves, but also on
behalf of all involuntarily homeless persons in Grants Pass.  To
support their allegation that the class is numerous, they cite to a
point in time count ("PIT Count") of the number of sheltered and
unsheltered homeless persons in Josephine County.  The PIT Count is
an annual count of homeless individuals on one night in January.

HUD requires local homelessness assistance and prevention networks
to conduct a PIT Count each year as a condition of federal funding.
In January 2019, a PIT Count conducted by the United Community
Action Network counted 602 currently homeless individuals in Grants
Pass.  Another 1,045 individuals were "precariously housed,"
meaning that they were sleeping at the home of somebody else, i.e.
"couch surfing."

The case comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  

The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition for
certification: All involuntarily homeless individuals living in
Grants Pass, Oregon, including homeless individuals who sometimes
sleep outside city limits to avoid harassment and punishment by
Defendant as addressed in this lawsuit.

Magistarte Judge Clarke holds that the Plaintiffs meet the
standards for certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, he granted their Motion for Class Certification.  The
proposed class definition is adopted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/deKhec from Leagle.com.

Debra Blake, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Gloria Johnson, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & John Logan,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Johnson --
ejohnson@oregonlawcenter.org -- Oregon Law Center, Eric T. Dahlin
-- edahlin@oregonlawcenter.org -- Oregon Law Center & Walter F.
Fonseca, Oregon Law Center.

City of Grants Pass, Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Warren,
Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates & Aaron Hisel, Law
Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates.


GREEN ROADS: Snyder Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GREEN ROADS OF
FLORIDA LLC. The case is styled as Brook Snyder, Ryan Terry, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. GREEN ROADS OF FLORIDA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62342-UU
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Green Roads of Florida, LLC develops herbal homeopathic products
for pain, migraines, psoriasis, sleep and spa therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel Edward Tropin, Esq.
     Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
     Joshua Robert Levine, Esq.
     Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
     Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
     1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 525-4100
     Fax: (954) 525-4300
     Email: tropin@kolawyers.com
            levine@kolawyers.com
            streisfeld@kolawyers.com
            ostrow@kolawyers.com


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Hammond Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS HAMMOND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., AARON LOCASIO,
ETHAN RUDIN, ADAM SCHOENFELD, NEIL CLOSNER, RICHARD TANEY, JEFF
UTTZ, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, LADENBURG
THALMANN & CO. INC., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and NORTHLAND
SECURITIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81259-XXXX (F.D.
Fla., Sept. 11, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Greenlane common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's April 2019
initial public offering. Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 22, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold approximately 6.45 million shares of
common stock at a price of $17.00 per share. The Company received
proceeds of approximately $110 million from the Offering, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO
were purportedly to be used for capital improvements to its
warehouses and other facilities, capital expenditures relating to
its information technology systems, working capital, and general
corporate purposes. On June 18, 2019, the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors unanimously approved the ban on the sale and
distribution of e-cigarette products within the city. It also
endorsed a ban on the manufacturing of e-cigarette products on city
property.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.27, or over 17%, to
close at $11 per share on June 19, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The stock price continued to decline over the course of the
next three trading sessions, dropping $1.68 per share or over 15%,
to close at $9.32 per share on June 24, 2019. By the commencement
of this action, Greenlane stock was trading as low as $5.39 per
share, a nearly 68% decline from the $17 per share IPO price.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban
the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and
prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of
Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) that, if approved, the
initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company's
financial results and prospects; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Chris Hammond purchased or otherwise acquired Greenlane
common stock.

Greenlane distributes e-cigarettes, vaporizers, and accessories
through its subsidiaries. The Company also distributes premium
products containing hemp-derived CBD.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
     DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
     Vero Beach, FL 32963
     Phone: 772.231.9600
     Facsimile: 772.231.0300
     Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
     Email: info@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Hit With Class Suit Over School Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Thompson, writing for Global News Canada, reports that a
group of former students are set to take the private Christian
school they attended to court, alleging in a class action lawsuit
that they were subjected to psychological abuse designed to erode
their sense of safety.

The certified class action, which has spent more than a decade
winding its way through the legal system, will see five plaintiffs
represent former residential students who attended Grenville
Christian College in Brockville, Ont., between 1973 and 1997.

"The conduct of the defendants ... was calculated to produce harm
and did, in fact, produce physical, emotional, psychological and
spiritual harms," the students' statement of claim reads.  "The
defendants fostered an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, anxiety
and suspicion."

The plaintiffs are suing the school and the estates of two of its
former headmasters -- Charles Farnsworth, who died in 2015, and J.
Alastair Haig, who died in 2009 -- along with some family members
who also worked at the school for $200 million in damages for
allegedly breaching their duty to take care of the students.

The students allege they were cut off from communicating with their
families, kept under constant surveillance and subjected to
"exorcisms" and so-called "light sessions."

"Students were forced to confess sins, real or imagined, as the
individual defendants and other staff members challenged and/or
screamed at the students," the statement of claim says.  "Students
were compelled to confess imagined sins and to betray other
students."

Several students also alleged they were beaten with wooden paddles.
The allegations have not been proven in court.

The students were permanently affected by their treatment at the
school, the court document said. Many of them still have poor
self-esteem and difficulty trusting people.

"For the plaintiffs and many of the class members, it's about
holding the school to account and making the public aware of child
abuse to the view of preventing similar things in the future," said
Loretta Merritt, one of the lawyers representing the students.

In its statement of defence, lawyers for the school said students
weren't cut off from their families and denied the allegations of
exorcism and light sessions, saying that while some students were
occasionally subjected to "corporal punishment in the form of a
paddle," it was only for the most serious breaches.

The statement of defence says most students had a great experience
at Grenville, which shut down in 2007.

"Most certainly there would have been students over the years who
experienced unhappiness from time to time at Grenville or who felt
anxious or perceived that they were suffering humiliation. These,
however, are ordinary human feelings," the statement reads.

"They were not the product of any negligent or deliberate
infliction of mental suffering on the part of the plaintiffs."

Geoffrey Adair, a lawyer for the defendants, said the difference
between students' experiences is practically irreconcilable.

"Some people present a picture of Grenville as a very rigid, harsh,
abusive culture. Others think Grenville was an amazingly positive
experience," he said. "A court is going to have to decide which
vision, if you will, or which view, is the fact and which is
fiction."

At the time that the lawsuit was initially filed in 2008, there was
a time limit on reporting allegations of child abuse. Eight years
later, while the case was inching forward in the legal system,
Ontario changed its laws of the limit in those cases.

But Adair notes that the amount of time that's passed does still
have an effect on the case -- some things, such as corporal
punishment, were more acceptable 40 years ago than they are now.

The courts, he noted, must look at the standards at the time.

The initial class action also named the Anglican Diocese of Ontario
as a defendant, because Farnsworth and Haig were ordained Anglican
ministers and the school presented itself as Anglican.

The diocese argued that in spite of those facts, the school was not
officially affiliated with the religious institution, and the case
against it was dropped.

The trial will begin if no settlement is reached. [GN]


HAPPIEST MINDS: Sulzberg Sues over Employment Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMI SULZBERG, the Plaintiff, vs. HAPPIEST MINDS TECHNOLOGIES, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-05618 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019), seeks
to remedy pervasive, ongoing employment, race and national origin
discrimination by Defendant.

Happiest Minds' employment practices violate the Civil Rights Act
of 1866. The Plaintiff seeks, on her own behalf, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, declaratory, injunctive,
and other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages,
including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs to redress Happiest Minds' pervasive pattern or practice of
discrimination.

Happiest Minds is an Indian company that provides information
technology and consulting services. Happiest Minds employs
approximately 2,400 employees worldwide, the majority of whom are
located in India. While only about 12% of the United States' IT
industry (the industry in which Happiest Minds operates) is South
Asian, at least 90% (or more) of Happiest Minds' United States
workforce is South Asian (primarily from India).

The grossly disproportionate workforce results from Happiest Minds'
intentional pattern or practice of employment discrimination
against individuals who are not South Asian (and who are not of
Indian national origin), including discrimination in job placement
(i.e., hiring/staffing) and termination decisions, and its use of
employment practices that result in a disparate impact on those
same groups, the lawsuit says.

Happiest Minds is an Indian corporation that provides digital
transformation, infrastructure, security, and product engineering
services. Happiest Minds is headquartered in Bangalore, India.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Putative Class are:

          Daniel Low, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com

HOME CARE: Lee et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Home Care Aides
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADE LEE, and ZUEYSHA ROSARIO, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.  HOME CARE OF BALTIMORE,
LLC, ZINOVIY FRADLIN, and MICHELE MELIKER, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02589-ADC (D. Md., Sept. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages including overtime wages, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs worked as home care aides for Defendants, who also
employed several hundred other home care aides.

HCB is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business
in Maryland. The company has been a business dedicated to the
provision of domestic service.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          David Rodwin, Esq.
          Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
          THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          One North Charles Street, Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: rodwind@publicjustice.org
                  dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org

HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Roundup Herbicide
-----------------------------------------------------
KJ McElrath, writing for Ring of Fire, reports that the two largest
home improvement retailers, Home Depot and Lowe's, have been named
defendants in a proposed class action filed in a federal court in
California. Plaintiffs claim these stores failed in their
obligation to warn customers of the cancer risks associated with
glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.

According to the complaint, management at both companies were
provided with a "safety data sheet" (SDS), which warns of
glyphosate exposure through the skin or inhalation. However, the
only warning provided on Roundup labeling lists eye irritation as a
risk. Lead plaintiff James Weeks says that Lowes and Home Depot had
an obligation to share the information included in the SDS and
advise customers to wear a respirator and protective clothing when
applying Roundup.

Weeks also claims that the stores are in violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act in their failure to warn their
customers about the possible cancer risks. Citing findings by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer that determined
glyphosate to be a "probable carcinogen," Weeks notes that "The
IARC also found that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage
in human cells."

This proposed class action is just the latest in a series of blows
against Bayer AG, which obtained the rights to Roundup last year in
its takeover of the original developer and manufacturer, Monsanto.
Already, a major activist organization, SumOfUs, has started a
petition demanding that Home Depot and Lowe's pull all glyphosate
containing products from their shelves.

As of this writing, the petition has garnered nearly 25,000
signatures -- and it is likely that it will succeed. Earlier,
SumOfUs was able to force both retailers to stop all sales of
neonicotinoids (also known as "neonics"), a class of insecticides
that that have been linked to the collapse of bee colonies around
the world.

If Lowe's and Home Depot can be convinced to stop carrying Roundup
and other glyphosate-based herbicides, it will deprive Bayer of yet
another major source of income, adding to its growing list of woes
-- of which massive litigation is only a part. Glyphosate has been
banned in a number of countries and is subject to tight
restrictions in several others. Meanwhile, Bayer is facing extreme
pressure from its shareholders, who have seen the company's value
fall by 40 percent over the past year.

In a related story the approximately 18,400 plaintiffs who have
brought cancer lawsuits against Bayer were joined recently by a
prominent celebrity who alleges his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)
was caused by glyphosate exposure. Merril Hoge, a former running
back for the Pittsburgh Steelers, says he was first exposed to
glyphosate as a child when he worked on a potato farm in Idaho. He
was diagnosed with NHL in 2003. [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Riaubia Suit Has Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA RIAUBIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-5150 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge
Lynne A. Sitarski of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The proposed Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as it
is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).

