CAR_Public/191018.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 209

                            Headlines

180 EXPRESS DELI: Angeles Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
3M CO: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Motions to Dismiss
ALL CLEAR SEWER: Ruck Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Work
ALTRIA GROUP: Brualdi Law Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
AMAZON.COM INC: R.A. Appeals Denial of Remand Bid to 9th Circuit

AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Hender Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Conditionally Certfies FLSA Class
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 15 Deadline
CAFEPRESS INC: FeganScott Files Class Action Over Data Breach
CALIFORNIA: Carr Fire Class Action Lawsuit v. DOT Moves Forward

CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Brualdi Law Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
CAPITAL ONE: Minsky Sues Over Share Price Drop Due to Data Breach
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Dismissal
CHEROKEE COUNTY, SC: Burgess Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Approval of $8.6MM Deal in Hebert Denied
CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater's Bid for Class Certification Denied
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sheean Seeks Final OK of $3.75-Mil. Deal
COVETRUS INC: November 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CROSS BRONX: Faces Nunez Wage and Hour Class Action

DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied
DAVEY RESOURCE: Barush Sues for Negligence and Public Nuisance
DELTA AIR: Donoff's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Refile by Oct. 21
DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Suit Asserts Employment Rights Violations
DOORDASH INC: Data Breach Draws Class Action Suit

DROPBOX INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
EAST PALACE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Cui Partly Granted
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to WSP Global
EFINANCIAL LLC: Jones Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls
EI DU PONT: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Dismissal

ELDORADO RESORTS: Elberts Hits Share Drop Over Illicit Stock Deal
ELDORADO RESORTS: November 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ELTMAN ELTMAN: Moukengeshcaie Wins Prelim. OK of $100K Settlement
EPIC GAMES: Quebec Parents Seek Class Suit Over Addictive Fortnite
ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Williams Moves for Class Certification

EXXONMOBIL CORP: Ground and Air Subclasses Certified in Goldstein
FOOT LOCKER: Securities Class Action Dismissed
GEICO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Class Action Appeal
GENERAL MILLS: Court Struck Nationwide Class Claims in Jackson Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher et al Seek to Certify Class of Workers

GEORGIA MEDICAL: Ga. App. Reverses Dismissal of Clouthier Suit
GOOGLE INC: London Court OKs Class Suit Over iPhone Data Issue
GREENWAY DODGE: Picton Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
HABER BLANK LLP: Brandwine Disputes Collection Letter
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang et al Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action

IDAVM GROUP: Parties in Garcia Suit to Hold Settlement Conference
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Class in Donato Securities Suit Certified
JACKSON COUNTY, IN: Summary Judgment Bids in McFarlane Case Denied
JAMES FRANCO: Face Class-Action Suit From Acting Students
JILLIAN MICHAELS: Friedman's Class Cert. Bid Under Submission

LABORATORY CORP: Kawa Seeks to Certify Two Classes
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Flooring Class Action for $30MM
MACROGENICS INC: Hagens Berman Notes of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline
MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Remand Simon Suit to State Court Denied
MATCH GROUP: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit

MATCH GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
MATCH GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
MEADOWS FOUNDATION: O'Brien Employment Suit Removed to D.N.J.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
MERCK & CO: SLUSA Don't Preclude Individual Actions, 3rd Cir. Says

MISSOURI: Turtle Island Files Appeal in Suit v. State Prosecutors
MYRIAD GENETICS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
MYRIAD GENETICS: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Tosses Perta Credit Repair Case
NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hills Civil Rights Suit

NEWFOUNDLAND: Class Suit for Abuse at Youth Homes Certified in Can.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson's Class Cert. Bid Gets Partial Approval
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Cert. Bid in Carlson Suit Granted in Part
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismisses Lehmann Securities Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM: November 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

PENN DUTCH: Sacked Workers Without 60-Day Closure Notice, Says Suit
PORKY'S CABARET: Final Summary Judgment Bid in Dginguerian Denied
PROPETRO HOLDING: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 15 Deadline
PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
PURE BIOLOGY: Clark Sues Over Misleading Night Cream Ad

QUEBEC: Compensation Sought for Abused Youth at 'Reception Centres'
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Suit on Vacation Rental Ban Dismissed
SELLERS, ET AL.: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA

SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Reminds of Nov. 18 Plaintiff Deadline
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
SRC ENERGY: Plumley Files Suit Over Sale to PDC Energy
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
TENCENT MUSIC: Brualdi Law Reminds of Nov. 25 Plaintiff Deadline

TENCENT MUSIC: De Campos Files IPO-related Class Action in N.Y.
TEXTRON INC: Zhang Law Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline
UNITED FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
UNITED SERVICES: Court Issues Protective Order in Spielman Suit
UNITED STATES: USCIS & ICE Classes Certified in Nightingale Suit

VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline
VIEIRA CUSTOM: $450K Deal in Cortez FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Routine Cost Assessment Argued in Queenneville Suit
WAITR HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
WAYFAIR LLC: Hamilton Suit Removed to N.D. California

WELTMAN WEINBERG: Sowles Seeks to Certify Mich. Residents Class
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Ca. App. Upholds Class Decertification Ruling
ZOCDOC INC: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid OT for $1.4 Million
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $218.3MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 7,096 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Still Faces 36,000 Claimants at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 3 Lawsuits vs. Dixie Group
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Says 32 Buildings Have Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $577.5MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 111 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $79.4MM Libby Costs at June 30



                            *********

180 EXPRESS DELI: Angeles Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gervacio Angeles, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 180 Express Deli Corp., Ali
Mohamed and Mohamed Alqushi, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08809 (S.D.
N.Y., September 23, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid spread-of-hours
and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control a deli, located at 906 E 180th
Street, Bronx under the name "180 Express Deli" where Angeles has
been employed as a cook. He claims to have spent in excess of forty
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


3M CO: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Motions to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lexogology.com reports that a federal court in the Southern
District of Ohio denied Defendants 3M Company, et al.'s 12(b)(1),
12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in an Ohio PFAS class
action lawsuit in early October 2019.

The lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Kevin Hardwick, a firefighter
and alleged user of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, paves the
way for a case with enormous breadth to proceed. Hardwick sued 3M
Company , E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company, the Chemours Company,
Archroma Management LLC, Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., Diakin
Industries Ltd., Daikin America, Inc., Solvay Specialty Polymers,
USA, LLC , and Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. , bringing claims for
negligence, battery, conspiracy, and declaratory relief. Hardwick
alleged that the defendants use of one or more PFAS materials
caused the "contamination of the plaintiff's and the class members'
blood and/or bodies with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and
bioaccumulation of such PFAS in the blood and/or bodies of the
plaintiff and other class members." The complaint did not include a
prayer for compensatory damages, but instead sought equitable
relief in the form of medical monitoring and the formation of a
panel of scientists to study the effects of PFAS on the body, and
to formulate binding conclusions for the litigation.

The scope of the class purports to include every resident of the
United States who has detectable levels of PFAS chemicals in their
blood, causing injury. Notably, the court explicitly stated that
its review of the motions to dismiss concerned only the
plausibility of Hardwick's individual claim, and made no
determination as to whether the claims are appropriate for class
certification. The defendants set the table for future battles in
the case by arguing that PFAS exposure does not equate to actual
injuries, and that the plaintiff's proposed relief was merely a
back door to compensatory damages. In denying the motions to
dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff had met his burden in
the pleadings, that personal jurisdiction existed in Ohio over the
defendants, and that the court had broad power to provide the
equitable relief requested in the complaint.

Hardwick is represented by attorney Rob Bilott, a veteran of prior
litigation against DuPont regarding their Teflon plant in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and who last month participated in
contentious federal hearings on PFAS along with 3M, DuPont, and
Chemours. [GN]


ALL CLEAR SEWER: Ruck Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RUCK and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALL
CLEAR SEWER & DRAINAGE, INC., T.R. CONTRACTORS, INC., d/b/a DRAINS
INCORPORATED, THOMAS PATTON and TIMOTHY ROBERTS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06673 (N.D., Ill., Oct. 8, 2019) is a collective action
brought claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals who have performed sewer, drainage and plumbing
installation, maintenance and repair services for All Clear and
have been misclassified as independent contractors by All Clear and
T.R. Contractors throughout the state of Illinois who may opt-in to
this case under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

T.R. Contractors informally or formally contracts with All Clear to
perform sewer, drainage and plumbing installation, maintenance and
repair services for All Clear's customers. The individuals who
perform these services are misclassified as independent contractors
and are thus denied the protection of federal and state wage and
hour and other employment laws. All Clear and T.R. Contractors have
violated the FLSA by failing to pay these individuals time and
one-half their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by All Clear on December 5, 2014 and worked
until he was discharged on August 22, 2019.

All Clear is engaged in the business of providing sewer, drainage
and plumbing installation, maintenance and repair services to
residential and commercial customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Fish, Esq.
     Seth D. Matus, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
     200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: 630-355-7590
     Fax: 630-778-0400


ALTRIA GROUP: Brualdi Law Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of TME and
MO. If you purchased shares in any of these companies during the
class periods below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000,
please contact The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. at (212) 952-0602 to
learn how you can request to be appointed lead plaintiff.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not need to seek appointment as a
lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class period: December 12, 2018 and August 26, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019
The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with
major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently,
sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably
expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these
anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. The complaint alleges that, as a result, the
purported class purchased TME's securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged thereby.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class period: December 20, 2018 through September 24, 2019,
inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding Altria Group, Inc.'s business, operational and compliance
policies. The complaint further alleges that the purported class
was damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

CONTACT:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com
                dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com
[GN]



AMAZON.COM INC: R.A. Appeals Denial of Remand Bid to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff R.A. filed an appeal from the District Court's order
denying the Motion to Remand his lawsuit entitled R.A., A MINOR, BY
AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN, STEVE ALTES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. AND A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 2:19-cv-06454-CJC-AGR, from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

The question presented is whether a plaintiff satisfies the
"principal injuries" factor where the complaint is brought
exclusively on behalf of citizens of the "State in which the action
was originally filed" who bring claims sounding exclusively under
that state's law, or whether a defendant can defeat remand by
looking beyond the complaint and hypothesizing that the conduct
alleged may have occurred nationwide and may give rise to claims
under other states' laws.

The Plaintiff brings this California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
claim on behalf of a proposed class of all citizens of the State of
California who used a household Amazon Alexa device while they were
minors, but who have not downloaded and installed the Alexa app.

The Defendants removed the action to federal court, invoking
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).
The Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand the action to Superior
Court, asserting that the action fits within CAFA's local
controversy exception.

The District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, as
reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 2, 2019.

The appellate case is captioned as R.A., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH
HIS GUARDIAN, STEVE ALTES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. AMAZON.COM, INC. AND
A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Defendants-Respondents, Case No.
19-80126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by:

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com

               - and -

          Andrew Schapiro, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com

Defendants-Respondents Amazon.com, Inc. and a2z Development Center,
Inc. are represented by:

          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          Armen Nercess Nercessian, Esq.
          Molly R Melcher, Esq.
          Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
          FENWICK AND WEST LLP
          555 California Street 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com
                  anercessian@fenwick.com
                  mmelcher@fenwick.com
                  tnewby@fenwick.com


AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Hender Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Hender, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. American Directions Workforce
and American Directions Group, Defendant, Case No. 193030 (Cal.
Super., July 23, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on September 24, 2019, under
Case No. 19-at-00928.

Hender seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage
Orders.[BN]

American Directions is represented by:

      Christina N. Goodrich, Esq.
      Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
      K&L GATES LLP
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-5000
      Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
      Email: christina.goodrich@klgates.com
             saman.rejali@klgates.com


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Conditionally Certfies FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MAXWELL D. KOZLOV and
BENJAMIN D. BOSIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. BROWN UNIVERSITY IN
PROVIDENCE IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,
alias, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00028-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the
Hon. Judge John McConnell entered an order on Oct. 2, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective class described in the Joint Memorandum of Law
      for settlement purposes only;

   2. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement of the Parties;

   3. authorizing Parties to distribute the proposed notice and V
      the Consent to Join forms to potential collective action
      members;

   4. retaining jurisdiction over the construction,
      interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the
      Settlement Agreement.

Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in
Providence, Rhode Island. Founded in 1764 as the College in the
English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.[CC]



CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cadence-bankcorporation-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Cadence Bancorporation made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk;
(2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans posed an increased
risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to
incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) the Company's
financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Cadence Bancorporation class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH)
Class Period: August 6, 2019 - September 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/match-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: During the class period, Match Group, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company used fake love interest ads to
convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) the
Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel
their subscriptions; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked
adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Match Group, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Waitr Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: WTRH)
Class Period: on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Waitr Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings—such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses—both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

To learn more about the Waitr Holdings Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

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



CAFEPRESS INC: FeganScott Files Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of FeganScott announced that CafePress, touted as the
world's largest online gift shop with more than a billion products
and a "safe and secure" shopping guarantee, is the target of a
proposed national class-action lawsuit by consumer-rights law firm
FeganScott, claiming the retailer allowed hackers access to
millions of consumers' credit information.

According to the law firm, CafePress failed to update security
software that is widely known as flawed, failed to employ best
practices and failed to alert customers of the data breach.

"As galling as it is to know that a national retailer like
CafePress failed in its duty to safeguard consumer information, it
is reprehensible that they knew--or should have known--about the
breach and failed to warn their customers that their credit card
information and social security numbers could be for sale to the
highest bidder on the dark web," said Beth Fegan, founder and
managing member of FeganScott.

Fegan noted that while CafePress remained mute on the security
breach, third-party consumer sites including weleakinfo.com and
haveibeenpwnd.com were independently warning consumers of the
breach as early as July 13, 2019.

According to the complaint, CafePress' first notifications appeared
on its website September 5, but the company did not directly notify
its customers until Oct 2, 2019.

"It took CafePress almost eight months to stand up and take
responsibility for its actions, or more precisely, lack of action,"
said Fegan.

According the suit, because of CafePress' actions, consumers are
saddled with the responsibility of monitoring their credit,
changing passwords and taking other time-consuming steps to
safeguard their financial identity.

Fegan added that the economic cost to consumers increases
dramatically if identity thieves use the stolen data to target
consumers' bank and credit card accounts.

"We may have become accustomed to news of data breaches, but we've
seen the impact firsthand when consumers' data is used in identity
theft," Fegan said. "Consumers find themselves embroiled in trying
to set things straight, often dealing with the repercussions for
years."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois seeks to
represent all U.S. consumers who are a part of the breach,
estimated at 23 million people in the U.S. and abroad.

According to Fegan, CafePress reportedly had not updated the
company's digital security systems designed to safeguard consumer
data.

"CafePress allegedly relied on Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA-1) as
the lynchpin of its data security," Fegan noted. "Hackers and
security experts know that SHA-1 has been useless in protecting
data since about 2005. These days, SHA-1 is the digital equivalent
of a picket fence when it comes to keeping the wolves from the
sheep."

Consumer who are interested in learning more about this class
action suit are urged to send their contact information to
cafepress@feganscott.com.

                      About FeganScott

FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable. To sign up for case updates, email
cafepress@feganscott.com.

Contact:

         Mark Firmani, Esq.
         206.466.2700
         Case: 1:19-cv-06601
         Email: feganpr@firmani.com
[GN]



CALIFORNIA: Carr Fire Class Action Lawsuit v. DOT Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Chandler, writing for Record Searchlight, reports that a
class action lawsuit blaming the California Department of
Transportation and city of Redding for the destructive Carr Fire is
moving forward, now that a permanent judge has been selected.

Placer County Superior Court Judge James Garbolino will oversee the
case.

Court officials were required to find a non-local judge to oversee
the proceedings after all 10 judges in Shasta County Superior Court
recused themselves.

While judges don't have to say why they disqualify themselves, they
could have claimed conflict of interest because they knew one of
the 724 plaintiffs who are suing for damages.

More people are still asking to join the class action case, and
"it's possible they could be added in," said Brandon Storment, one
of the five plaintiffs' lawyers from Barr and Mudford that are
working on the case. "It could get complicated and we don't know
which direction it would go, but we'll do what we can."

On October 4 afternoon, attorneys from both sides sat down for the
first time with the Judge Garbolino.

Explained Storment before that hearing took place: "This is just
kind of an initial status conference to get everybody in the same
room and talk about schedules and moving forward."

Asked when jury selection for the case might start, Storment said,
"years  . . . we're not even close to that. We're at the very very
start of this case."

The suit, filed in June by the Redding law firm of Barr and
Mudford, blames the city of Redding for the way the monster blaze
spread into the west side of Redding, including the Stanford Hills
and Land Park subdivisions.

Redding officials failed to heed warnings of a catastrophic
wildfire that were predicted in the city's 2014 Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, the suit said. The city's plan emphasized the need
to proactively create defensible space to reduce fire risks,
including conducting brush cleaning and tree thinning.

"The city feels strongly that it does not bear liability in this
case," Mark Hazelwood, Esq., an attorney representing Redding, told
the Record Searchlight after the initial hearing.

The class action lawsuit also blamed the California Department of
Transportation for failing to cut grass and brush along Highway
299. That's where sparks from a blown tire on a trailer started the
blaze in Whiskeytown on July 23, 2018.

The Carr Fire destroyed 1,083 houses and was linked to eight
deaths.

The next court hearing will occur in November. [GN]




CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces the filing of a securities fraud class action on
behalf of shareholders of Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)
from February 2, 2018, through July 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York seeks to recover damages for
Capital One investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 2, 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced in a press release that it
had suffered a data breach affecting over 106 million individuals
in the United States and Canada. On this news, shares of Capital
One fell $5.71 or nearly 5.9% to close at $91.21 on July 30 2019.

If you purchased Capital One securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/capitalonefinancialcorporation-cof-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-161/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]




CAPITAL ONE: Brualdi Law Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of Capital
One Financial Corp. (COF) and ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP). If you
purchased shares in any of these companies during the class periods
below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000, please contact The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. at (212) 952-0602 to learn how you can
request to be appointed lead plaintiff.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. In general, the lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from its
investments during the Class Period. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Capital One Financial Corp. (COF)

Class period: February 2, 2018 and June 29, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not
maintain robust information security protections, and its
protection did not shield personal information against security
breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure
to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the complaint
alleges that investors suffered damages.

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)

Class period: March 17, 2017 through August 8, 2019, inclusive

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019

The complaint alleges that 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. The complaint alleges that, as a result, the purported
class purchased ProPetro's securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged thereby.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar
Outcome.

Contact:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com,
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com,
                dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com
[GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Minsky Sues Over Share Price Drop Due to Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS MINSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RICHARD
FAIRBANK, and R. SCOTT BLACKLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05594
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities between
February 2, 2018 and June 29, 2019, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Class Period beings on February 21, 2018, when Capital One
filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC, announcing the
Company's financial and operating results for the year ended
December 31, 2017 (the "2017 10-K"). The 2017 10-K was signed by
Defendant Fairbank and Blackley. The 2017 10-K contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
by Defendants Fairbank and Blackley, attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.

On February 20, 2019, Capital One filed an annual report on Form
10-K with the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and operating
results for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the "2018 10-K"). The
2018 10-K was signed by Defendants Fairbank and Blackley. The 2018
10-K contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Fairbank and
Blackley, attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

However, the Plaintiff alleges that the statements were materially
false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 29, 2019, after the market closed, Capital One announced in
a press release that on July 19, 2019, Capital One suffered a data
breach affecting over 106 million individuals in the United States
and Canada. According to the criminal complaint brought by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation against Paige A. Thompson, the
purported hacker, though some of the data was tokenized or
encrypted, "data including applicants' names, addresses, dates of
birth and information regarding their credit history had not been
tokenized." On this news, shares of Capital One fell $5.71 or
nearly 5.9% over to close at $91.21 on July 30, 2019.

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 purchased Capital One securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Capital One operates as the bank holding company for the Capital
One Bank (USA), National Association and Capital One, National
Association, which provides various financial products and services
in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexogology.com reports that a federal court in the Southern
District of Ohio denied Defendants Chemours Company, et al.'s
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in a PFAS class
action lawsuit in early October 2019.

The lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Kevin Hardwick, a firefighter
and alleged user of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, paves the
way for a case with enormous breadth to proceed. Hardwick sued 3M
Company , E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company, the Chemours Company,
Archroma Management LLC, Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., Diakin
Industries Ltd., Daikin America, Inc. , Solvay Specialty Polymers,
USA, LLC , and Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. , bringing claims for
negligence, battery, conspiracy, and declaratory relief. Hardwick
alleged that the defendants use of one or more PFAS materials
caused the "contamination of the plaintiff's and the class members'
blood and/or bodies with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and
bioaccumulation of such PFAS in the blood and/or bodies of the
plaintiff and other class members." The complaint did not include a
prayer for compensatory damages , but instead sought equitable
relief in the form of medical monitoring and the formation of a
panel of scientists to study the effects of PFAS on the body, and
to formulate binding conclusions for the litigation.

The scope of the class purports to include every resident of the
United States who has detectable levels of PFAS chemicals in their
blood, causing injury. Notably, the court explicitly stated that
its review of the motions to dismiss concerned only the
plausibility of Hardwick's individual claim, and made no
determination as to whether the claims are appropriate for class
certification. The defendants set the table for future battles in
the case by arguing that PFAS exposure does not equate to actual
injuries, and that the plaintiff's proposed relief was merely a
back door to compensatory damages. In denying the motions to
dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff had met his burden in
the pleadings, that personal jurisdiction existed in Ohio over the
defendants, and that the court had broad power to provide the
equitable relief requested in the complaint.

Hardwick is represented by attorney Rob Bilott, a veteran of prior
litigation against DuPont regarding their Teflon plant in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and who last month participated in
contentious federal hearings on PFAS along with 3M, DuPont, and
Chemours. [GN]


CHEROKEE COUNTY, SC: Burgess Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Burgess, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cherokee County School District and
Principal Gavin Fisher, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02704 (S.C.
Comm. Pleas, September 23, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

According to the complaint, Burgess worked as a teacher at the
Cherokee County School where teachers were required 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,
without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC
      Post Office Box 314
      Mauldin, SC 29662
      Phone: (864) 248-0436
      Fax: (864) 326-5940
      Email: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Approval of $8.6MM Deal in Hebert Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joseph Hebert, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Operating,
Inc. and Chesapeake Operating, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-852 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
denied the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement.

Plaintiff Hebert's First Amended Complaint alleges he worked for
Defendant Chesapeake as a "consultant/company man" from January
2014 through January 2016.  He asserts Chesapeake willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by not paying him
overtime.  He also claims that Chesapeake violated the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act R.C. 4113.15 et
seq., for the same reason.

Hebert claims Chesapeake improperly classified him as an
independent contractor and paid him a day rate instead of a salary
and overtime.  He seeks collective action treatment for his federal
claims under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and class action treatment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for his state claims.  He wants the class
defined as all current and former workers of Chesapeake Operating
who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate
during the last three years.

Chesapeake denies all claims.

In April 2018, the Court stayed the matter at the parties' request
for settlement discussions.  Thereafter, Hebert filed, then
withdrew, a motion for equitable tolling. The docket was silent
until July 16, 2019, when the parties jointly filed the instant
Motion to Approve.

In sum, the settlement under consideration provides that the
parties agree that for purposes of settlement, the requirements for
collective certification are satisfied.  The Proposed Agreement
attempts to settle the instant matter via a common fund of $8.55
million, the "Gross Settlement Amount."  The Proposed Agreement
provides that the Plaintiffs' Counsel will receive attorneys' fees
in an amount of $3.42 million, which is 40% of the gross amount.
After proposed payments of $3.42 million for attorney's fees,
$40,000 for settlement administrative costs and a $10,000 service
award for Hebert, the "Net Settlement Amount" is $5.05 million.

The Proposed Agreement is a one-step, opt-in settlement.  According
to the Proposed Agreement, the settlement class will not exceed 400
members.  The Class Period for those previously opting-in is three
years prior to joining the case through the date of any approval
order.  The Class Period for members performing work in Ohio is
three years prior to the date of Hebert's Complaint through that
same date.  

The Proposed Agreement does not provide the formula used to arrive
at each member's award; rather, the settlement provides all
Eligible Class Members will be paid a Settlement Award from the Net
Settlement Amount.  Exhibit B specifies the "pro rata" net amount
each class member would receive if the Proposed Agreement is
approved.  The average gross check amount to each class member is
$21,375.

Court approval would result in the dismissal of all Eligible and
Settlement Class Members' claims, both federal and state. In
addition, the Court would retain jurisdiction over the Proposed
Agreement.

The Court conducted an oral hearing addressing the Motion on Aug.
23, 2019. During the hearing, the Court noted that within this
District, attorney's fees awarded in a FLSA common-fund, one-step
unpaid overtime collective action settlement typically did not
exceed 33% of the fund.  The Court specifically advised counsel
that it believed the 40% being sought was high, and extended the
parties the courtesy of allowing additional briefing on that issue.
In settlement class member and their respective award under the
Proposed Agreement.  In response, the Plaintiffs filed their
Supplement on Sept. 3, 2019, arguing that 40% of the fund is a
reasonable fee.

Judge Morrison concludes the Proposed Agreement would yield a good
benefit to the potential class.  Under the Proposed Agreement, the
class average gross payout per member is $21,375.  The counsel
stated at the hearing that the Settlement Class Members' recovery
rate under the Proposed Agreement is 50%.  Additionally, the
settlement provides relatively early relief to the class members,
and it eliminates the additional risks the parties would otherwise
bear if the litigation were to continue.

However, the Judge also concludes that an award of attorney's fees
of 40% of the common fund is unreasonable under the circumstances.
In sum, 33% is typical for attorney's fees in common fund, FLSA
collective actions in the District, though a fee award in a
particular case may be higher or lower based on unique
circumstances in a particular case.  In the case, considering the
applicable law and the facts presented, an award of attorney's fees
of 40% of the common fund is too high and is therefore
unreasonable.  Because the parties have made approval of the
Proposed Agreement contingent upon that specific sum, the Judge
must deny the Motion to Approve.

Accordingly, Judge Morrison denies the Motion for Approval.  The
counsel will confer and jointly submit a proposed case schedule to
Magistrate Judge Jolson within 14 days of the Opinion & Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XveuY4 from Leagle.com.

Joseph Hebert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Robert E. DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan
Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, Jessica R. Doogan --
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP, Michael A. Josephson --
mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac
vice & Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com --
Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Inc. & Chesapeake Energy Marketing,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Alexander R. Frondorf --
afrondorf@littler.com -- Allison C. Williams --
acwilliams@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C, pro hac vice,
David B. Jordan -- djordan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Paige Cantrell -- pcantrell@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.

Chesapeake Operating, Inc & Chesapeake Operating, LLC, Defendants,
represented by David B. Jordan, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexander
R. Frondorf, Allison C. Williams, Littler Mendelson, P.C & Paige
Cantrell, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs'
supplemental motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
BENNY FITZWATER and CLARENCE BRIGHT, and TERRY PRATER, and EMMET
CASEY, JR., and CONNIE Z. GILBERT, and ALLAN H. JACK, SR., and
ROBERT H. LONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC., and CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., and
FOLA COAL CO., LLC, and CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, INC., and CONSOL
BUCHANAN MINING CO., LLC, and CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., LLC,
and KURT SALVATORI, Case No. 2:16-cv-09849 (S.D.W. Va.).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Copenhaver opines that
the Plaintiffs' claims fail to comply with the requirements of Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Judge Copenhaver
notes that the Plaintiffs' claims fail to meet the commonality and
typicality requirements under Rule 23(a).

On April 24, 2017, Plaintiffs Benny Fitzwater, Clarence Bright, and
Terry Prater, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed their amended complaint against CONSOL Energy,
Inc., Consolidation Coal Co., Fola Coal Co., LLC, CONSOL of
Kentucky, Inc., and Kurt Salvatori (CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s Vice
President of Human Resources from 2011-2016 and fiduciary of the
plaintiffs' employee welfare benefit plans) in this court.  This
case was consolidated on December 22, 2017, with Casey v. CONSOL
Energy, Inc. et al., brought by Emmett Casey, Jr., Connie Z.
Gilbert, Allan Jack Sr., and Robert H. Long.

The named plaintiffs are retired miners, who worked at CONSOL mine
sites consisting of the CONSOL of Kentucky mines, the Buchanan Mine
located in Virginia and the Enlow Fork Mine located in
Pennsylvania, or at the Fola mine sites located in West Virginia.
They seek to represent some 4,000 miners who worked at numerous
CONSOL mine sites in four different states over the course of
approximately 40 years.  The Plaintiffs allege wrongful and
discriminatory termination of retiree health benefits pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify two classes of CONSOL employees
from mine sites located in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and "neighboring states:"

   * Class A:

     All individual plan participants, and their dependents, who
     had qualified to enroll in a retiree welfare benefits plan
     administered by CONSOL Energy ("CONSOL"), but who had not
     yet enrolled in such plan when CONSOL terminated their plan
     participation in the years of 2014 and 2015; and

   * Class B:

     All individual plan participants, and their dependents, who
     had enrolled in a retiree welfare benefits plan administered
     by CONSOL prior to CONSOL terminating their plan
     participation in the years of 2014 and 2015.

Class A covers the six "Lifetime Plan" Counts of I-II and IV-VII,
and Class B applies only to remaining Count III (Discrimination
based on Health Status-Related Factors).[CC]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sheean Seeks Final OK of $3.75-Mil. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Michael Sheean, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-11532-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff files his
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement.

The settlement, which the parties reached after contentious, arm's
length negotiations, and with the assistance of well-respected
mediator Judge Diane Welsh (Ret.), provides for respective,
all-cash, non-reversionary settlement funds of $3,710,000 for the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class, and $40,000 for
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") class.

After receiving notice of the settlement, over 13,000 members of
the classes submitted valid claims for their pro rata share of the
respective settlement funds.  Correspondingly, after deducting from
the respective settlement funds all costs of notice and claims
administration, attorneys' fees, costs, litigation expenses, and
incentive awards, which are subject to the Court's approval, each
participating TCPA class member will receive approximately $165.56,
and each participating FDCPA class member will receive
approximately $181.97.

Moreover, only 15 TCPA class members excluded themselves from the
settlement, no FDCPA class members excluded themselves from the
settlement, and not a single TCPA or FDCPA class member submitted
an objection.  Given as much, Mr. Sheean asks that the Court
finally approve the settlement, and enter a final judgment and
order.

The Parties have agreed to resolve this matter on behalf of two
distinct classes:

   * TCPA class:

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

   * FDCPA class:

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

The Plaintiff and the Classes are represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew Campbell, Esq.
          ANDREW CAMPBELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1000 Beach Street, Suite B West Entrance
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 232-4344
          E-mail: michiganbk@gmail.com


COVETRUS INC: November 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 1
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET) from
February 8, 2019 through August 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Covetrus'
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Covetrus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1688.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' statements were materially
false and misleading. Specifically, Defendants' representations to
investors: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to
inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the
costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business
and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3)
understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; and (4)
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' 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 November
29, 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-1688.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.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.

Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]


CROSS BRONX: Faces Nunez Wage and Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Euripides Frias Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CROSS BRONX AND ACROSS NEW YORK
LIVE POULTRY INC., and IBRAHIM SIMREEN and ABRAHAM ELZEINAB, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09293 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 8,
2019) is an action against Defendants to recover damages for
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the
legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked from around
April 2018 until July 2019, a blatant violation of the minimum
wages provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Although Plaintiff
worked approximately 66 hours or more per week during her
employment by Defendants, they did not pay Plaintiff time and a
half for hours worked over 40, says the complaint.

CROSS BRONX AND ACROSS NEW YORK LIVE POULTRY INC. is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office at 2235 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, New York 10453.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associated, P.C.
     80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THOMAS McDOUGLE, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00245-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill
denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification
because their claims do not succeed on the merits.

The Judge said, "Because Dakota has satisfied the tip notice
requirement, the Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits. Therefore,
the question whether Dakota servers are similarly situated for
purposes of class certification is moot.

The lawsuit was brought by Mr. McDougle and Ms. Taylor against
their employer Dakota of Rocky Hill, LLC, a steakhouse and tavern
in Connecticut. McDougle has worked as a restaurant server at
Dakota since August 2015 and Taylor has been a server since October
2015. McDougle and Taylor claim that Dakota violated Connecticut
and federal law by failing to satisfy the Fair Labor Standards
Act's "Tip Credit" notice requirement. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that Dakota violated Section 203(m) of the FLSA by taking a
tip credit against its servers' wages from February 2014 to the
present without providing sufficient notice.[CC]

DAVEY RESOURCE: Barush Sues for Negligence and Public Nuisance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Barush, Windermere Tirados, and Scott Hayden, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVEY
RESOURCE GROUP INC; DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY; ACRT, INC.; TREES,
LLC; WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.; CN UTILITY
CONSULTING, INC.; ARBORMETRICS SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendant, Case No. CGC-19-579852 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 8, 2019) is an action against Defendants for
negligence, public nuisance, trespass, private nuisance and
violation of Health & Safety Code.

Around the night of Sunday, October 8, 2017, the North Bay Fires
started when a system disturbance on the electrical grid
constructed, owned, operated, managed, and/or maintained by Pacific
Gas & Electric Company caused transformer to fail, fault, spark,
and/or explode, causing energized power lines to burn and/or fall
down. These downed lines sparked nearby vegetation, igniting fires
simultaneously across multiple counties. On October 8, 2017,
Plaintiffs owned, leased, and/or occupied real property located in
one or more of the affected counties.

Prior to the North Bay Fires, the Defendants, and each of them,
were aware that if they failed to perform their duties, as required
under their agreements with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to
the standard required of an expert in the industry, there was a
significant risk of fire, damage to property owned by members of
the general public, including but not limited to these Plaintiffs,
and the death to members of the general public.

The complaint asserts that Defendants and each of them breached the
duty to care owed to these Plaintiff and were negligent in that
they failed to properly inspect the vegetation and trees, to
properly inspect trees and other vegetation tall enough to reach
the line, or whose branches posed a threat to the lines; failed to
properly identify trees and other vegetation for trimming or
removal; and/or failed to remove trees and other vegetation which
posed a threat to the lines. As a direct, proximate and legal
result of the negligence of the Defendants and/or each of them, a
tree or trees or other vegetation came into contact with a
distribution line owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
causing and/or contributing to the North Bay Fires, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are now and were residents of, or did business in the
State of California, in the various counties affected by the North
Bay Fires.

Defendants were individuals or business entities doing business in
the State of California. These Defendants hold themselves out as
experts in the vegetation management for power companies and other
who have duties regarding power transmission and distribution line
clearance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MICHAEL A. KELLY, ESQ.
     KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI, ESQ.
     MAX SCHUVER, ESQ.
     WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
     650 California Street, 26th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
     Phone: (415) 981-7210
     Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
     Email: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
            kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
            mschuver@walkuplawoffice.com


DELTA AIR: Donoff's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Refile by Oct. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks issued an order in the lawsuit
captioned JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No.
9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.):

   (1) denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;

   (2) denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Sealed Motion to Certify
       Class;

   (3) denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Seal
       Confidential Portions of its Opposition to Plaintiff's
       Motion for Class Certification; and

   (4) directing the Plaintiffs, if they so desire, to refile the
       motion for class certification by October 21, 2019.

According to the Order, the Plaintiffs have been ordered to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint, if they so desire, by October 14, 2019.
The Plaintiffs may amend as appropriate and re-file the motion for
class certification by October 21, 2019.  If the Plaintiffs seek to
seal the amended motion for class certification or any attached
exhibits, the Plaintiffs must seek such relief before filing a
sealed motion.  Under that course of action, the Plaintiffs must
file a detailed motion to seal that conforms with the requirements
set forth in the Order.

"As a reminder, the Parties are advised that I am strongly
disinclined to grant any future motion to seal.  I may also be
revisiting my prior Order sealing certain documents.  Before
refiling any motion to seal, the Parties must first confer with one
another and attempt to resolve the sealing issues," Judge
Middlebrooks notes.  "One way the Parties may accomplish this is by
jointly stipulating as to the general content of the information a
party seeks to seal."

"If no agreement is reached, the applicable Party or Non-Party is
instructed to consider whether the information they seek to seal is
so essential that I would be unable to resolve the underlying
motions without the sealed information," Judge Middlebrooks says.
"In this regard, if a Party or Non-Party chooses to file subsequent
motions to seal, they are hereby required to describe the contents
which they seek to seal, describe what harm will come from making
the information public, and explain why I am unable to rule on the
impacted motions without that information," Judge Middlebrooks
adds.[CC]


DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Suit Asserts Employment Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Denver Health and Hospital Authority,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818 (D. Colo., Oct. 2, 2019) is an
employment action seeking to enforce rights and remedies guaranteed
by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; by Section 102 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, and by Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990; and to provide relief to Plaintiff Carol
Nichols and other similarly situated employees of Defendant Denver
Health and Hospital Authority (DHHA), who have been adversely
affected by DHHA's violation of (if not outright disregard for)
employment rights.