Judge Sitarski conditionally certified the following settlement
class:  All persons or entities in the fifty United States and the
District of Columbia who currently own or lease, or previously
owned or leased, a model year 2015 to 2017 U.S. specification
Hyundai Sonata vehicle equipped with the Smart Trunk feature.

Upon consideration of the factors in Rule 23(g), the Judge
appointed the Plaintiff's Class Counsel to represent the Settlement
Class as follows: James C. Shah, Esquire; and Natalie J. Finkelman
Bennett, Esquire Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 35 East
State Street Media, PA 19063 Noah Axler, Esquire; and Marc Goldich,
Esquire Axler Goldich, LLC 1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Robert P. Cocco, Esquire Robert P. Cocco,
P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102.

She also appointed (i) Plaintiff Joseph Riaubia as the
representative of the certified Settlement Class; and (ii) Hyundai
Motor America's Consumer Affairs Division as the Settlement
Administrator, with the fees and costs of the Settlement
Administrator to be borne by the Defendant as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.  

She approved the Notice Plan, including the two proposed forms of
notice.  The Settlement Administrator will implement the Notice
Plan with all applicable deadlines.

The motion for final approval of Settlement Agreement and any
papers the Plaintiff or the Defendant wishes to submit in support
of final approval will be filed with the Hon. C. Darnell Jones II
as soon as practicable.  The final fairness hearing will be
scheduled by Judge Jones in a future order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yBZQAA from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA RIAUBIA, Plaintiff, represented by NOAH I. AXLER, AXLER
GOLDICH LLC, JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH
LLC, MARC A. GOLDICH, AXLER GOLDICH, LLC & NATALIE FINKELMAN
BENNETT, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
DALTON -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
ROONEY, JACQUELINE M. WEYAND -- jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com --
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC & KENNETH L. RACOWSKI --
kenneth.racowski@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY.


JUUL LABS: 3 New Jersey Vapers Sue Over E-Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for USA Today, reports that three New Jersey
teens have filed separate lawsuits against Juul Labs Inc.,
contending the firm's e-cigarettes are a danger to vapers.

In a proposed class-action suit, a Voorhees boy argues that he
became addicted to nicotine after he started vaping at age 14. The
suit seeks damages for all New Jersey residents "who have
purchased, used, become addicted to or been otherwise harmed" by
Juul's e-cigarettes.

Two product-liabilities suits were brought by college students --
19-year-old Morgan Colella of Williamstown and Matthew Divello, 18,
of Medford -- who say they began vaping as minors.

New Jersey law bars the sale of e-cigarettes to consumers under age
21.

The Voorhees boy's suit argues that Juul's "deceptive and
unconscionable" practices "have led to an epidemic of individuals
addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping."

Divello's suit contends that the use of e-cigarettes has become
"wildly pervasive in middle schools and high schools throughout the
United States."

It says Divello, who began vaping at age 16, attended an unnamed
high school where "students were Juuling on the campus, in
bathrooms, outside school and even in class."

"Matthew Divello was offered and asked for Juul 'hits' throughout
the day," his suit says.

High school friends gave Colella her first e-cigarette at age 17,
her suit says. It asserts she "now struggles to function without
nicotine."

"It's an enormous public health crisis put forth by Juul," said
Michael Galpern, Esq. a Voorhees attorney who filed the
class-action suit.

The suit cites an FDA report that found e-cigarette use by high
school students rose by 78 percent from 2017 to 2018, going from
11.7 percent to 20.8 percent.

A Juul spokesman said the company's e-cigarette, introduced in
2015, is intended only as "a viable alternative for the 1 billion
current adult smokers in the world."

"We have never marketed to youth and do not want any non-nicotine
users to try our products," the spokesman said in a statement
September 12. "We have launched an aggressive action plan to combat
underage use as it is antithetical to our mission."

The statement also asserted that the proposed class-action suit
repeats "unfounded allegations previous raised in other lawsuits
which we have been actively contesting for over a year."

"Additionally, this case involves a father who purchased Juul
products for his underaged son …despite Juul's warnings that it
was for adults only," said the statement, which described the suit
as "without merit."

According to the class-action suit, the Voorhees father bought
e-cigarettes for his son, now 16, thinking they were "safer than
conventional cigarettes and would not cause adverse health
effects."

"He was unaware of the addictiveness of these products (and) that
these products contained nicotine," says the suit, which identifies
the father as J.G. and the son as C.G.

It notes federal health agencies have reported "at least 215 cases
of pulmonary illness … related to the use of electronic
cigarettes."

In addition, the lawsuit says, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on September 10 sent a "warning letter" to Juul,
saying it had improperly described its product as safer than
conventional cigarettes.

Divello's suit says the Rowan University freshman's nicotine
addiction puts him "at serious risk for life-long health problems,
including increased risk of heart disease and stroke."

The suit, which contends Juul's products deliver more nicotine to
the blood than conventional cigarettes, says the student "also
faces a lifetime of economic losses needed to sustain a nicotine
addiction."

All three suits assert Juul targets young consumers through the
design of its product, its marketing strategies, and the flavors of
its e-cigarettes.

Colella, for instance, was a fan of mint and mango flavors, her
lawsuit says.

In its statement, Juul said it had bolstered its age-verification
process online and in stores, and "strengthened our retail
compliance program with over 2,000 secret-shopper visits per
month."

The company, which has shut down its Facebook and Instagram
accounts, also said it has introduced technology to limit "the
amount of Juul products that can be purchased to prevent reselling
or sharing to those underage."

Colella's lawsuit was filed September 11 in Camden federal court,
one day after the class action complaint. Divello brought his suit
in Newark federal court on Aug. 20.

More than 20 such suits are pending in federal courts across the
country, including another three filed within the past month in New
Jersey, records show.

The southern New Jersey lawsuits seek unspecified damages and
attorney's fees.

Among other demands, the class-action suit wants Juul to provide
medical monitoring for members of the proposed class.

It also asks a judge to approve a subclass of those who were under
18 years old when they made "at least one purchase of electronic
cigarettes, vaporizers or pods."

Defendants in the class-action suit and Colella's complaint include
Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest producer of conventional
cigarettes, and its owner, Altria Group Inc. Those businesses own
35 percent of Juul, the suit says.

Divello's suit also names Pax Labs Inc., Juul's former owner, as a
defendant.

A federal judge has issued a stay on Divello's suit, noting a
judicial panel is preparing to consolidate vaping suits from New
Jersey and other states.

Galpern said the class-action suit will likely be part of that
consolidation effort.

"We will continue to try to prosecute this case, regardless of what
court it winds up in," he said. [GN]


KEVIN MARSH ET AL: Removes Luquire et al Case to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory E. Aliff, James A. Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A.
Decker, Lynne M. Miller, James W. Roquemore, Alfredo Trujillo, and
Maceo K. Sloan remove the case captioned as MICHELLE LUQUIRE,
ISABELLE JONES and L.T. WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KEVIN MARSH; STEPHEN
BYRNE; JIMMY ADDISON; GREGORY E. ALIFF; JAMES A BENNETT; JOHN
F.A.V. CECIL; SHARON A. DECKER; LYNNE M. MILLER; JAMES W.
ROQUEMORE; ALFREDO TRUJILLO; and MACEO K. SLOAN, the Defendants,
Case No. 2019-CP-38-00957.5:19-cv-02516-TLW (Filed July 18, 2019),
from the Common Pleas Court for the First Judicial Circuit in
Orangeburg County, South Carolina, to the United states District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 6, 2019. The
District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02516-TLW.

The complaint arises out of the project to build two new nuclear
power plants at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina
(Nuclear Project), a project that was abandoned in July 2017
following the bankruptcy of the contractor hired to build the
plants.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached fiduciary duties and
committed other wrongful acts related to the Nuclear Project that
resulted in Plaintiffs having "to pay higher utility bills due to
the extra charges incurred by Santee Cooper" for the
project.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Steven J. Pugh, Esq.
          Benjamin P. Carlton, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.
          1900 Barnwell Street (29201)
          Post Office Drawer 7788
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 771-4400
          E-mail: spugh@richardsonplowden.com
                  bcarlton@richardsonplowden.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jchally@kslaw.com
                  bkeel@kslaw.com

               - and -

          John R. Bielema, Esq.
          Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-6600
          E-mail: john.bielema@bclplaw.com
                  barbara.smith@bclplaw.com

LEGACYTEXAS: Parshall Balks at Prosperity Bancshares Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Naples, Florida 34110, the Plaintiff, vs. LEGACYTEXAS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO; ARCILIA ACOSTA; BRUCE
HUNT; KAREN H. O'SHEA; GEORGE FISK; KEVIN J. HANIGAN; BRIAN MCCALL;
and GREG WILKINSON, 8007 Baileys Lane Pasadena, Maryland 21122, and
PROSPERITY BANCSHARES, INC., 4295 San Felipe Houston, Texas 77027,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02549-ELH (D. Md., Sept. 4, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
registration statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 17,
2019, pursuant to which LegacyTexas Financial Group, Inc. will be
acquired by Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. On June 16, 2019,
LegacyTexas's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with Prosperity. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, LegacyTexas stockholders will
receive 0.5280 shares of Prosperity common stock and $6.28 in cash
for each share of LegacyTexas common stock they own.

On August 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

-- the Registration Statement omits material information regarding
the Company's and Prosperity's financial projections as well as the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.

-- the Registration Statement fails to disclose the timing and
nature of all communications regarding future employment and
directorship of the Company's officers and directors, including who
participated in all such communications.

-- the Registration Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of JPM. The Registration Statement
fails to disclose the timing and nature of the past services JPM
provided to Legacy, Prosperity, and their affiliates. Full
disclosure of investment banker compensation and all potential
conflicts is required due to the central role played by investment
banks in the evaluation, exploration, selection, and implementation
of strategic alternatives, the lawsuit says.

LegacyTexas is the holding company for LegacyTexas Bank, a
commercially oriented community bank based in Plano, Texas.
LegacyTexas Bank operates forty-two banking offices in the
Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and surrounding counties.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 1931

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Consolidates Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., HOWARD L. LANCE, BIGGS
PORTER, and MICHAEL B. WIRASEKARA, JR., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 19-cv-124-WJM-SKC, Consolidated with Civil Action No.
19-cv-758-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted Schwartzs',
Slaunwhite's, and Maxar Investment Group' Motions for
consolidation.

Plaintiff Logan Durant filed the proposed securities fraud class
action lawsuit on Jan. 14, 2019.  His counsel's law firm published
the required notice in Globe Newswire on the same day the suit was
filed, announcing that the Lead Plaintiff motions were due no later
than March 15, 2019.

On March 14, 2019, Howard and Jill Schwartz filed a lawsuit that
was substantially the same as Durant's action but had a longer
proposed class period.  The proposed class period in the Schwartz
Complaint runs from Feb. 22, 2018 through Jan. 7, 2019, whereas the
proposed class period in the instant action runs from March 29,
2018, through Jan. 7, 2019.