After decades of professional experience in the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) sector, DHHA Interim Chief Human
Resources Officer Sherry Stevens hired Plaintiff as an EEO
Investigator effective January 1, 2017. At the outset, Plaintiff
observed a Human Resources (HR) department in turmoil, particularly
with the abrupt departure of former DHHA Interim Chief HR Officer
Tim Hansen in early January 2017. In April 2017, Plaintiff's
physicians recommended a medical leave of absence out of concern
that her acute work-related stress, anxiety, and panic attacks were
compromising her leukemia treatment. When Plaintiff returned to
work in June 2017, she discovered that DHHA had hired a new Chief
HR Officer, Michelle Fournier-Johnson. In September 2017,
Fournier-Johnson publicly chastised Plaintiff for making her former
supervisor, Sherry Stevens, aware that another employee in the HR
department wished to lodge an EEO complaint against Ms. Stevens,
even though providing this notification was customary. Two weeks
later, however, Fournier-Johnson reinforced the practice of giving
HR leaders advance notice of any EEO complaints against them.
Thereafter, in June 2018, Fournier-Johnson installed her former
colleague, Sheila Paukert, as the Associate Chief Human Resources
Officer over the EEO investigative function that Plaintiff
performed. Both Fournier-Johnson and Paukert were very open about
their prior professional and personal relationship.

Plaintiff soon noticed examples of disparate treatment by
Fournier-Johnson and Paukert. Paukert, in particular, often
insulted or chastised Plaintiff in staff meetings, discounted her
investigative findings, rejected her recommendations, and prevented
Plaintiff from volunteering on internal DHHA committees or
advancing her DHHA career. In fact, Fournier-Johnson and Paukert
informally imposed a qualification of possession of a bachelor's
degree in several job categories to discourage Plaintiff and other
African American women from applying for promotions or other
positions for which they were otherwise qualified. Fournier-Johnson
and Paukert, however, "waived" this ostensible bachelor's degree
requirement when hiring or promoting male and/or non-African
American employees. In late July 2018, Paukert later appointed Jill
Damman (Caucasian female) as Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Even
though Plaintiff had substantially more EEO experience than Damman
and had previously expressed interest in Damman’s position,
Paukert discouraged her from applying. Worse, Paukert expressed
displeasure with Plaintiff when she actually applied for the
position and criticized DHHA's recruiter for allowing Plaintiff to
apply.

DHHA--particularly Paukert, Damman, and Fournier-Johnson--have
treated non-disabled employees outside of Plaintiff's protected
racial, gender, and age groups--more favorably in terms of
reasonable accommodations, requests to work from home, promotional
opportunities and career advancement, mentoring, civility, and
other essential terms and conditions of employment, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is an African American woman born on November 8, 1956 and
suffers from Leukemia, cancer of the blood, and from Non-Hodgkins
Lymphoma, cancer of the immune system that develops from abnormal
lymphocytes.

Defendant DHHA is a "safety net" hospital that provides health care
services to Colorado patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Merrily S. Archer, Esq.,
     EEO Legal Solutions LLC
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800-S
     Denver, CO 80202
     Direct: (303) 248-3769
     Text/Cell: (303) 915-5486
     Email: archerm@eeolegalsolutions.com
     Web: www.eeolegalsolutions.com



DOORDASH INC: Data Breach Draws Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Post, reports that at least one
of the DoorDash users who claims she is among the nearly 5 million
people affected by a massive data theft wants to take a bite out of
the food delivery giant.

On October 4, a Queens woman filed a class action lawsuit in
Brooklyn federal court against the Silicon Valley company regarding
the data breach, which occurred in May and affected users,
merchants and delivery workers who joined the platform prior to
April 5, 2018.

The company confirmed the breach.

Data pilfered from DoorDash users, including the driver's license
information of more than 100,000 drivers for the service, has been
allowed to circulate on the internet and the Dark Web, DoorDash
user Melissa Nelson argues in her suit.

Additionally, Nelson claims that no third-parties have verified
DoorDash's claim that the data breach did not affect people who
joined the platform after April 5, 2018. [GN]




DROPBOX INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Dropbox, Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) and certain of its officers.  
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Northern District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-06348, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Dropbox Class A
common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's March 23, 2018 initial
public offering (the "IPO").  This action asserts claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") against Dropbox, the
Company's senior executive officers and directors, and venture
capital sponsors of the IPO.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Dropbox Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's March 23, 2018 IPO, you have until
December 3, 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.

Dropbox, Inc. provides a collaboration platform worldwide. Its
platform allows individuals, teams, and organizations to
collaborate and sign up for free through its Website or app, as
well as upgrade to a paid subscription plan for premium features.

On February 23, 2018, Dropbox filed a registration statement for
the IPO on Form S-1, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on March 22, 2018 (the "Registration Statement").  On
March 23, 2018, Dropbox filed the prospectus for the IPO on Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement.  By way of the Registration Statement, Defendants
offered and sold 41.4 million Class A shares at $21 per share for
over $869 million in gross offering proceeds, which included the
full exercise of underwriters' over-allotment option to sell an
additional 5.4 million shares.  In addition, the Company conducted
a private offering of Class A stock concurrently with the IPO in
which it sold over 4.7 million shares to an institutional investor
for an additional $100 million in gross proceeds.  Numerous Company
insiders, including certain of the Individual Defendants, also sold
stock in the IPO, raking in more than $184 million after applicable
underwriting discounts.  Underwriters received more than $38.6
million in underwriting discounts and fees from the IPO proceeds,
and several, including lead underwriters Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, received tens of millions of
dollars more as a result of payments by Dropbox towards a revolving
credit facility maintained by these investment banks.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.  Specifically, the Registration Statement claimed that
a significant proportion of the Company's registered user base was
primed for monetization.  It claimed that 300 million of the
Company's 500 million registered users had unique characteristics
making them likely to be monetized over time, purportedly
presenting a "significant opportunity to increase [the Company's]
revenues."

The Registration Statement also described Dropbox's business model
as involving the "[i]ncrease conversion of registered users to [the
Company's] paid subscription plans."  It highlighted the Company's
increase of paid users from 6.5 million users in 2015 to 11 million
users by 2017, representing 69% growth over two years.

In connection with its second quarter 2019 earnings report, Dropbox
still claimed to have "more than 500 million registered users" as
of June 2019, indicating that the Company had experienced
essentially no significant registered user growth since December
31, 2017--months prior to the IPO.  The Company had only converted
an additional 2.6 million paid users in the year-and-a-half since
the IPO, representing an annualized post-IPO growth rate of only
15% and less than 1% of the "300 million" figure provided in the
Registration Statement.  Similarly, the Company's revenue growth
rate had dramatically decelerated to only 18% for 2019, a sharp
decline from the 40% and 31% annual growth rates highlighted in the
Registration Statement.

On August 27, 2019, Dropbox stock closed at $17.53 per share,
representing a decline of more than 16% from the IPO price.

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]



EAST PALACE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Cui Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUIXUAN CUI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EAST PALACE ONE, INC. d/b/a East Palace
Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 43 INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, EAST PALACE 819 INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, NEW EAST PALACE REST. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, EAST PALACE 2ND AVE. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS REST. INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 38 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 711 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 74 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS EAST INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS MIDTOWN INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 1413 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 73RD INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 39 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS UPTOWN INC., d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 88 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, NEW SIX HAPPINESS CHINESE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a Six
Happiness Chinese Restaurant, XI LIN, RUI HUA CHEN, LAI YIN HO, XUE
DU CHEN, QI YENG LIN, XUE XIAN CHEN, MEI QIN WENG, XIAN LIN, JIAN
FENG LIN, LIN FUI, FEI LIN, and TAN HUI LIN, Defendants, Case No.
17 Civ. 6713 (PGG) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Moving Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings, and (ii) denied their motion for sanctions.

Plaintiff Cui brings the putative collective and class action
against numerous individuals and corporate entities associated with
East Palace Chinese Restaurant and Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, for which Cui once worked as a deliveryman.  On a
collective and class basis, Cui alleges myriad violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").  On an individual basis, Cui alleges violations of
Section 349 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL") and the
Internal Revenue Code.

Plaintiff Cui worked as a deliveryman for East Palace Chinese
Restaurant at 819 Second Avenue in Manhattan from Oct. 1, 2015 to
Feb. 28, 2017.  He worked in the same capacity for Six Happiness
Chinese Restaurant at 711 Second Avenue in Manhattan from May 10,
2017 to July 31, 2017.

The Complaint alleges that the corporate and individual Defendants
knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated restaurant deliverymen the minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours pay; failed to provide meal periods;
and failed to keep time records, provide wage notices, or provide
pay stubs to the deliverymen.

The Plaintiff's proposed collective is comprised of all other
current and former non-exempt employees who have been or were
employed by Defendants for up to the last three years and who were
not compensated at least the hourly minimum wage and/or overtime
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  The proposed
class consists of all non-exempt personnel employed by the
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing
of the Complaint in the case.

On behalf of the putative collective and class, Plaintiff Cui
asserts claims under the FLSA and NYLL for failure to pay the
minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread of
hours, failure to provide meal periods, failure to keep records,
failure to provide time of hire wage notices, and failure to
provide pay stubs.  The Plaintiff also asserts claims -- solely on
behalf of himself -- for violations of the Internal Revenue Code
and the New York General Business Law.

The Complaint was filed on Sept. 3, 2017, and names as Defendants
the 17 corporate entities and 12 individuals.  The corporate
entities are East Palace One, Inc., East Palace 43 Inc., East
Palace 819, Inc., New East Palace Rest. Inc., East Palace 2nd Ave.
Inc., Six Happiness Rest. Inc., Six Happiness 38 Inc., Six
Happiness 711 Inc., Six Happiness 74, Inc. Six Happiness East Inc.,
Six Happiness Midtown Inc., Six Happiness Rest. Inc., Six Happiness
38 Inc., Six Happiness 711 Inc., Six Happiness 74, Inc., Six
Happiness East Inc., and Six Happiness Midtown Inc.  The individual
Defendants are Xi Lin, Rui Hua Chen, Lai Yin Ho, Xue Du Chen, Qi
Yeng Lin, Xue Xian Chen, Mei Qin Weng, Xian Lin, Jian Feng Lin, Lin
Fui, Fei Lin, and Tan Hui Lu.

On Dec. 24, 2018, 13 of the corporate Defendants -- East Palace
One, Inc., East Palace 43 Inc., East Palace 819 Inc., East Palace
2nd Ave Inc., Six Happiness Rest. Inc., Six Happiness 38 Inc., Six
Happiness 711 Inc., Six Happiness 74 Inc., Six Happiness 1413 Inc.,
Six Happiness 39 Inc., Six Happiness Uptown Inc., Six Happiness 88
Inc., and Six Happiness 73rd Inc. -- and individual Defendants Rui
Hua Chen, Lai Yin Ho, Xue Xian Chen, Mei Qin Weng, and Jian Feng
Lin moved for judgment on the pleadings.  The Moving Defendants
also seek an award of attorneys' fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11, for the Plaintiff and his counsel's repeated refusal in bad
faith to dismiss frivolous claims.

The Moving Individual Defendants argue that there is no
substantiated factual allegation concerning the Plaintiff's
employment relationship with any Individual Movant.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff fails to identify any Individual Movant in his
allegations regarding his employment at East Palace and Six
Happiness.  Instead, he has merely brought claims against
individuals whose names somehow appear in public records of
numerous dissolved corporations.

Judge Gardephe finds that the Complaint merely recites the elements
of the economic reality test, together with conclusory assertions
as to the individual Defendants' personal, active, and daily
management of the operations of the corporations that, in turn,
allegedly operate the restaurants.  The Complaint pleads no
"specific facts" about the individual Defendants' alleged
management of the restaurants.  The allegations are not sufficient
to demonstrate that the individual Defendants were the Plaintiff's
employers.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims against the moving
individual Defendants will be dismissed.

The Moving Corporate Defendants contend that the Court should
dismiss (1) all East Palace corporate entities that were dissolved
before the Plaintiff commenced his employment at the East Palace
restaurant at 819 Second Avenue on Oct. 1, 2015; (2) all East
Palace corporate Defendants that were formed after the Plaintiff
concluded his employment at that East Palace restaurant on Feb. 28,
2017; and (3) all Six Happiness corporate entities that were
dissolved before the Plaintiff began working at the Six Happiness
restaurant at 711 Second Avenue on May 10, 2017, because he cannot
establish that any of these entities were his "employers."  Their
argument is premised on the New York Department of State's Division
of Corporations' records showing the dates that these entities were
formed and dissolved.

The Judge holds that the allegations adequately plead that the
corporate entities in existence while the Plaintiff was employed at
the East Palace and Six Happiness restaurants constitute an
enterprise.  The Complaint sufficiently alleges that the corporate
entities were engaged in "related activities" and shared a common
business purpose: all the entities operated Chinese restaurants,
the ostensible purpose of which was to offer Chinese food to
consumers.  By pleading that certain of the restaurants specialized
in particular products, which were then used to fill orders at the
other locations; that delivery people serviced all locations, not
just the restaurant by which they were formally employed; and that
the restaurants looked alike, the Complaint sufficiently alleges
that the restaurants were under "unified operation" or "common
control."  Accordingly, the Moving Corporate Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings is -- as to the remaining corporate
entities -- denied.

Turning to the Moving Defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions, the
Judge holds that the Moving Defendants did not comply with the safe
harbor provision's procedural requirements.  The Moving Defendants
did not serve their motion for sanctions on the Plaintiff prior to
their motion for judgment on the pleadings.  To the contrary, they
filed their sanctions motion at the same time that they filed their
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Because the Moving
Defendants did not comply with the "safe harbor" provision, which
is strictly construed, their motion for sanctions will be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gardephe granted the Moving
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Defendants
Rui Hua Chen, Lai Yin Ho, Xue Xian Chen, Mei Qin Weng, and Jian
Feng Lin, East Palace One, Inc., East Palace 43 Inc., East Palace
819 Inc., Six Happiness Rest. Inc., Six Happiness 38, Inc., and Six
Happiness 1413, Inc.  He denied the Moving Defendants' motion as to
East Palace 2nd Ave. Inc., Six Happiness 711 Inc., Six Happiness
73rd Inc., Six Happiness 74 Inc., Six Happiness 39 Inc., Six
Happiness Uptown Inc., and Six Happiness 88 Inc.  The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vzM5mh from Leagle.com.

Ruixuan Cui, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy , Troy Law, PLLC.

East Palace One, Inc., doing business as East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, East Palace 43 Inc., doing business as East Palace
Chinese Restaurant, East Palace 819 Inc., doing business as East
Palace Chinese Restaurant, New East Palace Rest. Inc., doing
business as East Palace Chinese Restaurant, East Palace 2nd Ave.
Inc., doing business as East Palace Chinese Restaurant, Six
Happiness Rest. Inc., doing business as Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, Six Happiness 38 Inc., doing business as Six Happiness
Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness 711 Inc., doing business as Six
Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness 74 Inc., doing business
as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness East Inc., doing
business as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness Midtown
Inc., doing business as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six
Happiness 1413 Inc., doing business as Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, Six Happiness 73rd Inc., doing business as Six
Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness 39 Inc., doing business
as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness Uptown Inc.,
doing business as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Six Happiness
88 Inc., doing business as Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, Xi
Lin, Rui Hua Chen, Lai Yin Ho, Qi Yeng Lin, Xue Xian Chen, Mei Qin
Weng & Jian Feng Lin, Defendants, represented by Bingchen Li --
eric.li@ncny-law.com -- Law Office of Z. Tan PLLC.

Cunming Dong, ADR Provider, represented by John Troy --
TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC.


ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to WSP Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT INC.,
MARSHALL A. HEINBERG, FRANK B. SILVESTRO, RONALD L. FRANK, MICHAEL
C. GROSS, JUSTIN C. JACOBS, and MICHAEL EL-HILLOW, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09317 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 8, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on August 28, 2019, pursuant
to which Ecology and Environment Inc. will be acquired by WSP
Global, Inc. and Everest Acquisition Corp.

On August 28, 2019, Ecology's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WSP. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ecology will
receive $15.00 in cash and a special dividend of up to $0.50 for
each share of Ecology common stock they own. On September 26, 2019,
defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy
Statement omits material information regarding the Company's
financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose, for
each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate
Adjusted EBIT; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics. Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Robert W. Baird & Co.
Incorporated. With respect to Baird's Discounted Cash Flow
Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the Compan's
projected unlevered free cash flows as used by Baird in the
analysis and all underlying line items; (ii) the individual inputs
and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 13% to
15% and the range of perpetuity growth rates of 2% to 4%; and (iii)
the terminal values for the Company. When a banker's endorsement of
the fairness of a transaction is touted to shareholders, the
valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key
inputs and range of ultimate values generated by those analyses
must also be fairly disclosed, says the complaint.

Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Ecology common stock.

Ecology is an environmental and engineering consulting firm that
employs professionals in scientific, engineering, and planning
disciplines and works collaboratively with clients to develop
technically sound, science-based solutions to environmental
challenges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 683-3516
     Email: tjm@rl-legal.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


EFINANCIAL LLC: Jones Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EFINANCIAL LLC, a Washington limited
liability company and PARAISO RELIANT DIRECT INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01612
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2019) seeks to stop both of the Defendants from
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers, including to consumers
registered on the National Do Not Call registry and to other
consumers that have specifically asked for the calls to stop, and
to other obtain monetary relief for all persons injured by
Defendants' conduct.

In order to solicit business from new consumers, Reliant Direct
engages in unsolicited telemarketing using an autodialer, including
calls to consumers that have their phone numbers registered with
the DNC. eFinancial benefits directly from the illegal practices
employed by partners such as Reliant Direct. It profits from every
sale and turns a blind-eye to the sales methods used by Reliant
Direct. In Plaintiff's case, Reliant Direct made eight unsolicited,
autodialed calls to his cellular phone, despite Plaintiff having
his phone number registered with the DNC to prevent such calls, and
despite Plaintiff's multiple requests for the calls to stop.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Reliant Direct to cease
placing unsolicited calls on behalf of eFinancial to consumers, as
well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes
and costs.

Plaintiff Jones is a Cadwell, Georgia resident.

eFinancial provides life insurance coverage to consumers on behalf
of top insurance companies such as AIG, Mutual of Omaha and
Prudential.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     PO Box 11647
     Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
     Phone: (206) 605-1424
     Email: edraluck@gmail.com

          - and -

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


EI DU PONT: Hardwick PFAS Class Action Survives Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Lexogology.com reports that a federal court in the Southern
District of Ohio denied E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et
al.'s 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in an
Ohio PFAS class action lawsuit in early October 2019.

The lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Kevin Hardwick, a firefighter
and alleged user of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, paves the
way for a case with enormous breadth to proceed. Hardwick sued 3M
Company , E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company, the Chemours Company,
Archroma Management LLC, Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., Diakin
Industries Ltd. , Daikin America, Inc. , Solvay Specialty Polymers,
USA, LLC , and Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. , bringing claims for
negligence, battery, conspiracy, and declaratory relief. Hardwick
alleged that the defendants use of one or more PFAS materials
caused the "contamination of the plaintiff's and the class members'
blood and/or bodies with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and
bioaccumulation of such PFAS in the blood and/or bodies of the
plaintiff and other class members." The complaint did not include a
prayer for compensatory damages , but instead sought equitable
relief in the form of medical monitoring and the formation of a
panel of scientists to study the effects of PFAS on the body, and
to formulate binding conclusions for the litigation.

The scope of the class purports to include every resident of the
United States who has detectable levels of PFAS chemicals in their
blood, causing injury. Notably, the court explicitly stated that
its review of the motions to dismiss concerned only the
plausibility of Hardwick's individual claim, and made no
determination as to whether the claims are appropriate for class
certification. The defendants set the table for future battles in
the case by arguing that PFAS exposure does not equate to actual
injuries, and that the plaintiff's proposed relief was merely a
back door to compensatory damages. In denying the motions to
dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff had met his burden in
the pleadings, that personal jurisdiction existed in Ohio over the
defendants, and that the court had broad power to provide the
equitable relief requested in the complaint.

Hardwick is represented by attorney Rob Bilott, a veteran of prior
litigation against DuPont regarding their Teflon plant in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and who last month participated in
contentious federal hearings on PFAS along with 3M, DuPont, and
Chemours. [GN]


ELDORADO RESORTS: Elberts Hits Share Drop Over Illicit Stock Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Elberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Thomas Robert Reeg
and Bret Yunker, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18230 (D. N.J.,
September 23, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws.

Eldorado operates as a gaming and hospitality company which
securities actively traded on New York Stock Exchange. Elbert
alleges that Eldorado failed to disclose that several of Eldorado's
executive officers, including Thomas Robert Reeg, engaged in
improper trading with respect to the securities of another
publicly-traded company. On this news, shares of Eldorado fell by
$3.09, or 8%, to close at $35.42 on September 3, 2019.

Elberts purchased Eldorado securities and lost after its value
declined. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ELDORADO RESORTS: November 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 22, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Eldorado Resorts, Inc.
("Eldorado" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERI) investors who purchased
securities between March 1, 2019 and September 2, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

On September 3, 2019, Eldorado revealed that CEO Tom Reeg,
president and chief operating officer Anthony Carano, executive
chairman Gary Carano, and director James Hawkins had received
subpoenas in May pertaining to an ongoing investigation of the
executives trading in an undisclosed company tied to James
Hawkins.

On this news, Eldorado's share price fell $3.09, or over 8%, to
close at $35.42 on September 3, 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 several of the Company's executive officers,
including CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect
to the securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) that
as a result, Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eldorado securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 22,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


ELTMAN ELTMAN: Moukengeshcaie Wins Prelim. OK of $100K Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak grants preliminary approval
of the Class Settlement Agreement resolving the lawsuit captioned
JOVANA MOUKENGESHCAIE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ELTMAN, ELTMAN & COOPER, P.C., LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, AND RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., LLC, Case No. 14 CV 7539
(MKB) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court also orders that: (1) Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq., and
Brian L. Bromberg, Esq., be appointed as Class Counsel, and (2) the
proposed Notice of Class Action Lawsuit Settlement be approved and
distributed to the Class.  A Fairness Hearing is scheduled for
March 17, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff Jovana Vasquez, formerly known as
Jovana Moukengeshcaie commenced this class action on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated New York consumers, alleging
that Defendants Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, their clients, LVNV
Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act by sending Ms. Vasquez a letter
falsely threatening to attach her property to satisfy a debt when
the Defendants had no intention of doing so.

On August 16, 2019, the parties indicated that they had reached a
proposed settlement and filed a motion with the Court requesting an
Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement as
set forth in the Class Settlement Agreement.

The settlement provides for a fund of $100,000 to cover a statewide
class defined as:

All consumers with New York addresses, who: (a) within one year of
December 29, 2014; and (b) who Defendant EEC claimed owed a debt to
Defendant LVNV or Defendant Resurgent; (c) were sent a debt
collection letter by Defendant EEC in a form materially identical
or substantially similar to the letter attached to Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit A sent to the Plaintiff; or (d)
were sent a debt collection letter threatening to refer the
recipient's account to an "asset investigation department"; or (e)
were sent a debt collection letter implying that real estate, cars,
sports utility vehicles, trucks, boats motorcycles, and other
personal property are non-exempt assets that are subject to
attachment by creditors; and (f) the letter was not returned by the
postal service as undelivered.

During the course of settlement negotiations, the Plaintiff learned
that Defendant Eltman was winding down its operations.  Since it
has no remaining assets, and will not be contributing anything of
value toward the Settlement, Eltman is not included as a party to
the Settlement Agreement.

According to the Settling Defendants, there are approximately 8,000
members of the Class.  The Settlement Fund of $100,000 is to be
divided equally among the 8,000 Class Members except for those who
exclude themselves or cannot be located.

In addition to the monetary payments to be made to Class Members,
the Settlement Agreement also provides for debt-forgiveness
benefits of $318,500 to be distributed to the 432 members of the
Subclass.  The Subclass is defined in paragraph 9 of the Settlement
Agreement.  The benefit to the Subclass is in the form of a credit
to be applied to any Subclass Members' balance, and if the balance
becomes negative, then those Subclass Members will receive cash
rebates in addition to the payments paid out from the Settlement
Fund of $100,000.

In addition to the amounts to be provided to the Class Members and
the Subclass Members, the Settlement Agreement provides for a
service award to Plaintiff Vasquez in the amount of $15,000.  The
Agreement further contemplates an award of attorneys' fees and
costs, of not more than $200,000, which counsel will seek in a
separate petition at the time the Plaintiff moves for approval of
the entry of a Final Approval Order.

The parties represent that neither the service award to Ms.
Vasquez, or the costs of notice, distribution, and payment of the
Settlement Administrator's fees will be deducted from the Fund.
Similarly, any award of fees for Class Counsel will not be deducted
from the amount to be set aside for the Fund.

The parties propose this schedule: 1) within 30 days of an Order of
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, defendants will provide to
the Claims Administrator a final list of Class Members; 2) within
30 days of receiving the final list, the Administrator shall mail
by U.S. mail the written Notice to Class Members (attached as
Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement), along with a Claim Form; 3)
Class Members then have 90 days from the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order to submit a written request for exclusion from the
settlement or to file a written objection with the Court; 4) any
objections will be forwarded by Class Counsel to counsel for the
settling defendants; 5) a final fairness hearing will be held and
if approved, the Court will issue a Final Approval Order.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF JONATHAN R. MILLER
          186 Joralemon Street, Suite 1202
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (609) 955-1226
          Facsimile: (609) 964-1026
          E-mail: jonathan.miller@lawyer.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          26 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906


EPIC GAMES: Quebec Parents Seek Class Suit Over Addictive Fortnite
------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Mountain News reports that two Quebec parents are seeking the
right to launch a class-action lawsuit against the makers of the
popular video game Fortnite, alleging it was purposely made highly
addictive and has had a lasting impact on their children.

Montreal-based Calex Legal is seeking to sue Epic Games Inc., the
U.S. company behind the popular online multiplayer game, as well as
its Canadian affiliate based in British Columbia.

The firm filed a request October 3 on behalf of two parents who
approached them separately alleging their sons, aged 10 and 15,
have become dependent on the game in short order.

Their case likens the addiction to a drug addiction, noting that
the World Health Organization made a decision last year to declare
video game addiction, or "gaming disorder," a disease.

Class-action lawyers behind the case drew parallels to a landmark
civil suit mounted against the tobacco industry in Quebec that
alleged there was an intention to create something addictive
without proper warning.

The boys "had all the symptoms of severe
dependence--addiction--(and) it caused severe stress in the
families as well," lawyer Alessandra Esposito Chartrand, Esq. said
of the firm's clients. "It's the same legal basis (as the tobacco
challenges)--the duty to inform about a dangerous product and
responsibility of the manufacturer."

Quebec Superior Court hasn't approved the action and the
allegations have not been tested in court.

A spokesperson for Epic Games was not immediately available for
comment.

The filing alleges that the game, which had some 250 million
players worldwide as of March 2019, according to the manufacturer,
was designed specifically to addict users.

"The addiction to the game Fortnite has real consequences on the
lives of players, many of whom have developed problems such that
they do not eat, do not shower, and no longer socialize," the
filing states.  "Moreover, rehabilitation centres specifically
dedicated to addiction to Fortnite have opened all over the world,
particularly in Quebec and Canada, to treat people for addiction."

Of the two parents--identified in the documents only by
initials--the parent of the 10-year-old said the boy started
playing Fortnite last year and had accumulated more than 1,800
games since December 2018.

"He has been playing Fortnite on an almost daily basis for several
months, and he becomes very frustrated and angry when his parents
try to limit his playing time," the filing reads.

The document claims the 15-year-old has played more than 7,700
times since learning about the game in October 2017, and he plays,
at minimum, three hours a day.

The older boy "quickly developed an addiction to Fortnite, playing
almost daily (for two years)," the filing states.

Esposito-Chartrand said while the fine print in the company's terms
of service includes a class-action waiver that obliges users to go
the route of arbitration to deal with legal problems, such a waiver
is illegal in Quebec.

The province's strict consumer protection laws would also oblige
the company to respond to the claim should it be certified.

Any potential compensation would be determined by the court.

The proposed suit covers players residing in Quebec who've become
addicted since 2017.

The law firm said it's unclear how widespread the problem is.

Jean-Philippe Caron, the other lawyer handling the case, says
several other parents have come forward since the filing has become
public.

He said there was no way for the parents to know what their kids
were getting into.

"If they would have known exactly the extent of which this game was
problematic, they would have taken a different decision," Caron
said of his clients. "If you haven't gone through addiction
yourself, it's easy to criticize others. But when you're in an
addiction--there's a reason there are so many rehabilitation
centres." [GN]




ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Williams Moves for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VIVIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. THE
ESTATES OF HYDE PARK, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff files with the Court her Motion for Stage-One Conditional
Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Ground and Air Subclasses Certified in Goldstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dale S. Fischer granted in part the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled ARNOLD
GOLDSTEIN, et al. v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court certifies this Ground Subclass with respect to its claims
for trespass only:

     Persons who currently own real property within the
     boundaries of Zones A, B, and C of the plume maps attached
     to the declaration of W. Richard Laton (Dkt. 191-5, ECF pp.
     24-25 (Laton Decl. Exs. 11a-b)), and who occupy or have a
     possessory interest in that property.

This class will be represented by Plaintiff Hany Youssef.  Sher
Edling LLP and Matern Law Group, PC are appointed class counsel for
the Ground Subclass.

Also pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), the Court certifies this Air
Subclass with respect to its claims for public and private nuisance
only and against TRC only:

     Persons who currently own or lease real property within the
     boundaries of the Contaminated Area, and who currently
     occupy said property. The term "Contaminated Area" shall
     mean locations where air emissions currently exceed safe
     levels or that are known to register as malodorous, which
     locations shall be identified in a corrected declaration by
     James Clark.

This class will be represented by Plaintiff Hany Youssef, subject
to the addition of Plaintiff Arnold Goldstein, conditioned on James
Clark's corrected class maps showing that Goldstein is indeed a
class member.  Sher Edling LLP and Matern Law Group, PC, are
appointed class counsel for the Air Subclass.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer and provide to the Court
a stipulation concerning the date by which the corrected map must
be provided to defense counsel.  If the parties are unable to agree
whether Goldstein is within the relevant subclass, the parties are
to provide a joint statement containing their respective positions,
Judge Fischer states.

The action arises out of the operations of an oil refinery (the
Refinery) in Torrance, California formerly operated by Defendant
ExxonMobil Corporation and currently operated by Defendant Torrance
Refining Company LLC (TRC).  On February 18, 2015, an equipment
malfunction within the Refinery's Fluid Catalytic Cracking unit
caused flammable hydrocarbons to flow unexpectedly into an
electrostatic precipitator unit where they ignited.  The resulting
explosion released spent catalyst and hydrocarbons into the air,
and sent ash filled with metals, fiberglass, and glass wool into
nearby neighborhoods.

On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class
action against the former and current owners for harms allegedly
related to that explosion and other emissions from the Refinery.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert claims for (1)
negligence, (2) strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity,
(3) private nuisance, (4) public nuisance, and (5) trespass.[CC]


FOOT LOCKER: Securities Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Foot Locker
Inc. won dismissal of a proposed securities class action alleging
it misled investors by touting "strong" partnerships with its top
vendors.

The stockholders failed to show that Foot Locker made false or
misleading statements, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York said.

The City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System alleged that the
company made public statements about its "strong vendor
relationships," which concealed the fact that it was being coerced
by its vendors to sell "undesirable products." [GN]


GEICO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Geico Corp. has asked the Seventh Circuit to
toss out an appeal attempting to revive a class action accusing the
company of failing to pay taxes to an insured individual for his
replacement vehicle after his original was totaled. Because Nathan
Sigler never proved that he used his insurance money to pay for a
replacement vehicle, Geico cannot be expected to pay any related
taxes, the company said on Oct. 1. [GN]



GENERAL MILLS: Court Struck Nationwide Class Claims in Jackson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLENE M JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18cv2634-LAB (BGS) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and to strike certain class allegations.

The putative consumer class action was originally filed in San
Diego Superior Court, and removed on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.  Plaintiff Jackson alleges she bought a box of
Annie's Frosted Oat Flakes cereal in Bakersfield in December 2016.
She alleges that she was surprised when she opened the box and
discovered that the box was between 30% and 50% empty, i.e., that
it consisted of 30% to 50% "slack-fill."  Slack-filled containers
may violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 12606.2(b), the
California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, though certain
exceptions apply.  

Jackson sought to represent both a nationwide class and a
California class consisting of consumers who bought any of Annie's
HOMEGROWN brand cereal products.

Following removal, Defendant General Mills moved to dismiss the
Complaint.  Instead of opposing the motion, Jackson filed an
amended complaint ("FAC"), which is now the operative pleading.  It
includes claims based on several California statutes.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
12(b)(6), and 9(b), and to strike certain class allegations under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

General Mills asked the District Court to take judicial notice of
two articles quoted in the FAC, and of certain photographs of its
products.  Judge Burns granted in part this request.  He finds that
while product packaging is generally noticeable in product-labeling
claims cases, the photographs depict the Defendant's own
demonstration of how cereal fits into its containers.  The
photographs themselves are therefore inappropriate for judicial
notice.  And because the FAC relies on language from the two
articles (Exs. A and B) to show it is plausible that a reasonable
consumer would be deceived by the slack-fill, the full articles can
be considered as part of the FAC even without judicial notice.

Next, General Mills asked the Court to strike all reference to a
nationwide class, arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing to
represent them.  Defendant also argued that the FAC is inadequately
pled, for several reasons, including (i) that it fails to allege
why the slack-fill was non-functional under the federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, which means the state claims are preempted; (ii)
that her deception claims are implausible in light of what
reasonable consumers know and expect of cereal and also in light of
disclosures on the packaging; and (iii) that her fraud claims are
not pled with adequate particularity.

It is undisputed that General Mills is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  General
Mills argued that the California District Court lacks either
general or specific personal jurisdiction over it.

Judge Burns holds that the only gesture Jackson made towards
establishing personal jurisdiction was to assert that the
California District Court has specific personal jurisdiction over
the nationwide class's claims, and to cite authority showing that
Bristol-Myers probably does not apply to class actions.  It may be
that the District Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over
these claims, but it is Jackson's burden to establish that, and she
has not done so.  General Mills correctly points out that other
courts have stricken nationwide claims based on California's
consumer protection laws.  And because the FAC's claims arise
solely under California's consumer protection laws, these laws
simply do not apply to transactions outside California involving
non-California consumers, Judge Burns notes.

General Mills also correctly pointed out another problem with
overbreadth, in that Jackson is attempting to represent the
purchasers of all types of Annie's cereals, not just the one type
she bought.  Jackson has not alleged how other types of cereal are
similar to the type she bought, or if they are similar at all,
Judge Burns cites.  Hence, Jackson lacks standing to sue on behalf
of purchasers of different kinds of cereal, the District Court
holds.

Next, General Mills pointed out that Jackson presently has no
intention to buy Annie's cereal in the future, and also that even
if she was deceived once, she is unlikely to be deceived in the
future.  Therefore, the Defendant argued, Jackson has no standing
to seek injunctive relief. Jackson bears the burden of establishing
standing.  

Given that Jackson now knows she can ascertain the amount of cereal
she is buying by looking at the label, Judge Burns holds that
Jackson has not shown any likelihood she will be deceived in the
future.  Jackson's allegation that she would like to buy the cereal
again, if the problems she points to are remedied, is also
implausible.  For these reasons, Jackson has not met her burden of
establishing standing to seek injunctive relief.

Finally, because Jackson's claims sound in fraud, she is obligated
to plead supporting facts with greater particularity.  As pled,
they do not even satisfy the ordinary Rule 8 standard, however,
much less the Rule 9(b) standard.  Because Jackson has not
adequately pled any violation of a statute her claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the UCL is inadequately pled, the District
Court says.

For the reasons stated, Judge Burns grants in part General Mills'
Motion.  Because it is clear Jackson cannot represent a nationwide
class and cannot successfully amend her complaint to correct that
defect, Judge Burns grants the request to strike the nationwide
class claims.  Because it is not absolutely certain Jackson cannot
salvage her complaint by amendment, her other claims are dismissed
without prejudice, the District Court rules.  

The District Court gave Jackson until Oct. 11, 2019 to file an ex
parte motion if she wished to amend. If she fails to seek leave to
amend as ordered within the time permitted, the action was to be
dismissed.  If she had filed an ex parte motion, General Mills may
file an opposition by Oct. 25, 2019.  

If Jackson does not believe she can successfully amend, or does not
wish to amend, she should file a notice so stating and the action
will be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/IsGdmR from Leagle.com.

Charlene M. Jackson, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lilach Halperin --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
PLC, Michael Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron.

General Mills, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster & R. Benjamin Nelson -- rbnelson@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster.


GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher et al Seek to Certify Class of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KELLY C. GALLAGHER and ROBERT
WYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-11836-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a collective class:

      "all persons who are or have been employed by or worked for
      General Motors LLC in the capacity of non-union contract
      workers compensated on an hourly basis during any time from
      June 20, 2016 forward. General Motors LLC includes any
      predecessor in interest, agent, subsidiary, alter ego,
      and/or any other entity operating the subject business or
      division of the subject business from June 20, 2016
      forward";

   2. approving notice to the above-defined class of putative
      Plaintiffs;

   3. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days of the
      entry of the order a list identifying the potential class
      members.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance
Center.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Daniel W. Rucker, Esq.
          Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
          Steve J. Weiss, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telepone: (248) 335-5000
          E-mail: drucker@hertzschram.com
                  pstamler@hertzschram.com
                  sweiss@hertzschram.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          David J. Rowland, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Alex W. Karasik, Esq.
          Christina M. Janice, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  drowland@seyfarth.com
                  jriley@seyfarth.com
                  akarasik@seyfarth.com
                  cjanice@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Lesinski, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31 st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: klesinski@seyfarth.com

GEORGIA MEDICAL: Ga. App. Reverses Dismissal of Clouthier Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLOUTHIER, v. THE MEDICAL CENTER OF CENTRAL GEORGIA,
INC, Case No. A19A0848 (Ga. App.), Judge M. Yvette Miller of the
Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division, reversed the trial
court's order granting MCCG's motion to dismiss Francis Clouthier's
complaint.

According to his complaint, Clouthier was injured in a
tractor-trailer collision in August 2016, and an ambulance
transported him to MCCG's emergency room for treatment.  After his
discharge from the hospital, MCCG became aware that Clouthier's
injuries were caused by third parties, and in November 2016, MCCG
filed a hospital lien against Clouthier's causes of action, in the
amount of $56,856.89.

Specifically, the lien affidavit stated that MCCG claims a lien
upon any and all causes of action accruing to Clouthier on account
of injuries giving rise to such causes of action and that
necessitated hospital care.  The affidavit also stated that the
lien was claimed as provided for in the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated, Section 44-14-470 et seq.

Clouthier reached a "confidential" settlement in his collision case
and then filed a complaint and petition for class action against
MCCG in the Bibb County State Court.  Clouthier alleged that MCCG's
lien and charges were for the "full chargemaster rate" or "sticker
price" of his medical procedures, which did not represent a
reasonable charge for the treatment received.  He claimed that MCCG
knew that the lien amount was not reasonable, and he raised claims
of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the RICO
Act.  Clouthier further requested punitive damages, an award of
attorney fees, and class certification as to all similarly situated
Plaintiffs.

MCCG filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.  It contended that the Bibb County State Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over Clouthier's complaint because
Clouthier's lawsuit was essentially a request for equitable relief.
MCCG also argued that the lien did not convey any false
information.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted MCCG's motion to
dismiss.  The trial court first determined that it had jurisdiction
because Clouthier sought an award of damages.  Regarding
Clouthier's claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
violations of the RICO Act, the trial court found that they all
required a "false swearing" or "negligent misrepresentation" by
MCCG as to the reasonableness of its charges.  It reasoned that the
language of the lien affidavit did not show that MCCG ever swore
that the lien amount was reasonable and that MCCG therefore never
made a false statement.  After the trial court issued a certificate
of immediate review, the Court granted Clouthier's application for
interlocutory appeal, and the appeal followed.

Judge Miller concludes that it does not appear to a legal certainty
that Clouthier would be entitled to no relief under any state of
facts which could be proved in support of his claims.  She finds
that MCCG need not have overtly and falsely sworn that its claimed
lien amount was reasonable in order for Clouthier to have pleaded a
fraud claim, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.

Judge Miller also finds that the complaint sufficiently stated a
claim for fraud.  MCCG is only allowed a hospital lien for
"reasonable charges," but MCCG stated in the lien affidavit that
its lien was claimed "as provided for" in the hospital lien
statutes.  The Judge rejects MCCG's contention that any
representation that the lien amount was reasonable was merely an
expression of opinion, which cannot serve as a basis for fraud.

Judge Miller further finds that there may be evidence that MCCG
regularly conducts business in medical billing and had specialized
knowledge of which Clouthier was ignorant -- i.e., the average
amount that would have been billed for his treatment if he had been
insured -- and that Clouthier relied on MCCG's knowledge.  Thus,
the trial court erred in granting MCCG's motion to dismiss as to
the fraud claim.

Judge Miller determines that the trial court erred in dismissing
Clouthier's RICO claim.  Even assuming that MCCG did not make a
false statement in its lien affidavit, a careful examination of
Clouthier's complaint reveals that he stated a claim for relief
under Georgia's RICO Act.

For these reasons, Judge Miller reverses the trial court's
dismissal of the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/jOF6sB from Leagle.com.

Charles A. Gower -- charlie@cagower.com -- for Appellant.

Charles Austin Gower, Jr. -- austin@cagower.com -- for Appellant.

Miranda Johnston Brash -- miranda@cagower.com -- for Appellant.

William H. Noland, for Appellant.

Michael Brian Terry -- terry@bmelaw.com -- for Appellant.

Shaun Patrick O'Hara -- shaun@cagower.com -- for Appellant.

Michael Rosen Baumrind -- baumrind@bmelaw.com  -- for Appellant.

Frank Mitchell Lowrey, IV -- lowrey@bmelaw.com -- for Appellant.

Roy Harold Meeks, Jr. -- hmeeks@taylorenglish.com -- for Appellee.

Amanda Wilson Speier -- aspeier@taylorenglish.com -- for Appellee.


GOOGLE INC: London Court OKs Class Suit Over iPhone Data Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sandle, writing for Business Insider, reports that London's
Court of Appeal gave the go-ahead for action against Google over
claims it collected data from more than 4 million iPhone users,
overturning a ruling in 2018 that in effect blocked any route to
legal redress.

The claimants said Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., had illegally
accessed details of Apple iPhone users' internet browsing data by
bypassing privacy settings on the Safari browser between June 2011
and February 2012.

London's High Court ruled in October 2018 that Google's alleged
role in the collection, collation and use of data from the browser
was wrongful and a breach of duty, but claimants had not suffered
"damage" as specified by Britain's Data Protection Act.

James Oldnall, Esq., lead lawyer on the case, said the Court of
Appeal decision had "confirmed our view that representative actions
are essential for holding corporate giants to account".

Richard Lloyd, the representative claimant in the mass action, said
October 2's judgment "sends a very clear message to Google and
other large tech companies: you are not above the law."

"Google can be held to account in this country for misusing
people's personal data, and groups of consumers can together ask
the courts for redress when firms profit unlawfully from 'repeated
and widespread' violations of our data protection rights," he
added.

Lloyd also said he expected a lengthy legal process.

Google said protecting the privacy and security of its users had
always been its number one priority.

"This case relates to events that took place nearly a decade ago
and that we addressed at the time," a spokeswoman said. "We believe
it has no merit and should be dismissed." [GN]


GREENWAY DODGE: Picton Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CLIFTON PICTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GREENWAY CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE, INC D/B/A GREENWAY DODGE CHRYSLER
JEEP, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00196-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla.),
Plaintiff the moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons within the United States who (1) were
      successfully transmitted a prerecorded message; (2)
      promoting Defendant's goods and/or services; (3) on their
      mobile telephone; (4) on February 21st, 26th, and/or 28th
      2018; 5) that was sent using the "ringless" voicemail
      platform hosted by Infolink Communications, Ltd., d/b/a
      Voicelogic; (6) after having provided their telephone number

      to Defendant for purposes of obtaining vehicle service
      from Defendant; (7) and have not purchased a vehicle from
      Defendant";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class representative; and

   3. appointing Shamis & Gentile, P.A., Edelsberg Law, P.A., IJH
      Law, Hiraldo P.A. and Eisenband Law, P.A. as Class counsel.

The case concerns Defendant's willful disregard for the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and its use of automated technology to
bombard individuals with unwanted, prerecorded marketing calls.

The Defendant is an automotive retailer that sells and services new
and pre-owned vehicles.To advertise its business, Defendant engages
in various forms of consumer marketing, including email marketing
and direct mailing.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786.496.4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.533.4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

HABER BLANK LLP: Brandwine Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------
Myron Brandwine, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Haber Blank, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-62357, (S.D. Fla., September 23, 2019), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

On January 11, 2019, Defendant sent a written communication to
Brandwine in connection with an alleged debt. Said letter failed to
advise Plaintiff that unless he, within thirty days after receipt
of the notice, disputed the validity of the Debt, or any portion
thereof, the Debt would be assumed to be valid by the debt
collector, thus failing to effectively provide him statutorily
mandated disclosures to which he was entitled. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang et al Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as XUE HUI ZHANG, YUE HUA CHEN,
and GUI YONG ZHANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC d/b/a
Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; ICHIBAN
FOOD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and
d/b/a Takara; CHEN & JU, INC. d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; DAVID LIP, LIPING JU a/k/a Liping Chen
a/k/a Lauren Chen, and TYNG QUH JU, the Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-00148 (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court  for an order:


   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
      containing first and last name, last known address with
      apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
      numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
      and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
      location, dates of employment and position of ALL current
      and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed
      at any time from February 09, 2014 to the present within 21
      days of the entry of the order;

   3. authorizing that notice of the matter be disseminated, in any

      relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or
      social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
      the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a
      complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from
      Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from
      existing employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
      on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
      may also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
      community;

   7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
      workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
      in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
      Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
      newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel

      list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
      undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
      English, and Chinese; and

   9. scheduling the equitable tolling on the statute of
      limitation on the suit be tolled for 90 days until the
      expiration of the Opt-in Period.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

IDAVM GROUP: Parties in Garcia Suit to Hold Settlement Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry in the case entitled Andres Garcia, et
al. v. IDAVM Group Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Mary M. Rowland.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Parties have agreed to proceed to a settlement conference
      with the magistrate judge;

   -- the settlement will encompass the named Plaintiffs,
opt−ins
      and any individual currently being represented by the
      Plaintiffs' counsel;

   -- the Defendants' partially unopposed motion to amend
      briefing schedule, the Plaintiffs' pre−discovery motion
for
      conditional collective certification and the Plaintiffs'
      motion for Rule 23 class certification are stricken without
      prejudice;

   -- the matter is referred to the magistrate judge to conduct a
      settlement conference; and

   -- status hearing is set for February 6, 2020, at 9:30
      a.m.[CC]


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Class in Donato Securities Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Richard Di Donato, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.;
Michael L. Babich; Darryl S. Baker; John N. Kapoor; and Alec
Burlakoff, Defendants, Case No. CV-16-00302-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.),
Judge Neil V. Wake of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted (i) the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and (ii) the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

On June 10, 2019, Defendant Insys commenced a voluntary case under
chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and the instant
action was automatically stayed with respect to Insys.  The action
is not stayed as to the proceedings against the Defendants other
than Insys.  The Order, therefore, applies only to Defendants
Michael L. Babich, Darryl S. Baker, and John N. Kapoor.  Claims
against Defendant Alec Burlakoff were dismissed.

Insys is a publicly traded pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Arizona that makes and sells Subsys, a very expensive sublingual
fentanyl spray approved by the Food and Drug Administration to
treat breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients already taking
opioid pain medication.  Babich, Baker, and Kapoor served as
high-level executives at Insys during 2014 through 2016.

During that time, Insys reported increasing revenues each quarter
and attributed most of its upward trajectory to the sale of Subsys.
Insys touted its unique programs within the oncology setting for
increasing sales and claimed that it was taking market share from
competing products for breakthrough cancer pain by building
awareness among oncologists.  However, as alleged, Insys actively
discouraged promoting Subsys for cancer patients, less than 1% of
Subsys prescriptions were written by oncologists, and Insys paid
doctors bribes and kickbacks in exchange for prescribing Subsys
off-label.

Company executives publicly attributed the drug's success to
vigorous marketing efforts and the company's diligent negotiations
with pharmacy benefit managers, third-party payers, and insurers.
Insys created an "Insurance Reimbursement Center," sometimes called
the "Prior Authorization Unit," ostensibly to interact with
third-party payers to obtain prior authorization and insurance
coverage for Subsys prescriptions. Employees of the "Insurance
Reimbursement Center" allegedly falsified patient diagnoses, lied
to insurance companies, and posed as employees of the prescribing
doctors.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made the following materially
false and misleading statements.  He also alleges that Insys stock
prices declined because of news or announcements to investors that
revealed the company's prior statements to have been false or
misleading.

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Insys common stock
during the period from March 3, 2015, through Jan. 25, 2016, and
were damaged thereby.

Count I of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges against
all Defendants securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.
Count II alleges control-person liability for Defendants Babich,
Baker, and Kapoor under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Before the Court are the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

Judge Wake concludes that the Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance
with Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the
Defendants do not dispute.  The Defendants also do not dispute that
the Plaintiff has satisfied the superiority requirement of Rule
23(b)(3).  Regarding Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that questions
common to class members predominate, the Plaintiff has proved the
prerequisites for invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption of
reliance under Basic, and the Defendants have not rebutted it.  The
Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance does not apply because the
case does not involve primarily a failure to disclose.  Finally,
the Plaintiff has met his burden to propose a class-wide method of
calculating damages that is consistent with his theory of
liability.

For these reasons, the Judge grants the Defendants' Motion for
Leave to File Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.  The Clerk will file the sur-reply
attached as Exhibit A to the motion.

The Judge also grants the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  

Clark Miller is appointed as the Class Representative; Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as the Class Counsel; and Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., as the Liaison Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Hc6nBL from Leagle.com.

Richard Di Donato, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman --
afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, David
Seamus Kaskela -- skaskela@kaskelalaw.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, pro hac vice, Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. --
fbalint@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Naumon
A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.co -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Ryan T. Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.co -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Marc Goldberg --
michael@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC, pro hac vice &
William G. Fairbourn -- gfairbourn@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint PC.

Clark Miller, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S.
Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, David Seamus
Kaskela, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Eric K.
Gerard, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, James P.
McEvilly, III, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Johnston De F. Whitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Jonathan F. Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Meredith L. Lambert, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Ryan T. Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Andrew L. Zivitz, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Jennifer L. Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael Marc Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, pro hac vice,
Rupa Nath Cook, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice &
William G. Fairbourn, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Insys Therapeutics Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Tom King -- aking@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Bahram
Seyedin-Noor -- bahram@altolit.com -- Alto Litigation, pro hac
vice, Bryan Ketroser -- bryan@altolit.com -- Alto Litigation, pro
hac vice, Donald Wayne Bivens -- dbivens@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer LLP, Ian Edward Browning -- ian@altolit.com -- Alto
Litigation, pro hac vice, Jared Lee Kopel -- jared@altolit.com --
Alto Litigation, pro hac vice, Joshua Alexander Korr, Alto
Litigation, pro hac vice & Carlie Shae Tovrea -- ctovrea@swlaw.com
-- Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Michael L Babich, Defendant, represented by Jason Andrew Clark,
Lang & Klain PC, Russell Piccoli, Russell Piccoli PLC, William
George Klain, Lang & Klain PC & Zachary Wishner Rosenberg, Lang &
Klain PC.

Darryl S Baker, Defendant, represented by George J. Coleman, Salmon
Lewis & Weldon PLC, Michael Kenyon Foy, Salmon Lewis & Weldon PLC &
Raymond Jeffrey Heilman, Salmon Lewis & Weldon PLC.

John N Kapoor, Defendant, represented by Brian T. Kelly, Nixon
Peabody LLP, pro hac vice, David B. Rosenbaum, Osborn Maledon PA,
George J. Skelly, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel
Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Larry A. Hammond, Osborn Maledon PA, Marx
P. Calderon, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew T.
McLaughlin, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice.

Ken Chin, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim, R & R Law Group PLLC
& Richard Glenn Himelrick, Tiffany & Bosco PA.


JACKSON COUNTY, IN: Summary Judgment Bids in McFarlane Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, New Albany Division issued an Order denying Plaintiffs'
and Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
BRANDON McFARLANE, Plaintiff, v. MIKE CAROTHERS, Jackson County
Sheriff, Defendant, No. 4:15-cv-00176-SEB-DML, (S.D. Ind.).

This cause is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment filed by Defendant Mike Carothers on October 10,
2018 and Plaintiff Brandon McFarlane on October 25, 2018, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Mr. McFarlane brought this
action on behalf of himself and the Certified class, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Sheriff Carothers, in his
official capacity as Jackson County Sheriff, instituted
unconstitutional policies resulting in Mr. McFarlane's
overdetention at the Jackson County jail, in violation of his
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine disputes
of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. A court must grant a motion for summary judgment if it
appears that no reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the
nonmovant on the basis of the designated admissible evidence. The
Court neither weigh the evidence nor evaluate the credibility of
witnesses, but view the facts and the reasonable inferences flowing
from them in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.  

The parties each advance the following issue as controlling here
and respectively argue for a resolution in their favor: Did Sheriff
Carothers, acting in his official capacity, engage in a practice,
procedure, or custom of detaining individuals arrested without
warrants beyond 48 hours without probable cause determinations?

Unconstitutionality of Mr. McFarlane's Overdetention

The Fourth Amendment requires a prompt judicial determination of
probable cause following a warrantless arrest and ensuing
detention. The parties do not dispute that prompt generally means
within 48 hours of the warrantless arrest, absent the existence of
extraordinary circumstances, nor do they dispute that Mr. McFarlane
and the 45 class members were detained beyond 48 hours without
probable cause determinations or the presence of exigent
circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. McFarlane, and the certified class,
could not, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, be continued in
custody beyond 48 hours. Thus, the underlying question before the
Court is whether these overdetentions were the result of a policy
or practice, or merely random instances of staff negligence.

42 U.S.C Section 1983

Section 1983 provides redress for constitutional violations
committed by state actors under the color of law. To properly
maintain a Section 1983 action against a local government, a
plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an unconstitutional
policy.

Such a policy can take one of three forms: (1) an express policy
that, when enforced, causes a constitutional deprivation (2) a
widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or
express municipal policy, is so permanent and well-settled as to
constitute a custom or usage with the force of law or (3) an
allegation that constitutional injury was caused by a person with
final policy-making authority.

Evidence of an Unconstitutional Policy

Mr. McFarlane asserts that Sheriff Carothers violated his
affirmative duty, imposed by Indiana law, to ensure that pre-trial
detainees receive prompt judicial probable cause determinations.
Thus, he asserts that Sheriff Carothers implemented a
constitutionally deficient policy in lieu of fulfilling his
constitutional and statutory responsibilities. Mr. McFarlane also
alleges the existence of an unconstitutional widespread practice at
the jail that, although not authorized by written law or express
policy, was so permanent or well-settled as to constitute a custom
or usage with the force of law.