On the same day that the Schwartz Complaint was filed, the
Schwartzs' counsel's law firm published the required notice with
the expanded class period in BusinessWire, and announced that the
Lead Plaintiff motions were due no later than March 15, 2019.  The
following day, the Schwartzs filed a notice of motion to
consolidate.  Thereafter, U.S. District Judge Chrstine M. Arguello
stayed the Schwartz action until 60 days after the consolidation
and the lead counsel motions in the instant case are resolved.

On March 15, 2019, six groups of potential Lead Plaintiffs filed
motions seeking appointment as such in the instant action:

     a. The Schwartzs filed a motion claiming total investment
losses of approximately $111,264, and seeking consolidation with
the Schwartz ction;

     b. Phillup Newhope and Michael Slaunwhite as Trustee of the
Slaunwhite Family Trust filed a motion claiming total investment
losses of approximately $317,294, and seeking consolidation with
the Schwartz action;

     c. Gabriel Assioun, Kelly Svendsen, and Babulal Tarapara
("Maxar Investment Group") filed a motion claiming total investment
losses of $121,684, and seeking consolidation with the Schwartz
action;

     d. The Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund filed a
motion claiming total investment losses of approximately $30,164;

     e. Rostyslav Nagornyi filed a motion claiming total investment
losses of approximately $243,565.70; and

     f. The Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund ("Oregon
Trust") filed a motion claiming total investment losses of over
$319,000.

Durant himself did not file for appointment as the Lead Counsel.

Nagornyi and the Oregon Trust both acknowledged that they, and
others, would have greater losses under the longer class period
proposed in the Schwartz action.  However, in asserting their total
investment losses, they both rely on the shorter class period for
calculation.  By contrast, the Schwartzs and Slaunwhite use the
longer class period proposed in the Schwartz action to calculate
approximate losses.  Ultimately, the Oregon Trust has the greatest
loss regardless of the period used.

The Schwartzs, Slaunwhite, and the Maxar Investment Group each ask
the Court to consolidate the action with the Schwartz action.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Judge
Martinez finds that the Durant action and the Schwartz action
involve common questions of law or fact, including common parties
and common claims.  He also finds that consolidation of these two
cases will avoid unnecessary costs and delays.  He notes that
consolidation is not opposed by Defendants or any potential lead
plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Judge orders that the cases be
consolidated, and that the Schwartz action be reassigned to him as
the Presiding District Judge, and to U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato
Crews in the referral role.

As for the Lead Plaintiff, the PSLRA establishes a presumption that
the potential lead plaintiffs with the largest financial interest
should be appointed as the lead plaintiffs, assuming they otherwise
meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  In
that light, the Schwartzs, Slaunwhite, Maxar Investment Group, the
Miami Firefighters' Fund, and Nagornyi all filed notices stating
that they acknowledge that they do not have the greatest financial
interest in the case.  Nagornyi also acknowledged that the Oregon
Trust appeared to have a greater financial interest.

The Judge finds that the Oregon Trust has the greatest financial
interest in the case and is therefore the presumptive choice for
the Lead Plaintiff.  No party has made an argument to rebut this
presumption.  Moreover, the Oregon Trust's filings adequately
demonstrate it meets the typicality and adequacy requirements of
Rule 23(a), and that its attorneys could appropriately serve as the
class counsel under Rule 23(g).

For the reasons set, Judge Martinez granted in part Schwartzs'
Motion as to the request for consolidation, and denied the
remainder of the motion.  He also granted in part the Slaunwhite
Motion as to the request for consolidation, and denied the
remainder of the motion.  He further granted in part the Maxar
Investment Group Motion as to the request for consolidation, and
denied the remainder of the motion.

The Judge denied (i) the Miami Firefighters' Fund Motion, and (ii)
Nagornyi's Motion.  He granted the Oregon Laborers Employers
Pension Trust Fund Motion.

In accordance with the Court's inherent power to control its
docket, and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a), Civil Action No. 19-cv-758-CMA-NRN is consoidated into the
captioned action.  Civil Action No. 19-cv-124-WJM-SKC will be the
lead case, and all future filings will be made in this action
only.

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.Civ.R 40.1(d)(4)(C), the Clerk is directed to
reassign Civil Action No. 19-cv-758 to Judge Martinez as the
Presiding District Judge and to U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato
Crews.

The Judge appointed (i) the Oregon Laborers Employer Pension Trust
Fund as the Lead Plaintiff in the action; and (ii) Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP is as the Lead Counsel.

The Clerk's Office and the parties are directed to update the case
caption to reflect the cases' consolidated status, as well as the
newly-designated Lead Plaintiff, as shown in the caption of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Uwjf65 from Leagle.com.

Howard Schwartz & Jill Schwartz, Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Allen
Berens -- jeff@jberenslaw.com -- Berens Law LLC.

Maxar Technologies Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas
Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Eric C.
Pettis -- eric.pettis@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Jerome H.
Sturhahn -- jsturhahn@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard LLC &
Kristin Nicole Murphy -- kristin.murphy@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP.

Howard L. Lance, Biggs Porter & Michael B. Wirasekara, Jr.,
Defendants, represented by Jerome H. Sturhahn, Sherman & Howard
LLC.


MED-SPEC TRANSPORT: Washington May Refile Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry in the class action lawsuit titled
Sandra Washington, et al. v. Med−Spec. Transport, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03334 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing was held on September 11, 2019;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken without
      prejudice to refiling by December 2, 2019; and

   -- Status hearing is set for December 4, 2019, at
      9:10 a.m.[CC]


MERCEDES-BENZ VANS: Moore Sues over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Foster Moore, the Plaintiff, vs. Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02496-DCN-MGB (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2019),
contends that Plaintiff's termination was racially discriminatory,
was retaliatory, violated Plaintiff's contractual rights, and
violated the relied upon promises of protection made to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff began his employment as a Measurement Technician with
Defendant in August 2017 and was employed with Defendant up until
September of 2018. As a Measurement Technician, Plaintiff's job
duties consisted of measuring car components to ensure they were
properly within acceptable quality control expectations.

Despite Plaintiff making numerous lawfully protected complaints to
both Human Resources and within the management chain of the racial
mistreatment that Plaintiff received from Wilson and Taylor, the
Defendant did nothing but treat Plaintiff with retaliatory animus
on account thereof by making efforts to diminish Plaintiff's
credibility among his Caucasian peers.

As a result of Plaintiff's continual racial victimization at the
hands of Defendant's managers, Plaintiff went to his supervisor,
Addison, and complained of the race discrimination which was meted
out to him daily by Wilson and Taylor. Rather than address
Plaintiff's concerns, Addison simply told Plaintiff to be careful
and to cross his "T's and dot your I's because you know they are
out to get you." This devastated Plaintiff because it became
immediately apparent that the Company had no intentions to protect
Plaintiff from the daily racial harassment that Management exposed
him to.

During April 2019, Wilson ostracized Plaintiff by singling him out
from among his colleagues (all of whom are Caucasian) by causing
Plaintiff to work on his shift alone despite their being a company
rule that two Measurement Techs work on each shift. Plaintiff had
no control over the scheduling of the other employees, but Wilson,
who was given such control at this point by the Company, ensured
that Plaintiff's similarly situated Caucasian colleagues were able
to work first shift leaving Plaintiff to work his shift alone. This
was clearly an act of discrimination against Plaintiff by Defendant
on account of his race, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Donald Gist, Esq.
          Aaron V. Wallace, Esq.
          GIST LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4400 North Main Street (29203)
          Post Office Box 30007
          Columbia, SC 29230
          Telephone: (803) 771-8007
          Facsimile: (803) 771-0063
          E-mail: dtommygist@yahoo.com
                  aaronwallace.gistlawfirm@gmail.com

MEREDITH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to move for lead plaintiff
in a securities class action filed on behalf of investors that
purchased or acquired the securities of Meredith Corporation
("Meredith" or the "Company") (MDP) between May 10, 2018 and
September 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Time, Inc. acquisition was not as
profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) that the Company would
incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the
Time business; (3) that, as a result, the Company's earnings would
be materially and adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The truth began to emerge on September 5, 2019. On this date, the
Company stated that it expected fiscal 2020 adjusted EBITDA in the
range of $640 million to $675 million, which is well below
analysts' expectations of $793 million. Meredith planned to
increase spending to improve operations of Time because the
business was not as profitable as expected.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.14 per share, or
over 23%, to close at $33.68 per share on September 5, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 5, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Meredith securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/meredith-corporation-mdp-class-action-lawsuit-175/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


MEREDITH CORP: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 5, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Meredith
Corporation (NYSE: MDP), if they purchased the Company's securities
between May 10, 2018 and September 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Meredith and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mdp/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by November 5, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Meredith and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On September 5, 2019, the Company disclosed a disappointing
forecast including adjusted EBITDA for full-year fiscal 2020 in the
range of $640 million to $675 million, well below analysts'
expectations of $793 million, and profitability difficulties
related to its $1.8 billion acquisition of Time Inc.

On this news, the price of Meredith's shares plummeted more than
23%.

The case is Wirthwein v. Meredith Corporation, 1:19-cv-08340.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on
securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger
& acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.  To learn more about KSF, visit
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/

Contact:

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


MEREDITH CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/meredith/) announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Meredith
Corporation (NYSE:MDP) securities during the period between January
31, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action
was filed in the Southern District of Iowa and is captioned Mroz v.
Meredith Corp., No. 19-cv-0294.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Meredith securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
September 6, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld or Mary K.
Blasy of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com or mblasy@rgrdlaw.com You can view
a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/meredith/

The complaint charges Meredith and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Meredith is a media company that operates national media and local
media business segments over print, digital, mobile, video, and
broadcast television. On January 31, 2018, Meredith announced it
had completed the acquisition of Time, Inc. for $2.8 billion.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the Company's business and
operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: (i) that
the Company's financial reporting was deficient in its controls for
establishing the fair value of the assets and liabilities that
Meredith had acquired from Time; (ii) that integrating Time's
assets and elevating advertising revenue from the print and digital
performance of Time's assets would occur over a series of years and
require additional investment spending; and (iii) that the
substantial number of low-margin magazine subscriptions inside the
legacy Time brands would require additional investment spending. As
a result of this information being withheld from the market,
Meredith securities traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

Then on September 5, 2019, when Meredith announced its fourth
quarter and full year 2019 financial results, it admitted that it
had "taken longer than [it] initially expected to elevate the print
and digital performance of the Time Inc. assets," and that
"comparable advertising performance lagged Meredith's expectations
in the first half of fiscal 2019." In a conference call the same
day, the Company's CEO explained that due to the underperformance
of the Time assets, Meredith had significantly missed its
previously announced guidance. On this news, the price of Meredith
stock fell more than 20%, to close at $33.68 per share on September
5, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Meredith securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

         CONTACT:
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


MEREDITH CORP: Wirthwein Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA WIRTHWEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.  MEREDITH CORPORATION,
THOMAS H. HARTY, and JOSEPH CERYANEC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08340 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Meredith securities between May 10, 2018 and September 4, 2019,
inclusive.

On September 5, 2019, the Company stated that it expected fiscal
2020 adjusted EBITDA in the range of $640 million to $675 million,
which is well below analysts' expectations of $793 million.