The Existence of a Widespread Practice

Mr. McFarlane's brief confusingly intertwines his theories of
widespread practice and breach of affirmative constitutional duty,
proclaiming that the existence of widespread practice is exhibited
by Sheriff Carothers's failure to ensure that detainees who were
warrantlessly arrested receive prompt judicial cause
determinations, also contravening his affirmative duty to do so.
Mr. McFarlane asserts that, by neglecting his constitutional
obligation, Sheriff Carothers proximately caused a deliberately
indifferent policy. Such acquiescence amounts to a policy decision,
and that failure to properly ensure that the detainees either
received probable cause determinations within 48 hours or were
released is a form of being deliberately indifferent. As Mr.
McFarlane asserts, there clearly was a widespread custom or
practice, as evidence by the many Gerstein violations which
occurred.

Sheriff Carothers maintains in response that, not only is there no
evidence of a widespread, unspoken practice operating with the
force of law, but that he in fact implemented an effective policy
to ensure detainees either received probable cause determinations
or were promptly released. Sheriff Carothers further argues that
the actual numbers of incidents of overdetention simply do not
reflect a practice so longstanding and well-settled as to imply his
acquiescence in any pattern or custom of unconstitutional conduct.
While he concedes that 45 Gerstein violations did occur, he
calculates the error rate as being only 1.37% of all individuals
arrested without warrants and detained at the Jackson County jail
during the relevant time period.

The Court concludes that neither party has satisfied its respective
summary judgment burden.

Mr. McFarlane effectively is arguing that, because several
instances of unconstitutional conduct occurred, a widespread
practice must have existed. The threshold for implicating section
1983 liability requires significantly more than that. A plaintiff
must do more than simply show that the same problem has arisen many
times in order to establish that existence of an unconstitutional
policy or practice. While repeated instances may imply a widespread
practice, they do not always prove that one existed. To support
such an inference, a plaintiff must present a sufficient causal
link between the policy or custom and the constitutional
deprivation.

This is where Mr. McFarlane's theory falls short. Mr. McFarlane has
not presented any evidence that conclusively links his class's
overdetention to a widespread custom or practice at the jail. The
evidence before the Court indicates that Sheriff Carothers adopted
procedures intended to minimize the overdetention of individuals
like Mr. McFarlane, but that, despite these procedures, 45
individuals still did not receive prompt probable cause
determinations and were overdetained as a result. Mr. McFarlane
provides no further analysis beyond asserting that this is clearly
indicative of a widespread practice. Mr. McFarlane's proof requires
more than his speculation that his injuries resulted from a policy
or widespread practice to order to prevail on summary judgment;
instead, he must produce some evidence so showing.

The Court concedes that the 45 Gerstein violations may ultimately
suffice to prove the existence of an unconstitutional policy or
practice; however, Mr. McFarlane has not yet satisfied his
obligation to weave these instances together into a coherent,
cognizable policy.  The Court is left with only Mr. McFarlane's
speculation, based on the numerous incidents, that Sheriff
Carothers engaged in a widespread unconstitutional practice or
custom. Thus, his request for summary judgment must be denied.

Meanwhile, Sheriff Carothers had an affirmative, independent duty,
imposed by Indiana law and recognized by the Seventh Circuit, to
ensure that those detainees who were arrested without warrants
received prompt probable cause determinations, and to release those
who did not receive such determinations within 48 hours. Despite
devoting a substantial portion of his arguments in support of
summary judgment to this issue of whether there was a widespread
practice of overdetention, Sheriff Carothers sidesteps the fact
that he did not fulfill his constitutional duty to protect against
overdetentions. Accordingly, Sheriff Carothers's Motion for Summary
Judgment is also denied.

The case shall proceed accordingly, rules the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y22n8wp9 from Leagle.com.

BRANDON MCFARLANE, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Carson
Myers - cmyers@myers-law.com - CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES.

MIKE CAROTHERS, Jackson County Sheriff, Defendant, represented by
James S. Stephenson , STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER & Pamela G.
Schneeman , STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER, 3077 East 98th Street, Suite
240, Indianapolis, IN 46280.

JAMES FRANCO: Face Class-Action Suit From Acting Students
---------------------------------------------------------
Erik Pedersen, writing for Deadline, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit alleges that James Franco and other defandants
"committed egregious wrongs to hundreds of student actors."  The
complaint accuses them of sexual harassment, sex discrimination,
fraud and multiple other violations regarding their now-shuttered
acting and film school .

In a 33-page suit filed October 3 in Los Angeles Superior Court,
lead plaintiffs Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal allege that
Franco, actor-producer Vince Jolivette and the latter's cousin Jay
Davis - "through the use of various RabbitBandini production
companies and the RabbitBandini Studio 4 acting and film school -
opted to sexualize their power and fame by dangling the opportunity
to aspiring actors of employment in film and television in exchange
for explicit nudity, sex and as Franco put it, the 'pushing of
boundaries.'"

Tither-Kaplan and Gaal enrolled in 2014 at the Studio 4 acting
school, for which they paid $300 in monthly tuition, the suit
says.

Their complaint opens with a quote: "If I have done something
wrong, I will fix it. I have to." According to the suit, "Franco
made this promise in response to a public outcry from women when
his sexually hostile, predatory and exploitative history came to
light after he wore a Time's Up pin to the 2018 Golden Globes
Awards Ceremony. But the truth is that James Franco and the other
Defendants have committed egregious wrongs to hundreds of student
actors and have done nothing to fix these wrongs."

Franco's attorney, Michael Plonsker, Esq., issued a statement late
October 3: "This is not the first time that these claims have been
made and they have already been debunked. We have not had an
opportunity to review the ill-informed Complaint in depth since it
was leaked to the press before it was filed and our client has yet
to even be served. James will not only fully defend himself, but
will also seek damages from the plaintiffs and their attorneys for
filing this scurrilous publicity seeking lawsuit."

Here's more from the suit:

"Franco's targets were even duped to pay for their exploitation
through a fraudulent 'acting school' designed to benefit Franco and
his production companies wherein employment opportunities for women
supposedly increased when they agreed to overt sexual acts, nudity
and performing in sex scenes — often in an orgy type setting.

"Moreover, Defendants forced Plaintiffs and all student-talent to
sign over their rights to explicit nude and sex scene auditions and
filming. Plaintiffs were told that Franco wanted to personally
review each of the auditions and scenes himself only to learn this
explicit footage would be stored, maintained and used by Defendants
at their will.

"While James Franco touted that one difference between Studio 4 and
other acting schools was its ability to funnel promising talent
into his projects, the reality was that he was looking to create a
pipeline of young women who were subjected to his personal and
professional sexual exploitation in the name of education.

"Defendants' scheme, like many, started slow, first encouraging
female student actors to appear topless, then perform in sex
scenes, then orgies and gratuitous full nudity for no other reason
thab Defendants could make them do it.

"And while men and women participated in the Studio 4 program, the
majority of actual roles in legitimate productions typically went
to non-students or young, attractive women who acquiesced to the
extreme requests of Defendants."

The school closed in late 2017 as allegations of sexual misconduct
against Franco began to surface and amid the burgeoning #MeToo
movement. Weeks later, the Los Angeles Times ran an expose in which
five women accused him of "sexually inappropriate and explotative
behavior."

Attorneys Dan Stormer, Esq. and Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, Esq. of
Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP in Pasadena are representing the
class in the case. Demanding a jury trial, it seeks unspecified
damages, an apology, the return of "all recordings, video or
otherwise, in the possession of Defendants" and for the defendants
to undergo sexual harassment and sensitivity training. [GN]


JILLIAN MICHAELS: Friedman's Class Cert. Bid Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George H. Wu has taken under submission the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Lisa Friedman
v. Jillian Michaels, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09414-GW-SS (C.D.
Cal.).

In this putative class action filed against Jillian Michaels, EM
Digital, LLC and Empowered Media, LLC on August 20, 2018, Plaintiff
Lisa Friedman seeks certification of a class (along with
appointment as class representative and appointment of class
counsel) pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff filed the
operative First Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive
Relief ("FACC") on May 16, 2019.

The FACC presents claims for: 1) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, 2) violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and 3) violation of California False Advertising Law.
As the FACC initially describes the subject matter of the case, it
concerns the Defendants' automatic renewals of consumers'
subscriptions to the Defendants' "My Fitness by Jillian Michaels"
service without disclosing that feature of the transaction and
without obtaining the consumers' affirmative consent.

In the Motion, the Plaintiff has defined the class she now seeks to
certify as "All consumers, who were first charged from January 1,
2017 to the present, whose credit cards or debit cards were
automatically charged on a recurring basis by Defendants as part of
a subscription to the 'My Fitness by Jillian Michaels' service."

Having concluded that the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated
the requirements for certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
the Court will grant the motion.

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, for reasons stated on the
record, the Plaintiff's Motion is taken under submission. Court to
issue ruling. [CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG LLP
          12540 Beatrice St., Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066-7059
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                  john@kristensenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard S. Busch, Esq.
          Keith Kelly, Esq.
          KING & BALLOW
          1999 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 253-1255
          Facsimile: (888) 688-0482
          E-mail: rbusch@kingballow.com
                  kkelly@kingballow.com


LABORATORY CORP: Kawa Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KAWA ORTHODONTICS LLP, a
Florida limited liability partnership, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS and
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Delaware corporations, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80521-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these alternative classes:

      Class A:

      "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a two-
      page facsimile on or about February 6, 2019 from LabCorp
      which states "Effective March 1, 2019, LabCorp is the
      exclusive laboratory provider for WellCare Health Plans,
      Inc. in Florida," and which sets forth the services offered
      by LabCorp and identifies the numerous labs through which it

      offers these services";

      Class B:

      "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
      facsimile on or about March 4, 2019, and on or about April
      17, 2019, which state "We are pleased to announce effective
      March 1, 2019, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp)
      will become the exclusive laboratory provider for WellCare
      Health Plans, Inc. in Florida," and which mentions LabCorp's

      "expanded spectrum of services" and its network of patient
      service centers";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as class
      counsel.

The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein fax
advertisements were sent to Plaintiff and the proposed Classes in
three broadcasts conducted on February 6, March 4 and April 17 this
year. Plaintiff is a member of all proposed Classes.

The Plaintiff received all three fax advertisements.  The class
action lawsuit alleges that the fax messages violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Faxes, which were "addressed" to no one, advertise the
commercial availability and/or quality of Defendants Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings and Laboratory Corporation of
America's laboratory services. The fax transmission logs produced
by LabCorp and examined by Plaintiff's expert Robert Biggerstaff
show that the three broadcasts resulted in 34,517 fully received
error-free transmissions of the Faxes.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Flooring Class Action for $30MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomi Kilgore, writing for MarketWatch, reports that Lumber
Liquidators Holdings Inc. disclosed on Oct. 2 it will pay up to $30
million as part of a settlement of a class-action suit over its
Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring that was purchased between Jan.
1, 2012 and March 15, 2019.

Under terms of the settlement, the company will contribute $14
million and cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers,
with a potential $2 million in additional store-credit vouchers.

The company said in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the settlement can be funded from cash flow and
existing liquidity sources. The stock, which was still inactive in
premarket trading, has lost 32.5% over the past 12 months, while
the S&P 500 SPX, +0.27% has gained 0.6%. [GN]

MACROGENICS INC: Hagens Berman Notes of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP reminds MGNX investors of a
securities fraud lawsuit filed against MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX).

CLASS PERIOD: Feb. 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: Nov. 12, 2019
Email: MGNX@hbsslaw.com
Visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/mgnx
Call: Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation:
510-725-3000

MGNX Securities Class Action:

According to the Complaint, Defendants concealed adverse
information obtained during MacroGenics' clinical trial evaluating
Margetuximab, a potential breast cancer treatment. Specifically, as
early as October 2018, Defendants knew but omitted to disclose that
(1) the progression-free survival ("PFS") of patients in the trial
was negligible, and (2) the overall survival ("OS") was not
statistically significant. The market learned the truth on June 4,
2019, when MacroGenics disclosed the lackluster PFS and OS results.
This news drove the price of MGNX shares sharply lower that day.

If you invested in MacroGenics between Feb. 6, 2019 and June 3,
2019 and suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000) you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff - one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case. Contact Hagens Berman immediately
to obtain additional information about this case or being a lead
plaintiff.

"We are focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants' statements may have been misleading," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
MacroGenics should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email MGNX@hbsslaw.com.

# # #

              About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, Esq.
Tel: 510-725-3000
Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]


MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Remand Simon Suit to State Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Southern Division, denied Simons' Motion to Remand the
case captioned ARYEH SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. PWG-19-2879, No.
PWG-19-1792 (D. Md.), to the Connecticut state court.

Plaintiffs Aryeh and Sassya Simon, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed the lawsuit in a Connecticut state
court seeking permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages from
the Defendants for claims arising out of the data breach incident
that is the subject of the Multidistrict Litigation against
Marriott pending before the District Court, In re Marriott, No.
PWG-19-2879.

Another litigant, Melissa Frank, filed a suit against Marriott in a
Connecticut state court   on behalf of American citizens who live
abroad and whose Personal Information was accessed, compromised, or
stolen in the Marriott Data Breach.  Marriott removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Marriott argued the court had diversity jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act, because there was likely one person in
Frank's action domiciled in the United States in a state other than
Delaware or Maryland, where Marriott is a citizen, and therefore
CAFA's requirement of minimal diversity was met.  The next day, the
plaintiff's counsel voluntarily dismissed Frank.  The same counsel
then filed the instant action on behalf of Plaintiff Aryeh Simon,
et al., again in Connecticut state court.

The Simons seek to represent all U.S. citizens who are domiciled
abroad and whose Personal Information was compromised, accessed, or
stolen in the Marriott Data Breach.  Marriott removed the suit to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), based on diversity jurisdiction under
CAFA, and sought its inclusion into the Marriott MDL.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred it to the District
Court for inclusion in the MDL, despite the Simons' efforts to keep
the action in state court.

The Simons have filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that the District
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action
because CAFA's minimal diversity requirement is not met.   The
Simons do not challenge the Defendants' assertions in their notice
of removal that CAFA's requirements for numerosity (100
plaintiffs), and amount-in-controversy ($5 million), are both met.
Therefore, the only issue here is whether minimal diversity exists
under CAFA.

Judge Grimm agrees with Marriott's argument that the District Court
has jurisdiction nonetheless because federal jurisdiction already
attached to two CAFA class actions in this MDL before the Simons
filed their suit, that broadly defined their classes as all persons
whose personal identifying information was accessed, compromised,
or stolen from Marriott because of the data breach.  

Judge Grimm further agrees with Marriott that because the Simons'
complaint was filed after both Mendez v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. and
Trager v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., and the opening of the Marriott
MDL, the Court already had jurisdiction over the Simons' claims
through the Marriott MDL.  He also agrees that, because there is
evidence that the Simons' complaint is an attempt to skirt federal
jurisdiction and CAFA's efficiency goals, and because the Simons
are, in essence, trying to divest the District Court over class
members whose claims properly are before it, the District Court has
authority to deny the Simons' motion to remand in order to maintain
its existing jurisdiction.

While the old chestnut that the Plaintiff is the "master of the
complaint" is true, there are limits to that sovereignty.  Judge
Grimm holds that allowing the Simons to manipulate CAFA would be
harmful because it could disrupt the orderly progress of the
pretrial process in the Marriott MDL.  While the Simons' action was
pending in the District of Connecticut, they tried to force
Marriott to file an answer immediately, in contradiction to the
schedule set by the Court; refused to agree to a stay while the
case was transferred to the Marriott MDL; and objected to an
extension of time, resulting in Marriott filing an emergency
motion.  Harm to the putative class members and the Defendants is
exactly what MDLs seek to avoid by streamlining the litigation
process and encouraging settlement.  Hence, granting the Motion to
Remand would open the door for possibly inconsistent verdicts, as
well as duplicative costs to both the Defendants and the putative
class members, the District Court notes.

Next, a plaintiff's ability to amend a complaint to avoid federal
jurisdiction is limited by the principle of fraudulent joinder.
Judge Grimm finds that what the Simons are attempting to do is
analogous to what the fraudulent joinder rule prohibits, and
further militates against granting a remand to state court.  In
fraudulent joinder cases, the district court may retain
jurisdiction over cases that it would be forced to remand if the
court were bound to determine its jurisdiction by the face of the
Plaintiff's pleadings alone.  The policy which the fraudulent
joinder rule promotes is no less applicable in the instant case.

Finally, an action involving an MDL defendant could be legitimately
subject to state court jurisdiction and not within the purview of
federal jurisdiction.  Moreover, coordination is not feasible if
the schedule in the state court case interferes with the schedule
in the MDL -- a circumstance likely to occur here if a remand is
ordered, given the tactics previously employed by the Simons while
their case was pending in Connecticut.

For these reasons, Judge Grimm denies the Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/LYyWRw from
Leagle.com.

Aryeh Simon, on behalf of themselves and all others similary
situated & Sassya Simon, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Claiborne Hane --
chane@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price 7 Hecht
Llp, Deborah H. Renner, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP,
Theodore Joel Folkman -- tfolkman@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce
Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht Llp, Thomas Warren --
twarren@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &
Hecht Llp & William Geraci -- wgeraci@piercebainbridge.com --
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht Llp.

Marriott International Inc & Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
LLC, Defendants, represented by Daniel R. Warren --
dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice,
Gilbert S. Keteltas -- gketeltas@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and
Hostetler LLP & Lisa M. Ghannoum -- lghannoum@bakerlaw.com -- Baker
and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


MATCH GROUP: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of all investors that purchased Match
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) securities between August 6, 2019 and
September 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
December 2, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On September 25, 2019, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
that it had sued Match.com for, among other things, using
artificial love interest ads to deceive consumers into buying or
upgrading subscriptions, failing to resolve disputed charges, and
intentionally making it difficult to cancel subscriptions.

On this news, the company's share price fell $1.39 per share, or
nearly 2%, to close at $71.44 per share on September 25, 2019.