Meredith planned to increase spending to improve operations of Time
because the business was not as profitable as expected.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.14 per share, or
over 23%, to close at $33.68 per share on September 5, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the
Time, Inc. acquisition was not as profitable as the Company had
claimed; (2) that the Company would incur additional costs for
strategic investments to improve the Time business; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely
impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Meredith is a media company that distributes content through print,
digital, mobile, video, and broadcast television. It operates under
two business segments, national media and local media. In January
2018, Meredith acquired Time Inc. for $3.2 billion.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

METALS USA: Wilson Deal Final Approval Bid Filing Cont. to Oct. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES WILSON, an individual, and JACK WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. METALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:12-CV-00568-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
continued the hearing on the Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards and the Motion for Final Approval from Sept. 6,
2019 to Dec. 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.  The Parties' deadline to file
and serve the motion for final approval of the class action
settlement is continued to Oct. 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FTgb05 from Leagle.com.

James Wilson & Jack White, Plaintiffs, represented by Crystal Lee
Matter -- crystal@matterlawapc.com -- Stonebarger Law APC, Gene
Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- and
Richard David Lambert, Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com --
STONEBARGER LAW.

Rita White, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger,
Stonebarger Law & Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law.

Metals USA, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by
Adrian J. Sawyer, Esq. -- sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- KERR &
AGSTAFFE, LLP -- Bartholomew Dalton, Esq. --
Bdalton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON,
LLP


MIDLAND CREDIT: Teiner, et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Teiner and
Richard Watts, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 606992/2019, was removed from the Suffolk
County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip) on Sept. 6, 2019. The Eastern
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05088 to
the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the the Fair Debt
Collection Act. The suit demands of $501,000 worth of damages.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc. are:

          Matthew B. Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com

MINDBODY, INC: Financial Statements Misleading, Walleye Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WALLEYE TRADING LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MINDBODY, INC., RICHARD L.
STOLLMEYER, and BRETT WHITE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08331
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2019), alleges that, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Defendants executed a scheme by misstating and/or omitting material
information concerning MINDBODY's financial results. As a result,
MINDBODY shareholders were misled into accepting consideration that
was well below the fair value for their MINDBODY shares.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
former owners of MINDBODY Class A common stock who sold shares, and
were damaged thereby, during the period from November 7, 2018
through February 15, 2019, both dates inclusive.

The case concerns a scheme by MINDBODY, certain of its officers
and/or directors, and Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, to
depress the value of MINDBODY shares to allow Vista to avoid paying
a fair price to MINDBODY shareholders in connection with the merger
and subsequent delisting of the Company.

On November 6, 2018, Defendants intentionally issued disappointing
guidance for the Company's upcoming fourth quarter 2018 in order to
artificially depress the price of the Company's stock, attributing
it to integration issues with MINDBODY's early 2018 acquisitions.
The market, having previously been informed that the integrations
in question were on track, reacted poorly, causing the price of
MINDBODY Class A common stock to fall by approximately 20% on
November 7, 2018.

Shortly thereafter, by press release dated December 24, 2018,
Defendants informed investors that the Company's Board had approved
a merger agreement with Vista. Pursuant to the agreement, holders
of the Company's common stock would receive $36.50 in exchange for
their shares, with Vista taking MINDBODY private upon completion.
Defendants touted this as a 68 percent premium to the Company's
December 21, 2018 closing price, which price was still depressed by
the surprising and suspiciously timed negative guidance issued on
November 6, 2018.

Unknown to MINDBODY investors, however, is that by January 18,
2019, Defendants knew that the Company's fourth quarter 2018
results had materially exceeded not only current analyst estimates,
but also those estimates issued prior to the disappointing November
6, 2018 guidance.

During January and February, Defendants issued proxy materials
urging MINDBODY shareholders to vote "FOR" the transaction, touting
the price of $36.50 as a substantial premium for MINDBODY
shareholders. These proxy materials, however, failed to disclose
the "meaningful" fourth quarter 2018 results necessary for
investors to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of
the proposed transaction.

Based, in part, on Defendants' failure to disclose MINDBODY's
favorable fourth quarter 2018 financial results, which would have
raised questions regarding whether the merger consideration was
fair, MINDBODY shareholders approved the transaction on February
14, 2019. The following day, Defendants reported the closing of the
transaction, and MINDBODY shareholders received $36.50 in exchange
for their shares.

As a result of these material misrepresentations and omissions,
MINDBODY shareholders were misled into selling their shares for
less than the fair value of those shares, which fair price was
greater than $36.50, the lawsuit says.

MINDBODY, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in San Luis Obispo,
California, provides cloud-based business management software for
the wellness services industry, and a rapidly growing marketplace
for wellness services.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq
          David J. Schwartz, Esq
          Francis P. McConville, Esq
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

MLB HOTEL: Nelson Seeks Minimum & OT for Tipped Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
CRISTY NELSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. MLB HOTEL MANAGER, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and MLB FAIRWINDS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, the Defendants , Case No. 1:19-cv-23730-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, return of tips wrongfully
taken, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are tipped employees
who worked for Defendants' restaurant at La Sombra.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305 358 6800
          Facsimile: 305 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com

MONDA WINDOW: Mims Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA EDENS MIMS individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MONDA WINDOW & DOOR, CORP.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10371 (Ill. Cir.), seeks to put a
stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric
data pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when employees first begin their jobs
at Monda, they are required to scan their fingerprint and/or
handprint ("fingerprint") in its biometric time tracking system as
a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.

Monda is a manufacturing company located in Chicago, lllinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          dfish@fishlawfirm.com
          jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth A venue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com

MONTREAL: Class Action Chance to Address Racial Profiling
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the head of the Black Coalition of
Quebec says a class action lawsuit against the City of Montreal is
a chance to address what he calls rampant abuse and profiling of
the city's minorities by the police.

Dan Philip said on Aug. 13 that a judge's approval of the lawsuit
is a victory not only for the black community but also for justice
in Quebec and Canada.

On Aug. 7, a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized a class action
against Montreal on behalf of citizens who allege they were
unfairly arrested, detained, and racially profiled by the city's
police between mid-August 2017 and Jan 2019.

In his ruling, Justice Andre Prevost said the class action would
address a number of questions, including whether city
representatives acted in a discriminatory fashion and violated the
rights of the plaintiffs, many of whom allege they were unfairly
targeted for arrest or questioning due to their race.

Philip says the city is complicit in the abuse of power and racial
profiling that occurred because it sided with the police against
members of the community.

The coalition currently estimates it will have about 150 people
joining the lawsuit, but that number could rise. [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) between February 15, 2019 and August 8,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214
were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that
clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of
NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02
study did not produce statistically significant results to support
a finding of clinical benefit; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that a manufacturing issue caused two batches of bempegaldesleukin
to differ from the other 20 batches that were produced.  Moreover,
these batches resulted in variable clinical benefit than other
batches used in the Company's PIVOT-02 clinical trial .

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.65, or nearly 30%
to close at $20.92 per share on August 9, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Nektar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nektartherapeutics-nktr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-177/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


NETFLIX INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 20, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Netflix,
Inc. ("Netflix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NFLX) securities between
April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On July 17, 2019, after market hours, Netflix disclosed that it
only acquired 2.7 million new subscribers, significantly below its
forecast of 5 million new subscribers, during second quarter 2019.

On this news, shares of Netflix fell $47.34 per share, or over 13%,
over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $315.10 per share
on July 19, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Netflix would not be able to gain its expected
target number of new subscribers in the second quarter of 2019; (2)
that Netflix would also lose subscribers from the United States in
the second quarter of 2019; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Netflix securities during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than September 20, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contacts:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-07915-PGG, on behalf of
shareholders of NorthStar Realty Europe Corp. ("NRE" or the
"Company") (NYSE:NRE) who have been harmed by NRE's and its board
of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with
AXA Investment Managers-Real Assets (the "Proposed Transaction").

On July 3, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which NRE shareholders stand to
receive $17.03 in cash for each share of NRE stock they own.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to NRE shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking www.faruqilaw.com/NRE

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


NORTHWOODS BANK: Stuckey Files FCRA Suit in Minnesota Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwoods Bank of
Minnesota. The case is styled as Brian Stuckey on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northwoods Bank of
Minnesota, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-02525 (D. Minn., Sept. 16,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Northwoods Bank of Minnesota is a full-service bank. The Bank
accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Phone: (651) 770-9707
     Fax: (651) 704-0907
     Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


PENNSYLVANIA UNION: Workers Forced to Pay Union Dues
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Sheehan, writing for Local 21 News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed in Harrisburg federal court is seeking
as much as $1 million for Pennsylvania social service employees.

The worker at the center of this lawsuit is a York County woman
named Catherine Kioussis.

Kioussis claims a Pennsylvania union forced her, and other
non-union members, to pay dues as part of their job.

Now, they're demanding to get back what they say they unwillingly
dished out.

"These fees were taken from them, it was wrong, And we deserve to
give it back to them," attorney Bryan Kelsey, Esq. said.

Kelsey is an attorney with Liberty Justice Center, which is
representing Kioussis in the lawsuit.

While Kioussis, who's been employed with the Commonwealth since
2008, is not part of the union, Kelsey says she still had to pay
the union certain fees as a condition of her employment.

"Ms. Kioussis and others like her have been forced to pay these
agency fees to the union for many years. So what we are asking for
is these illegally paid fees will be returned to workers just like
her," Kelsey said.

However, the Supreme Court deemed those fees unconstitutional in a
2018 ruling known as "Janus."

"We represented Mark Janus in that lawsuit; who was a state worker
in, Springfield, Illinois," Kelsey said.

"And the court there ruled that this is unconstitutional and a
violation of your First Amendment rights to free speech and free
association to force government workers to pay these fees to unions
without their consent," he added.

Now, this class action lawsuit represents Kioussis and at least
2,000 other non-union members in Pennsylvania, required to pay
those fees each year to SEIU Local 668.

They're hoping to get back what they paid prior to the Janus
ruling.

Steve Catanese is SEIU Local 668 union president.

While unhappy with the Janus ruling, he doesn't believe workers
like Kioussis should get those fees back, arguing the union works
for all workers regardless of their membership.

"The union represents every worker in the workplace in which the
workers have elected for the union to be there," Catanese said.

Instead, he believes lawsuits like this are a blatant attempt to
break down unions, like SEIU, by soliciting workers like Kioussis
to join class action lawsuits.

"In general, the purpose of these lawsuits that these organizations
are finding litigants for, isn't necessarily to win some type of
case or represent workers. It's to chip away at us and our ability
to do the work we do on a day to day basis," Catanese said.

While Kioussis has worked for the Commonwealth for eleven years,
Pennsylvania law only allows her to recoup a year's worth of dues.

In her case, she's eligible for about $450 if they win the lawsuit.
[GN]


PLURALSIGHT INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Aug. 14 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Pluralsight,
Inc. ("Pluralsight" or the "Company") (PS) on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Pluralsight common
stock between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The Complaint asserts claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Pluralsight and certain of its senior executives.