The complaint, filed October 3, 2019, 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 used fake love interest ads to convince customers to
buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) that the company made it
difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel their
subscriptions; (3) that, as a result, the company was reasonably
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) that the company
lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) that,
as a result, defendants positive statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Match Group securities during the Class Period,
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Match Group lawsuit, please
go to https://bespc.com/mtch. For additional information about
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com, walker@bespc.com,
                fortunato@bespc.com
[GN]



MATCH GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on October 3, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas against Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MTCH). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 6, 2019 through September 25, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-match-group-inc/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Match Group,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, December 2, 2019 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

        Robin Hester
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
        Website: www.federmanlaw.com
[GN]



MATCH GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cadence-bankcorporation-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Cadence Bancorporation made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk;
(2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans posed an increased
risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to
incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) the Company's
financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Cadence Bancorporation class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH)
Class Period: August 6, 2019 - September 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/match-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: During the class period, Match Group, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company used fake love interest ads to
convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) the
Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel
their subscriptions; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked
adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Match Group, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Waitr Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: WTRH)
Class Period: on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Waitr Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings—such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses—both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

To learn more about the Waitr Holdings Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

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



MEADOWS FOUNDATION: O'Brien Employment Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled ALLISON O'BRIEN and NEVIN
OLSON and all similarly situated past, present and future persons
employed and/or housed by Meadows Foundation, Inc. v. MEADOWS
FOUNDATION, INC., SUE ANN DERKACH, NAT CLYMER, ROBERT METTLER,
JANET STEINHAUER, THERESA THORSON, JOANNA ROSE, JOHN/JANE DOES
#1-10, THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, jointly severally and
individually, Case No. SOM-L-1100-19, was removed on Oct. 2, 2019,
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-18626 to the
proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege various causes of action
regarding their alleged unlawful discharge from Defendant Meadow's
Foundation Inc.'s employment, and alleged discrimination in housing
based on familial status, including alleged violations of the
federal law known as 42 U.S.C. Section 3604, et seq.  The
Plaintiffs also allege violation of the Equal Protection Clause in
the United States Constitution.[BN]

Defendants Meadows Foundation, Inc., Sue Ann Derkach, Nat Clymer,
Robert Mettler, Janet Steinhauer, Theresa  Thorson and Joanna Rose
are represented by:

          Kevin C. Donovan, Esq.
          Anne M. Dalena, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          200 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0668
          Telephone: (973) 624-0800
          Facsimile: (973) 624-0808
          E-mail: kevin.donovan@wilsonelser.com
                  anne.dalena@wilsonelser.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned TERRY HAMM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC, Defendant. Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Terry Hamm and Bryce Meeker bring various consumer
protection claims predicated on allegations that Defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) knew of and actively concealed
defects in vehicle transmission systems. The alleged defect caused
their vehicles to enter limp mode in which their vehicles could not
shift or accelerate. Plaintiffs allege that MBUSA knew of the
defect but failed to disclose it, thereby violating the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act
(KCPA).

MBUSA moves for summary judgment, contending that because
Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles used from sellers other than
MBUSA, neither was involved in a transaction with MBUSA so as to
trigger MBUSA's duty to disclose any defect under California or
Kansas law. MBUSA also contends that there is no evidence of
reliance. MBUSA separately contends that Plaintiff Meeker cannot
invoke the KCPA because he purchased his vehicle in Illinois, not
Kansas.

Hamm's CLRA And UCL Claims: Duty to Disclose

The CLRA prohibits deceptive acts and practices undertaken by any
person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the
sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.

Hamm's SAC alleges that MBUSA violated section 1770(a)(5) by
representing that its goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which
they do not have by representing that its goods or services are of
a particular standard, quality, or grade, if they are of another,
by advertising goods and services with the intent not to sell them
as advertised, by representing that its subscription service
confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does
not have or involve, by representing that the subject of a
transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous
representation when it has not.  

The UCL prohibits business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2)
unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.
The SAC alleges that MBUSA's actions were unlawful in that they
violated the CLRA. The SAC also alleges that MBUSA's marketing and
sale of the subject vehicles without disclosing the alleged defect
when MBUSA knew of the defect amounts to a deceptive business
practice. The SAC further alleges that MBUSA intentionally
concealed its knowledge of the defect. Although the SAC alleges
affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, the parties'
respective briefs treat Hamm's claims as entirely omissions-based
claims.

Omissions may give rise to liability under both the CLRA and UCL.
Here, Hamm's theory of liability against MBUSA is straightforward:
MBUSA, as the manufacturer, had a duty to disclose the alleged
defect in their used vehicles' transmission systems because the
alleged defect poses an unreasonable safety risk. The issue raised
by MBUSA's motion, however, is not as straightforward: to whom this
duty of disclosure is owed.

MBUSA contend that it does not owe a duty to disclose to Hamm
because there was no "relationship" between MBUSA and Hamm to
trigger such a duty. MBUSA emphasizes that Hamm did not purchase
his vehicle directly from MBUSA or from an authorized Mercedes-Benz
dealership. Moreover, MBUSA contends that the law does not impose a
duty to do the impossible. MBUSA reasons that MBUSA had no ability
to make disclosures to Hamm because he (1) is the fourth owner of
his vehicle (2) bought it after it was marketed and sold by MBUSA
(3) bought it from a Toyota dealership and (4) never looked at any
vehicle brochures, marketing materials or other publications by
MBUSA.

In response, Hamm contends that the nature of the alleged defect
imposed a duty to disclose, regardless of the lack of any
relationship between Hamm and MBUSA. Hamm reasons that if he proves
a defect known to MBUSA that either poses a safety risk or that
goes to an essential function of the car, then California holds
that MBUSA has a duty to disclose the defect.

Duty to Disclose Unreasonable Safety Risk

This court concludes that under California law, a manufacturer has
a duty to disclose a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk
even if that manufacturer did not have a transactional relationship
with the vehicle owner.

That Hamm and MBUSA did not have a transactional relationship is
not fatal to Hamm's claim. In Seifi, the plaintiffs purchased used
vehicles which they alleged had defective balance shaft gears. In
addressing the CLRA claim in the context of a motion to dismiss,
the Seifi, Seifi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 12-5493-TEH, 2013
WL 2285339, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), court stated:

MBUSA counters that in each of the used vehicles cases relied upon
by Hamm, Seifi and Chamberlan, Chamberlan, 369 F. Supp. 2d at 1144,
the manufacturer had some relationship with the plaintiffs because
the vehicle was purchased from an authorized dealership or had been
at some point covered by an express warranty. Hamm disputes MBUSA's
assertion, citing to the underlying record in each case; however,
Hamm's record citations are not necessarily inconsistent with
MBUSA's position. In Seifi, the complaint alleged that Mr. Seifi
purchased his car third hand and not from an MBUSA
factory-authorized dealer. Left unanswered is whether Mr. Seifi's
car was covered by a factory warranty, even though he purchased it
third hand.

In Chamberlan, defendant manufacturer, Ford, opposed class
certification, asserting that the proposed class representatives
purchased their vehicles used and "not from Ford. Ford's
representation, however, does not necessarily mean that the named
plaintiffs did not purchase their vehicles from an authorized
dealership acting as an agent of Ford. Putting aside these
discrepancies, what is clear is that under Seifi and Chamberlan, a
transactional relationship is not required for a plaintiff to
assert UCL and CLRA claims against a manufacturer. Moreover, other
cases cited by Hamm hold that a downstream purchaser such as Hamm
may assert a claim for failure to disclose an unreasonable safety
risk against a car manufacturer.  

Duty to Disclose Under Rutledge

Hamm contends that Rutledge imposes a separate duty to disclose on
MBUSA that is independent of any unreasonable safety risk. Because
the court finds that MBUSA had a duty to disclose an unreasonable
safety risk, it is unnecessary for the court to consider
Plaintiffs' duty to disclose theory under Rutledge for purposes of
deciding MBUSA's motion for summary judgment.

Reliance

MBUSA next contends that the CLRA and UCL claims fail because Hamm
cannot establish reliance. In response, Hamm contends that he is
not required to show reliance. Hamm draws a distinction between a
duty to disclose claim based upon a partial representation theory,
where a plaintiff must show reliance, and a claim based upon
nondisclosure of a material fact, such as a safety issue as alleged
in the present case. Hamm contends that reliance is required for
the first type of claim, but not for the second, citing Falk v.
General Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).

Hamm's reading of Falk is inaccurate. In Falk, GM truck owners
alleged that GM had a duty to disclose that their trucks'
speedometers were defective. The Falk court held that plaintiffs
had adequately stated a claim of fraud by omission, and in doing so
specifically addressed the justifiable reliance element of the
fraud by omission claim. Thus, contrary to Hamm's assertion, Falk
confirms that a plaintiff must establish reliance to prevail on a
fraud by omission claim. The Falk court concluded that the reliance
element was easily satisfied by plaintiffs' allegation that a
reasonable customer would not have paid the asking price had it
been disclosed that the speedometer was defective.

Here, MBUSA's argument is essentially that Hamm cannot satisfy the
first of the two sub-elements of reliance, namely that had MBUSA
disclosed the alleged defect, Hamm would have been aware of it.
MBUSA's position is well supported. Hamm purchased his vehicle
fourth-hand from a Toyota dealership. Hamm never reviewed any sales
brochures or advertising materials, or any other materials
published by MBUSA, regarding the 7-year-old used 2006 CLK350 prior
to or at the time of sale. He never talked to anyone from MBUSA or
from a Mercedes-Benz dealership) about his prospective purchase. A
reasonable jury could find based on these facts that even if MBUSA
had disclosed the alleged defect, Hamm would not have been aware of
it, and therefore MBUSA is not liable for the alleged CLRA and UCL
violations.  

Hamm, however, has presented evidence from which a reasonable jury
could infer that he would have been aware of the alleged defect.
When Hamm saw the 2006 CLK350 on the Toyota dealership lot, he used
his cell phone to search for information on various websites,
including Cars.com, Edmunds and the usual suspects. Hamm also
looked at a couple of magazines and may have looked at Car & Driver
and others.  

In addition, the dealership provided Hamm with information about
the vehicle. In sum, a genuine issue of material facts precludes
summary judgment on Hamm's claims.

Meeker's KCPA Claim

MBUSA contends that Meeker's KCPA claim fails because, among other
things, he cannot show the existence of a Kansas consumer
transaction. The court agrees.

The KCPA provides that no supplier shall engage in any deceptive
act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. A
consumer transaction is defined as a sale, lease, assignment or
other disposition for value of property or services within this
state to a consumer or a solicitation by a supplier with respect to
any of these dispositions.

Here, Meeker's transaction did not take place within the state of
Kansas. Meeker testified that when he was in Chicago, Leydon made
an offer, I accepted and I drove the vehicle home. Prior to Meeker
leaving Chicago to return home to Kansas, Leydon gave Meeker the
used 2007 C230, its title, and all of its keys. As a matter of law,
title to the used 2007 C230 passed to Meeker in Illinois when
Leydon tendered the vehicle to him there.  

Meeker does not challenge the general principle that title passes
when delivery is made, but argues that no contract of sale was made
and no consideration given until after Meeker and the car were in
Kansas. Meeker analogizes his exchange with Leydon in Chicago as
that of a driver delivering a car to a valet, and argues that the
exchange did not result in a transfer of title.

Further, Meeker contends that no agreement to sell the car was even
negotiated until Meeker was in Kansas. That agreement, along with
Meeker's payment made from Kansas pursuant to the agreement,
encompassed the transaction. Meeker emphasizes that he did not
execute a bill of sale or pay for the vehicle until after he
returned to Kansas. Meeker also asserts that he did not feel he had
an agreement to buy the car while he was in Illinois.

Meeker's subjective understanding is inconsistent with Leydon
giving Meeker possession of the vehicle, keys, and title and Leydon
permitting Meeker to drive the vehicle hundreds of miles away from
Chicago. There is also no evidence that Meeker ever communicated
his subjective understanding to Leydon. The transaction occurred in
Illinois.  

Because Meeker did not engage in a transaction within Kansas, his
KCPA claim fails.  

Plaintiffs' Motion Violates The One-Way Intervention Rule

MBUSA contends that Plaintiffs' cross-motion violates the one-way
intervention rule because it seeks to establish liability before
class certification. Plaintiffs counter that there is no one-way
intervention bar because MBUSA opted to move for summary judgment
before class certification, citing this court's decision in Villa
v. San Francisco Fort-Niners, Ltd., 104 F.Supp.3d 1017, 1022 (N.D.
Cal. 2015).

Plaintiffs' reliance on Villa is misplaced. In Villa, this court
held that the one-way intervention rule applied and denied the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability.  

The present case is in the same posture as Villa: the court has not
yet ruled on class certification. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue
that the court should proceed with Plaintiffs' motion because the
rationale for a one-way intervention rule] disappears when the
defendant himself moves for summary judgment before a decision on
class certification. Plaintiffs have plucked this sentence from
Villla out of context. In Villa this court explained immediately
after the quoted sentence that in such a situation, only the
slender reed of stare decisis stands between the defendant and the
prospective onrush of litigants.

In other words, when a defendant proceeds with a motion for summary
judgment, the defendant proceeds at its peril, knowing that it may,
in the absence of class certification, face the onrush of litigants
who will not be bound by the summary judgment ruling. Therefore,
the rationale for a one-way intervention rule disappears when the
defendant moves for summary judgment before class certification.
When read in context, the stand-alone sentence from Villa relied on
by Plaintiffs does not support their argument.

Accordingly, MBUSA's motion for summary judgment is granted as to
Meeker's KCPA claim and denied in all other respects.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2ptowsp from Leagle.com.

Terry Hamm & Charlie A Jacquo-Stevenson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael D. Braun -mdb@braunlawgroup.com - Braun Law Group, P.C.,
Roy Arie Katriel - rak@katriellaw.com -  The Katriel Law Firm &
Gary S. Graifman - ggraifman@kgglaw.com - Kantrowitz Goldhamer &
Graifman, P.C.

Bryce Meeker, Plaintiff, represented by Gary S. Graifman ,
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Roy Arie Katriel , The
Katriel Law Firm.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino , Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, 275 Battery Street, Suite
2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Eric J. Knapp -
eric.knapp@squirepb.com - Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Scott
Jefferson Carr , Carroll Burdick and McDonough LLP, 44 Montgomery
Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104-4606


MERCK & CO: SLUSA Don't Preclude Individual Actions, 3rd Cir. Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to NatLawReview, in North Sound Capital, LLC v. Merck &
Co, Inc., No. 18-2317, 2019 WL 4309663, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27518
(3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit reversed a New Jersey district court ruling,
which held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1998 ("SLUSA") precluded state law claims in lawsuits brought by
investors who opted-out of class action lawsuits. In reversing, the
Third Circuit determined that the opt-out plaintiffs could indeed
bring their state law fraud claims against the same defendants as
the class-action lawsuits because their subsequently filed suits
did not fall within the definition of a "covered class action"
under SLUSA. The decision provides helpful guidance as to whether
investors who choose to opt-out of class action lawsuits may be
precluded under SLUSA from proceeding with individual lawsuits
seeking similar relief.

Investors filed class-action suits against drug manufacturers for
alleged attempts to conceal unfavorable clinical test results
regarding two cholesterol drugs. The district court granted class
certification after the investors' claims survived defendants'
motions to dismiss. Ultimately, the cases settled.

Certain institutional investors opted-out of the class actions and
subsequently filed their own suits alleging similar claims and an
additional fraud claim under New Jersey state law. Defendants moved
to dismiss on the grounds that the settled class actions and
opt-out suits were "joined, consolidated or otherwise proceed[ed]
as a single action for any purpose" under SLUSA. SLUSA precludes
(with some exceptions) investors from litigating state-law
securities fraud claims through a "covered class action." SLUSA's
definition of a "covered class action" includes a "mass action"
provision that bars lawsuits predicated on state-law claims that:
"(1) are filed in or pending in the same court; (2) involve common
legal or factual questions; (3) seek damages for more than 50
persons; and (4) are joined, consolidated, or otherwise proceed as
a single action for any purpose."

The district court dismissed. It concluded that the claims were
barred under SLUSA because Congress did not explicitly exempt
opt-out suits under SLUSA, and because SLUSA's legislative history
required the definition of "covered class action" to be construed
broadly. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Third Circuit's decision turned on whether the class actions
and subsequent opt-out suits were "joined, consolidated, or
otherwise proceed[ed] as a single action for any purpose." The
Appellate Court concluded that because plaintiffs' suits and the
prior class actions did not overlap or exist at the same time,
there was no "actual coordination" between them, and therefore, the
suits did not "proceed as a single action for any purpose." The
majority opinion made clear that "we do not read the single action
requirement to mean that cases must be coextensive with one another
but rather that they be at least partially coordinated, which would
seem invariably to require that they coincide for some period."

Dissenting, Judge Patty Schwartz interpreted the "covered class
action" language more broadly and concluded that the district court
correctly dismissed plaintiffs' complaints under SLUSA's preclusion
provision. Judge Schwartz observed that by filing "nearly identical
complaints" to the class actions, the plaintiffs enjoyed the
benefits of the class action device to obtain discovery and the
"fruits of all of the pretrial activities" before opting out, and
thus plaintiffs "created the foundation" for SLUSA's bar.

The Third Circuit's decision provides a degree of safe-harbor under
SLUSA for investors who choose to opt-out of class action lawsuits,
and instead proceed with individual state-law claims seeking
similar relief, so long as there is no "actual coordination"
between the class action and individual lawsuits. In particular,
the Third Circuit found that there can be "no occasion for actual
coordination if suits never overlap in time." The majority's
opinion specifically indicated that the decision does not conflict
with any circuit decision to have considered the single-action
requirement, suggesting that U.S. Supreme Court review is unlikely.
[GN]


MISSOURI: Turtle Island Files Appeal in Suit v. State Prosecutors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Island Foods, SPC, doing business as The Tofurky Company,
and The Good Food Institute, Inc., have taken an interlocutory
appeal from the district court ruling in their lawsuit against Mark
Richardson, in his official capacity as Cole County Prosecuting
Attorney and on behalf of a defendant class of all Missouri
Prosecuting Attorneys.

In the class action lawsuit styled as TURTLE ISLAND FOODS, SPC, ET
AL., the Plaintiffs, v. MARK RICHARDSON, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-CV-04173 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
entered an order on Sept. 30, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;

   3. granting Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order;

   4. granting motion to withdraw as Attorney;

   5. denying as moot Joint Motion to stay; and

   6. directing parties to confer regarding dates for an Amended
      Scheduling Order and to submit a proposal for an Amended
      Scheduling Order.

The appeal was filed Oct. 4 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, captioned as Turtle Island Foods, SPC, et al v.
Mark Richardson, Case No. 0:19-cv-03154 (8th Cir.)[CC]

MYRIAD GENETICS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP is announcing that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court of Utah on
behalf of those who acquired Myriad Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYGN)
securities during the period from September 2, 2016 through August
13, 2019.  Investors have until November 26, 2019 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

This lawsuit alleges that Myriad and certain of its officers and/or
directors have violated federal securities laws and/or engaged in
other unlawful business practices pertaining to one of Myriad's
most important products, GeneSight. The GeneSight Psychotropic test
is a $2,000 genetic test that helps guide treatment of individuals
with major depressive disorder or anxiety disorders. The test helps
pinpoint drugs patients are more likely to respond to. On August 1,
2019, the Company announced that insurer United Healthcare would
begin covering the GeneSight Psychotropic test on October 1, 2019.
This tends to signal commercial success of a medical product. This
is just one example of Myriad's continual positive representations
regarding the success of the GeneSight test. On this same day, four
officers, Mark Christopher Capone, CEO, Gary A. King, VP, Richard
Bryan Riggsbee, CFO, and Bernard Tobin, an officer, sold
significant amounts of stock. In total, insiders sold 233,712
shares on August 1, 2019, making between $9,900,380 and
$10,305,380.