If you purchased Pluralsight common stock during the Class Period
and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf
must be filed with the Court by no later than October 15, 2019. You
may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and
Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Pluralsight is a provider of cloud-based and video training courses
for employees such as software developers, IT administrators, and
creative professionals.  The Company completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") in May 2018, whereby it sold 23.8 million shares
at a price of $15.00 per share.  Less than a year later,
Pluralsight completed a secondary public offering ("SPO") on March
6, 2019, whereby it sold 15.6 million shares at a price of $29.25
per share, for gross proceeds of over $450 million.  The SPO served
as a massive cash-out for Pluralsight insiders, as all the proceeds
went to insiders and related parties; and conversely none of the
money was raised to fund corporate developments or initiatives.   


Throughout the Class Period, Pluralsight misrepresented the
Company's business outlook, particularly related to the Company's
salesforce and its ability to generate strong growth in billings.
Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that Pluralsight was
experiencing substantial delays in hiring and properly training the
salesforce necessary to meet its lofty billing projections.  In
addition, the Company knew at the time of the SPO that it was
behind schedule onboarding new sales representatives, which was
hurting the Company's sales execution and preventing Pluralsight
from meeting its high growth projections.  Instead of disclosing
such facts at the time of the SPO, and to cash-out at inflated
prices, Defendants intentionally obscured and omitted this
pertinent information from investors.

On July 31, 2019, after the close of the markets, Pluralsight
announced disappointing financial results for the second quarter
ended June 30, 2019, disclosing that its billings growth rate had
sharply deteriorated.  The Company blamed its declining growth in
billings on sales execution challenges and other issues with its
salesforce.  Pluralsight also disclosed that its Chief Revenue
Officer was resigning.  In response to these disclosures,
Pluralsight's share price plummeted.  The stock price fell $12.13
per share in a single day -- a nearly 40% drop -- to close at
$18.56 per share on August 1, 2019.  

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com

With offices in Florida, New York, and California, Saxena White
P.A. -- http://www.saxenawhite.com-- concentrates its practice on
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of
institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in
numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States. [GN]


POP WARNER: Class Cert. Bid in Archie Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled Kimberly Archie, et al.
v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-06603-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of: "[a]ll persons who
enrolled their minor children in Pop Warner tackle football from
1997 to present."  Excluded from the class are "governmental
entities, Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors,
affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns, as well as any judge, justice or
judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of
their immediate family and judicial staff."

Judge Gutierrez concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided
evidence that all putative class members were exposed to alleged
misrepresentations.  The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that
class certification of claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law is available only to those class members who were actually
exposed to the business practice at issue.

In a class certification motion, the burden is on the plaintiffs to
demonstrate that they satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Judge Gutierrez notes.  Judge Gutierrez points out that
the Plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden.

Because common questions do not predominate over individual issues,
and Rule 23(b) is the only sub-part on which Plaintiffs rely, the
Court declines to certify the class.  The Court, therefore, denies
the Plaintiffs' class certification motion as to the claims under
UCL and California's False Advertising Law.[CC]


PREMIER CADBURY: Brown Seeks Refund of Unlawfully Retained Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Brown, in her capacity as the Administrator of the Estate
of Christine V. Hazzard, Deceased, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. Premier Cadbury, LLC
d/b/a Premier Cadbury of Cherry Hill, Cadbury at Cherry Hill, Inc.,
Cherry Hill Properties, LLC, SMF Cadbury, LLC, Premier Healthcare
Management, LLC, Jacob Sod, Jonathan Bleier, Meir Singer, Mark
Neuman, Yisrael Friedman, Lisa Sofia, Meredith Becker, JOHN and/or
JANE DOES, "A" through "Z" (fictitious names whose present
identities are unknown), and ABC CORPORATIONS, "A" through "Z"
(fictitious names whose present identities are unknown)
individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative,
Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-003613-19 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty.,
Sept. 10, 2019) is a class action, brought under New Jersey law, on
behalf of a class composed of individuals and estates who are owed
refunds from Defendants for monies paid to Defendants in New Jersey
during the proposed class period.

According to the complaint, the Defendants owe class members a
refund of monies paid to Defendants that are unlawfully being
retained by Defendants. Plaintiffs brings New Jersey state law
claims exclusively against Defendants, on behalf of itself and the
class, in order to obtain refund of the unlawful monies being
retained, including: (a) a claim under the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act ("CFA"), based upon Defendants' failure to provide
refunds constituting an unconscionable commercial practice which
violate N.J.S.A. 56:8-2; (b) a claim under New Jersey common law
fraud based on Defendants withholding payment of refunds to
Plaintiffs that are unlawfully being retained by Defendants; (c) a
claim under New Jersey common law for negligent misrepresentation
based on Defendants withholding payment of refunds to Plaintiffs
that are unlawfully being retained by Defendants; (d) a claim under
New Jersey common law for breach of contract, failure to adhere to
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on Defendants
withholding payment of refunds to Plaintiffs that are unlawfully
being retained by Defendants; (e) a claim under New Jersey common
law for reformation of contract, pursuant to the doctrine of
unconscionability, based on Defendants withholding payment of
refunds to Plaintiffs that are unlawfully being retained by
Defendants; (f) a claim under New Jersey common law for reformation
of contract, inclusion of material term that is void as against
public policy, based on Defendants withholding payment of refunds
to Plaintiffs that are unlawfully being retained by Defendants; and
(g) a claim under New Jersey common law principles relating to
unjust enrichment/disgorgement, based on Defendants withholding
payment of refunds to Plaintiffs that are unlawfully being retained
by Defendants, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Johanna Brown, in her capacity as the Administrator of
the Estate of Christine V. Hazzard, Deceased, is a resident of
Maryland, and fiduciary of the estate probated in Maryland under
Estate No. 38141.

Defendants Premier Cadbury, LLC d/b/a Premier Cadbury of Cherry
Hill, is a private, for-profit limited liability company licensed
to conduct business in the State of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Donald F. Browne, Jr., Esq.
     Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu, LLC
     4 Munn Avenue
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: 856-795-3535
     Fax: 856-795-3322
     Email: dbrowne@estateplanlawyer.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Triad Sues Over Sale of Prescription Opioids
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against manufacturers of
prescription opioids alleging that they aggressively pushed highly
addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to practitioners
that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction.

These pharmaceutical companies aggressively advertised to and
persuaded practitioners to prescribe highly addictive, dangerous
opioids, and turned patients into drug addicts or dependents for
their own corporate profit. Such actions were unlawful, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiffs seek recover monetary losses that have been
incurred, and will continue to be incurred, as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

Opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the
widespread abuse of opioids has resulted in a national epidemic of
opioid overdose deaths, addictions, and dependencies. The opioid
epidemic is "directly related to the increasingly widespread misuse
of powerful opioid pain medications."

The case is captioned as TRIAD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., and all other
similarly situated Federally Qualified Healthcare Systems and
Clinics, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN
PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLS; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC;
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC. ; DEPOMED, INC.;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; McKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; COLLEGIUM
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; H.D. SMITH, LLC;
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; SANDOZ,
INC.; and SPECGX, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45780-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, Sept. 6, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jaron P. Blandford, Esq.
          David J. Guarnieri, Esq.
          Lisa E. Hinkle, Esq.
          McBRAYER, McGINNIS, LESLIE
            & KIRKLAND, PLLC
          201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231 8780
          Facsimile: (859) 231 1175
          E-mail: lhinkle@mcbrayerfirm.com
                  jblandford@mcbrayerfirm.com
                  dguarnieri@mcbrayerfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Finnell, Esq.
          THE FINNELL FIRM
          1 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
          Rome, GA 30161
          Telephone: (706) 235-7272
          Facsimile: (706) 235-9461
          E-mail: Bob@finnellfirm.com

               - and -

          William Q. Bird, Esq.
          Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq.
          BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2170 Defoor Hills Road
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Phone: (404) 873-4696
          Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
          E-mail: WQB@birdlawgroup.com
                   PIH@birdlawgroup.com

RABOBANK N.A.: Placed Insurance Proceeds in Non-interest Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Rabobank
placed six-figure home insurance proceeds into noninterest-bearing
accounts pending incremental disbursements for construction work
after California wildfires, though the state requires the escrow
accounts pay at least 2% interest, in Ventura County Court.


RIPPLE: Investor Amends XRP Class Action
----------------------------------------
Max Boddy, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that XRP investor
Bradley Sostack has amended a class action suit against Ripple, in
which he alleges that the company misled investors and sold XRP as
an unregistered security in violation of federal law.

Sostack submitted his latest filing on Aug. 5 to a United States
district court in California. According to a report by CoinDesk on
Aug. 13, the original class action suit was filed about a year ago,
but had yet to gain traction as a class action suit. However,
Ripple now must reportedly respond to this latest action by some
time in mid-September.

Appeal to SEC guidelines

Crucially, the report notes that Sostack's latest complaint cites
guidance issued by the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission arguing that XRP counts as a security. Jake Chervinsky,
who serves as general counsel to Compound, remarked:

"The Complaint reads like a love letter to the SEC [. . .] Although
the SEC's Framework is technically only non-binding guidance, the
Court will likely give it significant weight in deciding how to
apply the Howey test to the facts of this case."

In the filing itself, the plaintiff's counsel wrote:

"As explained in more detail below, applying the analysis in the
SEC Framework and applicable precedent, the XRP tokens offered and
sold by Defendants have all the traditional hallmarks of a
security, as reflected in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293
(1946) ('Howey'), and subsequent case law. XRP tokens also qualify
as a security under California law."

After laying out their substantive allegations and recalling the
SEC guidance which references the foregoing Howey case, the counsel
concludes the following:

"The SEC Framework makes clear that '[w]hether a particular digital
asset at the time of its offer or sale satisfies the Howey test
depends on the specific facts and circumstances.' The specific
facts and circumstances relating to XRP support the conclusion that
XRP is a security under the Howey test."

SEC postpones ETF rulings

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, the SEC recently moved to
postpone its decisions on three Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund
(ETF) proposals. The SEC is currently considering whether to accept
proposed rule changes submitted by NYSE Arca and Cboe BZX Exchange
on behalf of three Bitcoin ETFs, from asset managers VanEck SolidX,
Bitwise Asset Management and Wilshire Phoenix.

The SEC has postponed its decision on VanEck's listing to Oct. 18,
Bitwise's listing to Oct. 13, and Wilshire Phoenix's United States
Bitcoin and Treasury Investment Trust to Sept. 29. Attorney
Chervinsky, for his part, forecast a 90% chance of postponement
prior to the SEC's announcements. [GN]


RITE AID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Josten Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT JOSTEN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-0152-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied Rite Aid's motion to dismiss Josten's amended complaint.

The Plaintiff's claims are all based on the assertion that he was
forced to pay an inflated copayment under his insurance plan
because Rite Aid reported prescription drug prices to his insurance
carrier that were not its "usual and customary" ("U&C") prices for
those drugs.  About 90% of all United States citizens are now
enrolled in private or public health insurance plans that cover at
least a portion of the cost of medical and prescription drug
benefits.  A feature of most of these health insurance plans is the
shared cost of prescription drugs.  Typically, when a consumer
fills a prescription for a medically necessary prescription drug
under his or her health insurance plan, the third-party payor
("TPP") pays a portion of the cost and the consumer pays the
remaining portion of the cost directly to the pharmacy in the form
of a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible payment.

In an effort to control their prescription drug costs, many
insurance companies and TPPs require consumers to purchase generic
prescription drugs when available because generic drugs often cost
less than the brand-name version.  The Plaintiff alleges that he
and the members of the Class are paying much more for certain
generics than Rite Aid's cash-paying customers who fill their
generic prescriptions through Rite Aid's discount generic drug
program, called the "Rx Savings Program," without using health
insurance.

The crux of his argument is that a pharmacy cannot charge a
consumer, or report to a TPP, a higher price for prescription drugs
than the pharmacy's U&C price.  The U&C price is referred to by
Rite Aid and known throughout the pharmacy industry as the price
that the pharmacy most commonly charges the cash-paying public.
The Plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid, instead of complying with this
requirement, maintains an undisclosed, dual pricing scheme for the
prescription drugs available through the Rx Program and overcharges
consumers like Plaintiff and the Class, in excess of Rite Aid's
actual U&C prices for these generics.  Thus, the Plaintiff alleges
that Rite Aid has knowingly and intentionally reported artificially
inflated U&C prices for RSP Generics on claims for reimbursement
submitted to TTP.

The Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on Dec. 11, 2018.
He alleges causes of action for violations of: (1) Negligent
Misrepresentation; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Unfair Competition
law ("UCL") based on unfair acts and practices; (4) UCL based on
unlawful acts and practices; (5) Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); and (6) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.  In his prayer
for relief, the Plaintiff requests the Court certifies his action
as a class action, award compensatory, consequential, and general
damages, grant permanent injunctive relief, and award statutory
treble, punitive, or exemplary damages, among other things.

Rite Aid again moves to dismiss Josten's amended complaint after
the Court previously granted Josten amendment.  In the current
motion, Rite Aid renews its argument that Josten failed to allege
tolling under the delayed discovery rule.  It also argues the Court
has no jurisdiction over Josten's claims because he failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies under the Medicare Act.

Judge Battaglia finds both of these arguments fail.  First, he
finds that Josten appropriately alleges tolling in his amended
complaint.  Josten had no reason to suspect Rite Aid was failing to
include its RSP prices in the U&C prices it reported.  It would be,
in the Judge's opinion, difficult for Josten to detect that he was
being charged an inflated copayment amount because Rite Aid has set
a dual-payment track for cash-paying customers of which it was
failing to include in its U&C prices.  Without having the
sophisticated knowledge of the U&C reporting requirements and
having gathered multiple pieces of the puzzle together such as the
RSP prices and the copayment prices, even a person exercising
reasonable diligence would have had a hard time piecing this one
together.  Accordingly, the Judge finds Josten has pled equitable
tolling.  He declines to discuss Josten's other arguments
supporting its tolling.

Second, the Judge finds Josten's claims do not arise under The
Medicare Act and are thus not subject to its exhaustion
requirements.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Battaglia denied Rite Aid's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/y2D7tU from Leagle.com.

Robert Josten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Green Comite,
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Hal D.
Cunningham
-- hcunningham@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott LLP, Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Julie A. Kearns --
jkearns@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP &
Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP.

Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph H. Bias --
joseph.bias@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius & Tera Marie
Heintz – tera.heintz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in SAExploration Holdings, Inc. ("SAExploration"
or the "Company") (SAEX) of the October 17, 2019 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in SAExploration stock or options between March 15,
2016 and August 15, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/SAEX There is no cost or
obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

         CONTACT:

         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all those who purchased
SAExploration securities between March 15, 2016 and August 15, 2019
(the "Class Period"). The case, Bodin v. SAExploration Holdings,
Inc. et al., No. 19-cv-03089 was filed on August 18, 2019.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly did not classify Alaska Seismic Ventures,
LLC ("ASV") as a variable interest entity; (2) the Company had a
controlling financial interest in ASV, which required the Company
to consolidate ASV in its financial statements; (3) the Company had
deficient internal controls over financial reporting; (4) these
practices were likely to lead to an investigation of the Company by
the SEC; (5) SAExploration would be forced to delay the filing of
its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2019; and (6)
as a result, Defendants' statements about SAExploration's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

On August 15, 2019, the Company announced in a press release that
the SEC was conducting an investigation into certain accounting
matters that arose in 2015-2016. The press release also stated that
the Company would restate its previously issued financial
statements for fiscal years 2015- 2018 and delay filing its 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. The Company further announced
that it had placed CEO and Chariman Jeffrey Hastings on
administrative leave, and had fired CFO and General Counsel Brent
Whitely.

On this news, SAExploration's share price fell causing harm to
investors.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding SAExploration's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


SAKS INC: Reply to 4th Amended Nunez FTCA Suit Due Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY NUNEZ, Plaintiff, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15cv2717-JAH (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jona A.
Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Joint Motion Regarding Schedule for Further
Proceedings.

The Plaintiff will file a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint by
Aug. 16, 2019.  The Defendant will respond to the Fourth Amended
Class Action Complaint by Oct. 1, 2019.

To the extent the Defendant files a motion in lieu of an answer,
the Plaintiff will file any brief in opposition by Nov. 5, 2019,
and it will file its reply brief on Nov. 26, 2019.

Judge Houston vacated the telephonic status conference, originally
set Aug. 12, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A9UZDN from Leagle.com.

Randy Nunez, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Green Comite --
ecomite@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro
hac vice, John T. Jasnoch, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Joseph
P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice & Todd D. Carpenter --
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LLP.

Saks Incorporated, a Tennessee corporation, Defendant, represented
by Amy Pesapane Lally -- alally@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP &
Rachel Rose Goldberg -- rachel.goldberg@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:  SRPT) and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-08122, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
publicly traded Sarepta securities between September 6, 2017 and
August 19, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sarepta securities during
the class period, you have until October 29, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Sarepta purports to focus on the discovery and development of
ribonucleic acid ("RNA")-based therapeutics, gene therapy, and
other genetic medicine approaches for the treatment of rare
diseases.  Sarepta's products pipeline includes, among other drug
candidates, golodirsen for the treatment of duchenne muscular
dystrophy ("DMD").  Golodirsen purportedly binds to exon 53 of
dystrophin pre-mRNA, which results in exclusion or skipping of exon
during mRNA processing in patients with genetic mutations.

On September 6, 2017, pre-market, Sarepta announced positive muscle
biopsy results from its 4053-101 study, a Phase 1/2 first-in-human
study conducted in Europe to assess the safety, tolerability,
pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of golodirsen in twenty-five male
subjects with confirmed deletions of the DMD gene amenable to
skipping exon 53 (the "4053-101 Study").

According to Sarepta, the 4053-101 Study comprised two parts.  In
Part 1, twelve patients were randomized to receive a dose titration
of golodirsen (eight patients) or placebo (four patients).  At the
end of Part 1 (dose titration), all twelve patients continued on
golodirsen and an additional thirteen patients started golodirsen
(Part 2).  In Part 2, all twenty-five patients were treated for an
additional forty-eight weeks at the time of muscle biopsy.  The
analysis included biopsies of the bicep muscle at baseline and
on-treatment at the Part 2 Week 48 time point.

On February 14, 2019, Sarepta announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") Division of Neurology (the "FDA Neurology
Division") had accepted the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA")
"seeking accelerated approval for golodirsen (SRP-4053) and
provided a regulatory action date of August 19, 2019."  According
to Sarepta, the Company completed its NDA at the end of 2018 as
part of a rolling submission and requested priority review, which
was granted.  Additionally, the NDA included data from the 4053-101
Study.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Sarepta's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) golodirsen posed significant safety risks to
patients; (ii) consequently, the NDA package for golodirsen's
accelerated approval was unlikely to receive FDA approval; and
(iii) as a result, Sarepta's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2019, post-market, Sarepta announced receipt of a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the
Company's NDA seeking accelerated approval of golodirsen for the
treatment of DMD.  Sarepta disclosed that "[t]he CRL generally
cites two concerns: the risk of infections related to intravenous
infusion ports and renal toxicity seen in pre-clinical models of
golodirsen and observed following administration of other antisense
oligonucleotides."

On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $18.24 per share, or
15.16%, to close at $102.07 per share on August 20, 2019.

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

CONTACT:

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


SEALED AIR: Rosen Probing Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) resulting from allegations that
Sealed Air may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On June 20, 2019, after the market closed, Sealed Air announced it
fired its Chief Financial Officer, Bill Stiehl, for cause after the
Company's audit committee conducted an internal review following an
SEC subpoena. Sealed Air stated that it received the subpoena for
information related to its selection of an independent audit firm
and the independence of that audit firm. On this news, shares of
Sealed Air fell $1.97 per share, or approximately 4.5%, to close at
$41.70 per share on June 21, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Sealed Air investors. If you purchased shares of
Sealed Air please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1398.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


SEATIDE FISH: Veloz Seeks Minimum Wages & OT for Market Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS ANTONIO VELOZ, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. SEATIDE FISH & LOBSTER,
INC., or any other business entity doing business as SEATIDE FISH
MARKET, located at 95-31 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY
11372; SEATIDE GOURMET, INC., or any other business entity doing
business as SEATIDE GOURMET FISH MARKET, located at 5914 Avenue N,
Brooklyn, NY 11234; and PAUL OLIVERI, and DOMINICK OLIVERI,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05095 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the fish markets in Brooklyn and Queens,
and directly for Paul Oliveri, and Dominick Oliveri, for almost
three years.

Seatide Fish & Lobsters Inc is in fish & seafood wholesale
business.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

SOLI-BOND INC: Removes Sanchez Suit to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Soli-Bond Inc., removes case captioned as JACOB SANCHEZ, as
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SOLI-BOND, INC., a California corporation and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, case No. BCV-19-102195 (Filed Aug.
5, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Sept. 6, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01247-DAD-JLT to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and other workers were not paid for
all wages earned, including minimum and overtime wages, and were
not provided all required meal and rest breaks, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Howard A. Sagaser, Esq.
          Charles P. Hamamjian, Esq.
          SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC
          5260 North Palm, Avenue, Suite 400
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 421 7000
          Facsimile: (559) 473 1483

SUGAR CREEK GLEN: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Creek Glen
2013, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Sugar Creek Glen 2013, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08564 (S.D.
N.Y., Sept. 15, 2019).

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

Sugar Creek Glen 2013, LLC is a private campground located at 11288
Poags Hole Rd, Dansville, NY 14437.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: Bacerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUNRIDGE NURSERIES,
INC. The case is styled as MARIA BACERRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SUNRIDGE
NURSERIES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, GLEN STROLLER, Defendant,
Case No. BCV-19-102625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 16,
2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Sunridge Nurseries' line of business includes performing crop
planting, cultivating, and protecting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by GENE F. WILLIAMS, ESQ.



SUTTER HEALTH: Legal Reckoning Over Medical Pricing
---------------------------------------------------
Jenny Gold, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that economists
and researchers long have blamed the high cost of healthcare in
Northern California on the giant medical systems that have gobbled
up hospitals and physician practices — most notably Sutter
Health, a nonprofit chain with 24 hospitals, 34 surgery centers and
5,000 physicians across the region.

Now, those arguments will have their day in court: A long-awaited
class-action lawsuit against Sutter is set to open Sept. 23 in San
Francisco County Superior Court.

The hospital giant, with $13 billion in operating revenue in 2018,
stands accused of violating California's antitrust laws by
leveraging its market power to drive out competition and overcharge
patients. Healthcare costs in Northern California, where Sutter is
dominant, are 20% to 30% higher than in Southern California, even
after adjusting for cost of living, according to a 2018 study from
the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC Berkeley cited in the
complaint.

The case was initiated in 2014 by self-funded employers and union
trusts that pay for worker healthcare. It since has been joined
with a similar case brought last year by California Atty. Gen.
Xavier Becerra. The plaintiffs seek as much as $900 million in
damages for overpayments that they attribute to Sutter; under
California's antitrust law, the award can be tripled, leaving
Sutter liable for as much as $2.7 billion.

The case is being followed closely by industry leaders and
academics alike.

"This case could be huge. It could be existential," said Glenn
Melnick, a healthcare economist at USC. If the case is successful,
he predicted, healthcare prices could drop significantly in
Northern California. It also could have a "chilling effect"
nationally for large health systems that have adopted similar
negotiating tactics, he said.

The case already has proved controversial: In November 2017, San
Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow sanctioned
Sutter after finding it had intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of
documents sought by plaintiffs, "knowing that the evidence was
relevant to antitrust issues." He wrote: "There is no good
explanation for the specific and unusual destruction here."

Antitrust enforcement is more commonly within the purview of the
Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. "One of
the reasons we have such a big problem [with consolidation] is that
they've done very little. Enforcement has been very weak," said
Richard Scheffler, director of the Nicholas C. Petris Center. From
2010 to 2017, there were more than 800 hospital mergers, and the
federal government has challenged just a handful.

"We feel very confident," said Richard Grossman, lead counsel for
the plaintiffs. "Sutter has been able to elevate their prices above
market to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars."

Or, as Becerra put it at a news conference unveiling his 2018
lawsuit: "This is a big ‘F' deal."

Sutter vigorously denies the allegations, saying its large,
integrated health system offers tangible benefits for patients,
including more consistent high-quality care. Sutter also disputes
that its prices are higher than those of other major healthcare
providers in California, saying its internal analyses tell a
different story.

"This lawsuit irresponsibly targets Sutter's integrated system of
hospitals, clinics, urgent care centers and affiliated doctors
serving millions of patients throughout Northern California,"
spokeswoman Amy Thoma Tan wrote in an emailed statement. "While
insurance companies want to sell narrow networks to employers,
integrated networks like Sutter's benefit patient care and
experience, which leads to greater patient choice and reduces
surprise out-of-network bills to our patients."

There's no dispute that for years Sutter has worked aggressively to
buy up hospitals and doctor practices in communities throughout
Northern California. At issue in the case is how it has used that
market dominance.

According to the lawsuit, Sutter has exploited its market power by
using an "all-or-none" approach to contracting with insurance
companies. The tactic — known as the Sutter Model — involves
sitting down at the negotiating table with a demand: If an insurer
wants to include any one of the Sutter hospitals or clinics in its
network, it must include all of them. In Sutter's case, several of
its 24 hospitals are "must-haves," meaning it would be almost
impossible for an insurer to sell an insurance plan in a given
community without including those facilities in the network.

"All-or-none" contracting allows hospital systems to demand higher
prices from an insurer with little choice but to acquiesce, even if
it might be cheaper to exclude some of the system's hospitals that
are more expensive than a competitor. Those higher prices trickle
down to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

The California Hospital Assn. contends such negotiations are
crucial for financially struggling hospitals. "It can be a great
benefit to small hospitals and rural hospitals that don't have a
lot of bargaining power to have a larger group that can negotiate
on their behalf," said Jackie Garman, the association's legal
counsel.

Sutter also is accused of preventing insurers and employers from
tiering benefits, a technique used to steer patients to more
cost-effective options. For example, an insurer might charge $100
out of pocket for a procedure at a preferred surgery center, but
$200 at a more expensive facility. In addition, the lawsuit alleges
that for years Sutter restricted insurers from sharing information
about its prices with employers and workers, making it nearly
impossible to compare prices when selecting a provider.

Altogether, the plaintiffs allege, such tactics are
anti-competitive and have allowed Sutter to drive up the cost of
care in Northern California.

Hospitals in California and other regions across the country have
watched the success of such tactics and taken note. "All the other
hospitals want to emulate [Sutter] to get those rates," said
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health
Access.

A verdict that finds such tactics illegal would "send a signal to
the market that the way to compete is not to be the next Sutter,"
Wright said. "You want them to compete instead by providing better
quality service at a lower price, not just by who can get bigger
and thus leverage a higher price."

Along with damages, Becerra's complaint calls for dismantling the
Sutter Model. It asks that Sutter be required to negotiate prices
separately for each of its hospitals — and prohibit officials at
different hospitals from sharing details of their negotiations.
While leaving Sutter intact, the approach would give insurers more
negotiating room, particularly in communities with competing
providers.

Consolidation in the healthcare industry is probably here to stay:
Two-thirds of hospitals across the nation are part of larger
medical systems. "It's very hard to unscramble the egg," Melnick
said.

California legislators have attempted to limit the "all or nothing"
contracting terms several times, but the legislation has stalled
amid opposition from the hospital industry.

Now the courts will weigh in. [GN]


TACOMA, WA: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Fecteau Prisoner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, dismissed without prejudice the
case, JOHN ALEXANDER FECTEAU, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
CLERK FOR THE CITY OF TACOMA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-5718 RBL-JRC (W.D. Wash.).

The District Court has referred the matter filed under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 to Magistrate Judge Creatura and Judge Leighton, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local
Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.  The matter is
before the Court on the Plaintiff's request for voluntary
dismissal.

The matter began as a proposed class action complaint filed in
cause number 3:19-cv-05475-RBL-JRC.  The Plaintiff was a proposed
class member in that cause, and on July 31, 2019, the District
Court entered an order severing the Plaintiff's claims from those
in Cause Number-05475.  The District Court further ordered that the
Clerk open an individual case, under a new cause number, for the
Plaintiff.

Pursuant to that Order, the Clerk opened the matter, docketed the
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed
the Plaintiff to file a new proposed complaint in support of his in
forma pauperis application.  On the same day, he requested to
withdraw his Complaint in the Court as he no longer wished to
pursue the matter.  The Plaintiff has not filed a proposed
complaint in support of his in forma pauperis application in this
matter, and no Defendant has appeared.

Judge Leighton interpretes the Plaintiff's request as a request for
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a).  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the
parties will have 14 days from service of the Report and
Recommendation to file written objections.  Failure to file
objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes
of de novo review by the district judge, and can result in a result
in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal.
Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is
directed to set the matter for consideration on Aug. 23, 2019 as
noted.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
J. Richard Creatura, any objections to the Report and
ecommendation, and the remaining record, Judge Leighton found and
ordered that the Report and Recommendation is adopted and pursuant
to the Plaintiff's request, the matter is dismissed without
prejudice and the case is closed.  The Clerk will send copies of
the Order to the Plaintiff and to Magistrate Judge Creatura.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/qEUyAu from
Leagle.com.

John Alexander Fecteau, Plaintiff, pro se.


TE CONNECTIVITY: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in California
approved a $4.9 million class action settlement between TE
Connectivity and its employees over missed meal breaks.


TECH PACKAGING: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GUSTAVO SOTO, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff,
v. TECH PACKAGING, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV DS 1923663 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 16, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-01766.

The Complaint alleges 10 class-wide causes of action for: (1)
Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest
Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not
Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7)
Non-complaint Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Requisite
Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (10)
Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     MOLLIE BURKS, ESQ.
     LINH T. HUA, ESQ.
     GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
     633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 576-5000
     Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
     Email: mburks@grsm.com
            lhua@grsm.corn


TRAVELERS HOME: Butler Files Class Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers Home
and Marine Insurance Company. The case is styled as Miriam Butler
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, The Standard
Fire Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02621-JMC (D.
S.C., Sept. 16, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company offers insurance services for auto, condo,
renters, flood, and property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Eugene Massey, Esq.
     Summer Collette Tompkins, Esq.
     Massey and Associates
     PO Box 7014
     Columbia, SC 29202
     Phone: (803) 799-9022
     Fax: (803) 256-4824
     Email: radmassey@aol.com
            summertompkins2010@gmail.com


TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRINITY SERVICES
GROUP, INC. The case is styled as ANDRE CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
Plaintiff v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-102626 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 16, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, ESQ.



UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of the behavioral health treatment industry against United
Behavioral Health (UBH).  This case follows the Northern District
of California's recent decision on behalf of patients in Wit v.
United Behavioral Health which found that, for the past 8 years,
UBH illegally denied mental health and addiction benefits to
maximize profits and save costs with little regard for its members.
This firm estimates that wrongly denied Provider claims during the
class period could total as much as $9.3 billion dollars and
impacts every mental health and substance abuse treatment Provider
in the United States.  Napoli Shkolnik is asking for reprocessing
of all claims and punitive damages.

The three class representatives are mental health and addiction
treatment facilities (Meridian Treatment Centers, Serenity Palms
Treatment Center, and Harmony Hollywood Treatment Center) who were
saddled with millions of dollars in unreimbursed care by United.
This case seeks to expand the findings in Wit to providers, who
bore most of the financial harm from wrongly denied claims, but who
may not stand to benefit from the Wit case.

The case is Meridian Treatment Services, et al. v. United
Behavioral Health, case number 19-cv-05721-JCS, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

If you are a behavioral healthcare provider and believe that UBH,
or any other commercial insurance company, has wrongfully denied
your claims, we encourage you to call us.

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing
representation to plaintiffs in class actions and complex
commercial litigation, as well as victims of environmental
contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective
prescriptions drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related
illnesses, unfair insurance practices and other serious personal
injury matters. With their principal offices in New York City and
additional offices in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New
Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Washington DC and affiliates throughout the
United States, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is readily available to
clients. [GN]


UNITED PARCEL:  Burroughs Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
Defendant ManpowerGroup US Inc. removed on September 6, 2019, the
lawsuit styled MARIE BURROUGHS, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.;
MANPOWERGROUP US, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
CIV DS 1921995, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01712 to the
proceeding.

On July 26, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this unverified Class Action
Complaint against Defendant United Parcel Services, Inc., and
various Doe Defendants in the Superior Court.

The Complaint asserts these causes of action: (a) Failure to
Provide Meal Breaks; (b) Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate
Wage Statements; (c) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation; and
(d) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Act, Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200, et seq.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambelt, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Myers, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com
                  nm@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Alexander M. Larian, Esq.
          LARIAN LAW FIRM
          8306 Wilshire Blvd., #2058
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 720-0505
          E-mail: alarian@larianlaw.com

Defendant MANPOWERGROUP US INC. is represented by:

          Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
          Derrick Lam, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: aramsey@littler.com
                  dlam@littler.com

Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC. is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Paul D. Kind, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                  jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                  paulkind@gbgllp.com


UNITED STATES: Flores Valle Files Suit v. Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Department of
Homeland Security. The case is styled as Rene Flores Valle, Luis
Alberto Tiscareno, Oludayo Oluwapelumi Okunowo, ELL, LCM,
Individually and behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration &
Customs Enforcement, US Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Kevin McAleenan Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in official capacity, Matthew T Albence Acting director
of ICE, in official capacity, William P Barr US Attorney General,
in official capacity, James McHenry Director of EOIR, in official
capacity, Simona Flores Director of Dallas Field Office of ICE, in
official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02254-L (N.D. Tex.,
Sept. 19, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as 899 Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a
federal agency designed to protect the United States against
threats. Its wide-ranging duties include aviation security, border
control, emergency response and cybersecurity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Michael Bray, Esq.
     The Law Office of John M. Bray, PLLC
     1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 8065
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (855) 566-2729
     Fax: (214) 960-4164
     Email: john@oblawfirm.com

          - and -

     Christy Meshel White, Esq.
     Meshel Law Group, PLLC
     1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 6035
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (469) 333-3008
     Fax: (469) 816-2725


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: OT Pay for Part-Time Lecturers Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELENE SENESE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, a
California, Non-Profit Corporation, Case No.
374-2019-00047124-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., Sept. 6, 2019), seeks
damages resulting from Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages for
all hours worked, failure to authorize and permit paid rest breaks
and pay premium pay, failure to provide off-duty meal breaks and
pay premium pay ,and failure to pay compensation due upon discharge
from employment under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals are
currently and formerly employed by the University of San Diego in
California as part-time lecturers or in a similar capacity at
anytime from four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research
university in San Diego, California. Founded in July 1949 as the
San Diego College for Women and San Diego University, the academic
institutions merged from the California school system into
University of San Diego in 1972.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the University of Southern California workers'
complaints about how the school handled their retirement plan boil
down to second-guessing and hindsight rather than allegations of
illegal conduct, the school argued as it urged a California judge
to toss their proposed Employee Retirement Income Security Act
class action. [GN]


US SOCCER: Morgan Moves for Class Cert. of 3 Classes Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ALEX MORGAN, et al. v. UNITED
STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), move the Court for class certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conditional collective
action certification under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The proposed classes are:

   1. Rule 23(b)(2) Class:

      all WNT [Women's National Soccer Team] players on the team
      at the date of final judgment, or the date of the
      resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later;

   2. Rule 23(b)(3) Class:

      all WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
      from February 4, 2015 through the date of class
      certification; and

   3. FLSA Class:

      all WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time
      from March 8, 2016 through the present.

The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court appoint Plaintiffs Alex
Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd, and Becky Sauerbrunn as class
representatives for both classes and appoint Winston & Strawn LLP
as class counsel under Rule 23(g) for both classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 21, 2019, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
                  dfeher@winston.com

               - and -

          Cardelle B. Spangler, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: cspangler@winston.com

               - and -

          Diana Hughes Leiden, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: dhleiden@winston.com

               - and -

          Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California St., 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: jparsigian@winston.com


VALARIS PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Valaris plc (NYSE: VAL) from April
11, 2019 through July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of
the important October 21, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Valaris investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Valaris class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1660.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment,
massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Valaris's second quarter 2019 results; (3) the merger leading to
Valaris's establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits;
and (4) as a result, Valaris's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
21, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1660.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013.   Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


VALARIS PLC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Valaris plc
(NYSE:VAL) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between April 11, 2019
and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before October 21, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Valaris suffered from serious weakness in
its ultra-deepwater segment, heavy cash expenditures, and negative
cash flow. These negative factors were likely to impact the
Company's second quarter 2019 results. The merger that resulted in
the creation of Valaris had no ability to deliver on its promises
of efficiencies and improvements. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Valaris, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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


VMSB, LLC: Marmol Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO MARMOL, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23710-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an Italian/Mediterranean located at 1116, Ocean
Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, where Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees of
Defendant worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on
or after June 2018 without being compensated overtime wages, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

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

WELLS FARGO: Harrelson PI Suit Transferred to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Samuel Harrelson, Beverly Smith, Teressa
Williams, Rick Graef, Kyle Tickel, Robert Raines, Charles Ginn,
JoAnn Nash, Donald Huff and Andrea Rentz, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Wells Fargo, NA,
Defendant, was transferred from the Richland County Court of Common
Pleas with the assigned Case No. 2019-CP-40-04413 to the U.S.
District Court District of South Carolina (Columbia) on September
10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02556-CMC.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal Injury
- Other.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
   David Maxfield Attorney LLC
   PO Box 11865
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 509-6800
   Fax: (855) 299-1656
   Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com

      - and -

   Herbert W Louthian , Jr, Esq.
   Louthian and Louthian
   PO Box 1299
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 256-4274
   Fax: (803) 256-6033
   Email: bert@louthianlaw.com



YAHOO! INC: Settlement Reached in Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announced that a Class Action Settlement has been
proposed in litigation against Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") and Aabaco
Small Business, LLC (together, called "Defendants" in this notice),
relating to data breaches (malicious actors got into system and
personal data was taken) occurring in 2013 through 2016, as well as
to data security intrusions (malicious actors got into system but
no data appears to have been taken) occurring in early 2012
(collectively, the "Data Breaches").

2012 Data Security Intrusions: From at least January through April
2012, at least two different malicious actors accessed Yahoo's
internal systems. The available evidence, however, does not reveal
that user credentials, email accounts, or the contents of emails
were taken out of Yahoo's systems.

2013 Data Breach: In August 2013, malicious actors were able to
gain access to Yahoo's user database and took records for all
existing Yahoo accounts—approximately three billion accounts
worldwide. The records taken included the names, email addresses,
telephone numbers, birth dates, passwords, and security questions
and answers of Yahoo account holders. As a result, the actors may
have also gained access to the contents of breached Yahoo accounts
and, thus, any private information contained within users' emails,
calendars, and contacts.

2014 Data Breach: In November 2014, malicious actors were able to
gain access to Yahoo's user database and take records of
approximately 500 million user accounts worldwide. The records
taken included the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birth
dates, passwords, and security questions and answers of Yahoo
account holders, and, as a result, the actors may have also gained
access to the contents of breached Yahoo accounts, and thus, any
private information contained within users' emails, calendars, and
contacts.

2015 and 2016 Data Breach: From 2015 to September 2016, malicious
actors were able to use cookies instead of a password to gain
access into approximately 32 million Yahoo email accounts.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to adequately protect their
Personal Information and that they were injured as a result.
Defendants deny any wrongdoing, and no court has made any ruling in
these matters.

Who's included? If you received a Notice from Yahoo about the Data
Breaches, or if you had a Yahoo account at any time between January
1, 2012 and December 31, 2016, and are a resident of the United
States or Israel, you are a "Settlement Class Member."

What does the Settlement provide?  Yahoo has agreed to make changes
to improve security of its customers' Personal Information stored
on its databases.  Defendants will also pay for a Settlement Fund
of $117,500,000. The Settlement Fund will provide: a minimum of two
years of Credit Monitoring Services to protect Settlement Class
Members from future harm, or Alternative Compensation instead of
credit monitoring for Class Members who already have Credit
Monitoring Services (subject to verification and documentation);
Out-of-Pocket Costs for losses related to the Data Breaches; and
reimbursement of some costs for those who paid for Yahoo premium or
Small Business Services. The Settlement Fund will also be used to
pay for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and Service Awards
for the Settlement Class Representatives. These are only a summary
of the benefits. For complete information, dates, and details on
the benefits, visit the Settlement Website.

What are my options? In order to receive any benefits, you must
file a claim online or by mail by July 20, 2020.  If you want to
keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you must exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class by March 6, 2020. If you exclude
yourself you will not receive any credit monitoring or monetary
relief from the Settlement.  If you stay in the Settlement Class,
you may object to the Settlement, and/or the amount of attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses, and/or the amount of Class
Representative Service Awards by March 6, 2020.  If you do nothing,
you will not receive any credit monitoring or monetary benefits but
you will still be bound by the Court's decisions. Complete
information and instructions on Filing a Claim, Excluding, or
Objecting are available on the Settlement website at
www.YahooDataBreachSettlement.com.

The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case at at 1:30 p.m. on
April 2, 2020, in Courtroom 8 of the U.S. Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113, to consider: whether to
approve the Settlement; any objections; a request for Class
Representatives Service Awards; and attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and
negotiating the settlement. The motion for attorney fees, costs,
and expenses will be posted on the website on the date it is filed
or as quickly thereafter as practicable. You may ask to appear at
the hearing but you do not have to. [GN]


[*] Legal Costs, Lack of Timely Resolution May Stymie Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sachin P Mampatta, writing for Business Standard, reports that a
combination of legal costs, which would be significant for minority
shareholders, and the lack of timely resolution may stymie the use
of class action suits for some time to come.

Shareholders are likely to continue voting with their feet when
faced with issues in their companies, according to experts. News of
shareholders of a large conglomerate, reportedly planning class
action suit against an auditor whose resignation allegedly led to a
decline in share price, may well mark more of an exception than the
rule.

A class action suit allows depositors or shareholders to
collectively seek compensation following wrongdoing by a company,
its directors, auditors or any other consultant.

Shriram Subramanian, founder and managing director of domestic
proxy advisor InGovern Research Services, said such suits would
catch on if there are investors who wish to pursue these to their
logical conclusion and are willing to bear the costs of extended
litigation.

"If there is a motivated shareholder, then it may come into the
picture," said Subramanian. But such investors may not be common,
he added.

This is more likely to happen with those having concentrated
portfolios. Institutional investors, with 100 or more companies in
their portfolio, are unlikely to lead the first forays into such
class action suits, said Subramanian. They are more likely to seek
an exit in the stock market rather than a protracted legal battle
over company decisions that they feel would negatively impact
shareholder value.

There have been a few instances in recent times where companies
have backtracked following such a fall in share prices.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries had to clarify on governance issues
after fresh allegations of impropriety led to selling pressure in
January 2019. The stock had fallen to a six-year low.

Jubilant FoodWorks, which runs Domino's Pizza India and Dunkin'
Donuts, retracted a decision by the company to pay owners royalty
for the use of the Jubilant brand in February 2019. The stock fell
6.45 per cent, and the decision was retracted within hours of the
announcement.

Automotive component manufacturer Endurance Technologies fell 20
per cent on August 8 after it announced that it would get into tyre
manufacturing. The company subsequently reversed its decision.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs threw light on norms on May 8.
The rules now put a clear threshold on who can file a class action
suit in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT is a
body which deals with company-related cases.

The lower of 100 shareholders, or 5 per cent of the total number of
shareholders by number, can now collectively file a suit. It can be
also be filed by any shareholder or group of shareholders who
collectively own 2 per cent of the total stake in the company.

Meanwhile, cases have also been taking time to make their way
through the NCLT, which may further deter minority shareholders.
Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman had
said in a recent Parliament session that efforts were ongoing to
unclog the tribunal.

The success of class action suits will also depend on factors such
as how soon such cases will be decided and the ability of members
or depositors to fund the costs and expenses of litigation,
according to Yogesh Chande, partner at legal firm Shardul Amarchand
Mangaldas.

"It will also depend on the willingness of law firms to take up
such matters which can't be contingency- or success-based,
considering how advertising is currently prohibited," said Chande.

Law firms in other countries are allowed to advertise and take fees
based on the results that they deliver. This allows them to take up
class action suits without any upfront payment, lowering the entry
barriers for litigants. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2019. 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 ***