However, in a 10-K filed on August 13, 2019, Myriad reported that
the FDA had requested changes to its GeneSight test. Additionally,
the Company reported lower than expected fourth quarter earnings,
with a loss of $4.2 million, or 6 cents per share. This fall was
attributed to reduced reimbursement for multiple tests, including
GeneSight, Vecta, and hereditary cancer tests. The following day,
multiple analysts downgraded their ratings of Myriad Genetics,
leading to a further price drop. On this news, prices fell from a
close of $44.55 on August 13 to close at $25.50 on August 14, 2019
(a decline of $19.05). If the insiders had sold on August 14, just
two weeks after their actual sales, they would have made only 60%
of what they made on August 1.

If you are a shareholder of Myriad, have information about these
matters, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Mark A. Strauss of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

         Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
                 mstrauss@kmllp.com  
[GN]



MYRIAD GENETICS: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)
between September 2, 2016 and August 13, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 26, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action, go
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=myriad-genetics-inc&id=2034
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=myriad-genetics-inc&id=2034.


According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose: (1) GeneSight lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (2) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (3)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (4) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl – and thereby, Foresight – caused the Company to incur
the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded
carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually
did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue (5) as a result, Myriad'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 has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  Attorney
Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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


NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Tosses Perta Credit Repair Case
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned REBECCA
PERTA, individually and on behalf of the class members described
below, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT CARE CORPORATION; CREDIT-RX,
INC.; and FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-5767. (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Rebecca Perta sought help in repairing her credit from
Defendant National Credit Care Corporation (NCC) and Defendant
Credit-RX, Inc. (Credit-RX). She alleges, among other things, that
those defendants misrepresented their services, charged her for
services prematurely, and fraudulently sent documents to credit
reporting agencies. Plaintiff filed a purported class action
complaint, bringing four claims against NCC and Credit-RX under the
Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA), the Illinois Credit Services
Organization Act (CSOA), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and one claim against a
surety bond issued by Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland
(FDCM). NCC and FDCM moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) Plaintiff
lacks Article III and statutory standing because she failed to
allege a concrete injury (2) the complaint fails to meet the
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and (3) the complaint
fails to state a claim under the CROA and CSOA.

For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is granted
and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because it fails to allege a concrete injury as
required for Article III standing. The dismissal is without
prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint by October
28, 2019. This case is set for further status hearing on November
5, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

Legal Standard

When ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, a district court must accept as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the plaintiff. On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, as with a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, the court must also consider documents attached to the
complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and
referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper
judicial notice, along with additional facts set forth in the
non-movant's brief opposing dismissal, so long as those facts are
consistent with the pleadings.

Article III Standing

The elements of standing are well settled: the plaintiff must
allege an injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant's
conduct and redressable by a favorable judicial decision.

The first argument in the motion to dismiss involves the
injury-in-fact requirement, which the Supreme Court has described
as the first and foremost element of standing.  An injury in fact
is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.

The question here is whether Plaintiff has alleged that she
suffered or faced a real risk of suffering a concrete harm. An
alleged harm need not be tangible to be concrete, but it must be
real and not abstract.

It is somewhat difficult to identify specific injuries based solely
on the complaint, so Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to
dismiss helpfully proposes four. After analyzing the complaint for
plausible injuries-in-fact, the Court addresses each in turn and
concludes that the existing complaint does not plead concrete
injuries sufficient to confer Article III standing on Plaintiff.

The unlawful down payment

The complaint does not plead any harm or appreciable risk of harm
to Plaintiff as a result of this alleged statutory violation. It
does not, for example, assert that NCC never provided credit report
consulting and analysis services, or that the services were somehow
deficient. Nor does the complaint state that Plaintiff would have
canceled the CSA if NCC had waited the statutorily-required three
days before charging her. As filed, the complaint makes out only a
bare procedural violation for the $189 charge, and that is not
enough to confer Article III standing on Plaintiff.  

The monthly charges

Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of all monthly charges that she
paid to Defendants for Defendants' misrepresentations regarding
both the substance and efficacy of their services. While this looks
more like a request for damages rather than a description of an
injury, the Court construes it as an argument that each monthly
payment of $69 the complaint does not say how many there were was
an injury, because NCC and Credit-RX misrepresented their
services.

This proposed injury suffers the same problem as the previous one.
While the complaint does allege that Plaintiff began paying NCC and
Credit-RX a monthly fee, it does not contain further factual
allegations to demonstrate that the payments harmed Plaintiff. For
example, the complaint does not say that NCC and Credit RX did not
actually cause inaccurate entries on Plaintiff's credit report to
be removed, or that her credit score did not improve. Even
accepting that NCC and Credit-RX misrepresented their services as
the Court must at this stage in the litigation the complaint does
not plead the consequences of the misrepresentations, and it does
not establish an invasion of a legally protected interest.

As a result, paying the monthly charges, as pled in the complaint,
does not constitute a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing
for Article III purposes.

The opportunity to have genuine subsequent disputes reviewed by
CRAs

The Seventh Circuit has stated that Article III's injury
requirement is met when a plaintiff alleges that she was deprived
of a chance to obtain a benefit. Plaintiff seems to rely on that
principle in arguing that as a result of Defendants' repeated
disputes of trade lines as generically inaccurate on Ms. Perta's
consumer reports, she is divested of the opportunity to have
genuine subsequent disputes reviewed by CRAs, and this lost
opportunity constitutes an injury.

Plaintiff's assertions in the brief may or may not be right, but
crucially they are not in the complaint. The complaint does not
contain allegations about lost opportunity for future disputes,
CRAs policies or practices regarding rejecting disputes, or
Plaintiff's desires to dispute inaccurate credit information in the
future. Because the complaint does not allege these facts,
Plaintiff cannot rely on them now and cannot use the opposition
brief to set them in front of the Court. It is a basic principle
that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition
to a motion to dismiss.  

Plaintiff's lost opportunity theory thus cannot at this time be
considered an injury for Article III standing purposes.

Informational injuries

The complaint does not allege that Plaintiff was entitled by law to
obtain certain information, or review it for a substantive purpose,
or that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with that
information. To be sure, it alleges, generally, that Defendants
made misrepresentations about their services, and that Defendants
withheld certain information from Plaintiff, including that
creditors may refuse to ignore disputes from credit repair
organizations and credit bureaus may refuse to process repeated
disputes. And there are many laws that attempt to protect a
consumer's right to transact business free from fraudulent
statements and omissions. But Plaintiff has not pled that Defendant
denied her access to information that was subject to disclosure and
that she was entitled to review by law.  

Nor has Plaintiff cited precedent stating that CROA or CSOA or ICFA
entitles citizens to obtain and review certain information for some
substantive purpose, as the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act do. Furthermore, post-Spokeo
cases in the Seventh Circuit have tended not to expand the category
of informational injuries.

The complaint does not plead facts sufficient to establish an
informational injury, and the opposition brief does not cite law
allowing this Court to conclude that Defendant's purported
misrepresentations or omissions fall into that category of harms.
The alleged informational injury, as pled, is not sufficient to
establish Article III standing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxbev8ne from Leagle.com.

Rebecca Perta, individually and on behalf of the class members
described below, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur C. Czaja , Law
Office of Arthur C. Czaja, 7521 N Milwaukee Ave, Niles, IL 60714 &
Steven J. Uhrich , Uhrich Law, P.C.,1 N. State Street, Suite 1500,
Chicago, IL 60602.

National Credit Care Corporation & Fidelity & Deposit Company of
Maryland, Defendants, represented by Francis A. Citera -
citeraf@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP., John F. Gibbons -
gibbonsj@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP. & Jason B. Elster -
elsterj@gtlaw.com -  Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Credit-RX, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert F. Ferolie , Law
Offices of Albert F. Ferolie, P.C., 218 N Jefferson St Ste 401,
Chicago, IL, 60661-1291.

NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hills Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOIYA HILLS, FREDRICKA WASHINGTON, and RUPA DHAKAL
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL P. HEIN, as Commissioner of the New York
State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01240 (BKS/CFH) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Brenda K.
Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs Hills, Washington, and Dhakal filed the putative class
action against Defendant Hein, the Commissioner for the New York
State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA"), on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.  The Plaintiffs bring the action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, alleging that the Defendant violated their Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process rights.

The Social Security Administration ("SSA") provides Supplemental
Security Income ("SSI") to indigent blind, aged, or disabled
individuals.  The Social Security Act allows states to supplement
the federal SSI payment with a regular monthly cash payment derived
from state funds.  Until Oct. 1, 2014, the SSA administered New
York's State Supplement Program ("SSP") program and the New York
SSP benefit was included as one payment issued by SSA with the
federal SSI payment.  After that date, with limited exceptions, New
York's OTDA took over administration of the SSP program.

The SSA also provides Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSD")
benefits to disabled individuals who have made payments into the
Social Security system.  While individuals who are determined to be
disabled and eligible for SSI benefits are entitled to benefits
immediately, individuals entitled to SSD benefits are subject to a
five-month waiting period.  An individual applying for or receiving
SSP benefits has the right to request an administrative fair
hearing to appeal an action of the OTDA.

The Plaintiffs assert six Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claims.  They allege that the Defendant maintained a
policy, pattern and practice of: (1) failing to provide an adequate
written notice of denial of SSP benefits that identifies the months
for which the determination was made (First Cause of Action); (2)
failing to ensure that SSP benefits are provided to disabled
individuals who have prevailed in an administrative hearing, and
received a decision stating that determination of the SSP Unit to
deny them SSP benefits was in error (Second Cause of Action); (3)
disregarding administrative hearing decisions finding that the
denial of SSP benefits was in error and failing to ensure
compliance with fair hearing decisions (Third Cause of Action); (4)
closing compliance complaints without ensuring that the actions
directed in the fair hearing decision were "in fact performed"
(Fourth Cause of Action); (5) failing to provide adequate notices
to those who they denied SSP benefits (Fifth Cause of Action); and
(6) making a determination that the SSP Unit has complied with a
fair hearing decision without describing in writing the action that
the SSP Unit has taken to support that conclusion, (Sixth Cause of
Action).  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that:
(1) state post-deprivation remedies, namely, an Article 78
proceeding, are sufficient to protect the Plaintiffs' procedural
due process rights; and (2) the Court should abstain from
considering the Plaintiffs' claims, which implicate a complex state
regulatory scheme, under the Burford abstention doctrine.

As the Defendant does not otherwise challenge the Plaintiffs' due
process allegations, Judge Sannes does not analyze the sufficiency
of process under the remaining Mathews factors.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the availability of an
Article 78 proceeding is denied, the Court rules.

Turning to the Defendant's second ground for dismissal, Judge
Sannes finds that she need only determine whether the process the
Plaintiffs received comported with federal procedural due process
requirements, which may be done without meddling in the state
regulations or passing on the propriety of the outcome of the
Plaintiffs' application for SSP benefits.  Thus, Burford's
specificity of state regulatory scheme factor does not favor
abstention.  

With respect to the second factor, the necessity of discretionary
interpretation of state statutes, Judge Sannes holds that the Court
may examine the post-hearing process and the notices the Defendant
issued in order to evaluate the Plaintiffs' federal due process
claims.  There is, therefore, no need to give one or another
debatable construction to a state statute.  

Finally, there is no question that the subject-matter of the
litigation -- the processes surrounding State-funded,
State-administered benefit programs -- is "traditionally one of
state concern" or that the issuance of SSP benefits is of
"paramount importance" to the state.

Having considered the relevant factors, Judge Sannes concludes
that, on balance, they weigh against abstention and that the case
is not the "extraordinary case" that requires abstention.
Accordingly, she denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on
Burford abstention.

For these reasons, Judge Sannes denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/GjOlHJ from Leagle.com.

Toiya Hills, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Fredricka Washington, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Rupa Dhakal, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Susan
C. Antos -- santos@empirejustice.org -- Empire Justice Center &
Saima A. Akhtar, Empire Justice Center.

Michael P. Hein, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of
Temporary and Disability Assistance, Defendant, represented by
Helena Lynch, New York State Attorney General & Kyle W. Sturgess,
New York State Attorney General.


NEWFOUNDLAND: Class Suit for Abuse at Youth Homes Certified in Can.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that former residents of the Newfoundland Training
Schools are proceeding with a class-action lawsuit against the
government, as it was certified Oct. 4, 2019, at the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In it, the three representative plaintiffs allege they were
sexually abused as children or youths in the government-run Girls'
and Boys' homes in Whitbourne, and in Pleasantville and Waterford
Bridge Road in St. John's.

"We are very pleased that this case was certified as a
class-action. Many children were subjected to unspeakable cruelty
in institutions that were supposed to protect and educate them,"
said lawyer Lynn Moore, Esq. in a news release October 4 afternoon.


Moore is acting for the plaintiffs, and said the provincial
government consented to her application for class-action
certification. That certification is a "major procedural hurdle,"
she said.

"While we can never undo the harm or take away the pain, we are one
step closer to getting compensation for these people," said Moore,
roughly two years after starting the class-action process.

The sexual abuses were committed by employees, priests and
sometimes older children, according to Moore, and included
molestation, beatings while naked, and rape.

She said the next step in the lawsuit is noticing--or getting the
message about the case to people who were in the training schools.

Once the notice period is up, the case will move to a trial or
settlement.

In 2017, when Moore announced her firm would be pursuing the class
action, 15 people had come forward in addition to the four
representative plaintiffs involved at the time.

Moore said government was aware of the abuses inside the
institutions prior to 1955, but did nothing. [GN]




NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson's Class Cert. Bid Gets Partial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrea R. Wood granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned
ALAN CARLSON and PETER DELUCA v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SEVERANCE PLAN, Case No. 1:13-cv-02635 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Alan Carlson and Peter DeLuca have sued Defendants
Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Severance Plan,
challenging the Defendants' failure to pay cash severance benefits
to Plaintiffs and a putative class of similarly-situated former
employees pursuant to Defendants' ERISA-governed severance plan
("Plan").  The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All persons who worked for Northrop Grumman in the United
     States, were regularly scheduled to work over 20 hours per
     week, were laid off from Northrop Grumman from January 1,
     2012 and after, and who did not receive written notification
     from management or from a Vice President of Human Resources
     (or his/her designee) notifying them of their eligibility
     for severance benefits under the Plan and who did not
     receive the "Cash Portion" of the severance benefits
     (a.k.a. the Salary Continuation Benefits) under the terms of
     the Plan (regardless of whether they received Medical,
     Dental or Vision Benefits under the Plan), as well as the
     beneficiaries of such persons.

Excluded from the Proposed Class are:

   (1) employees specifically excluded from participation in the
       Plan as follows:

       (a) Employees of the Electronic Systems Sector who work at
           BWI, Annapolis, Sykesville (including FE&S employees
           and FE&S offsite offices and facilities), Troy Hill,
           Sunnyvale or Kings Bay;

       (b) Employees of the Technical Services Sector who are
           classified by Northrop Grumman as being in the
           following employment categories: (i) Service Contract
           Act (SCA) employees, (ii) Union Represented employees,
           (iii) Employees covered by a Memorandum of
           Understanding between the Technical Services Sector
           and Electronic Services Sector providing for the
           temporary assignment of the employee to the Technical
           Services Sector and retention of participation in the
           Electronic Services Sector employee benefit programs;

       (c) employees excluded from coverage as a result of
           participation in another Northrop Grumman severance
           benefit program, and

       (d) employees represented by a union whose collective
           bargaining agreement does not provide for
           participation in the Plan; and

   (2) any fiduciaries or other persons who had any decision
       making or administrative authority with respect to the
       Plan and the members of the immediate family of any such
       person.

Judge Wood opines that the Plaintiffs have not established that
their claims are typical of the Proposed Class.  But the Plaintiffs
may file a renewed motion for class certification with respect to
alleged interference with the Plan participants' rights (Count II),
if they are able to address the Court's concerns, Judge Wood
rules.

Judge Wood also states that the Plaintiffs have not met their
burden of satisfying the typicality requirement for Northrop
Grumman's alleged breach of fiduciary duties (Count III), as
Northrop's conduct with respect to the Plaintiffs might have been
different than its conduct towards other Proposed Class members.
However, the Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class
certification with respect to that count if they can address the
deficiencies.

The Court also rules that the Plaintiffs may proceed as class
representatives; Michael Bartolic, Esq., of Roberts Bartolic, LLP
and R. Joseph Barton, Esq., of Block and Leviton LLP are appointed
as co-lead class counsel.[CC]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Cert. Bid in Carlson Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Alan K. Carlson, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:13−cv−02635 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Andrea R. Wood entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A status hearing was set for Oct. 17, 2019, in the case.

Northrop Grumman is an American global aerospace and defense
technology company. With over 85,000 employees and an annual
revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest
weapons manufacturers and military technology providers.[CC]

OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismisses Lehmann Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GEORGE LEHMANN and INSURED BENEFIT PLANS,
INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., JASON SLAKTER, SAM
BACKENROTH, and IRACH TARAPOREWALA, Defendant, Case No. 18 Civ.
1284 (LAP) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Defendant's to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Lehmann and Insured Benefits commenced a securities
class action complaint against Ohr Pharmaceuticals Inc, et al.,
asserting claims of securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  They also allege violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Their claims stem from their
purchase of Ohr common stock.

In 2009, the Company purchased the rights to Squalamine, a drug
developed by a company called Genaera and derived from the liver of
the dogfish shark.  After purchasing Squalamine, the Company began
developing the drug to be delivered through an eye drop, as opposed
to Genaera's intravenous delivery method.  The Company's first
testing in humans was its phase II clinical trial in 2012 called
the "IMPACT Trial."  Prior to the results of the IMPACT Trial, the
Defendants allegedly misrepresented Squalamine by saying it
produced beneficial effects and significant improvement in best
corrected visual acuity.

The Plaintiffs point to three categories of misleading information
relating to the IMPACT Trial.  First, the Plaintiffs point to the
"Interim Results" that were announced by the Company in June 2014
and contained the first half of the patients enrolled in the IMPACT
Trial.  The results were allegedly misleading because in the prior
trials of Lucentis, patients gained a mean of 7.94 letters - 1.64
higher than the control arm announced in the Interim Results.

Second, they point to the final Classic Lesions Results of the
IMPACT Trial announced in March 2015.  The Company allegedly misled
investors because it failed to disclose the control arm once again
materially underperformed in the IMPACT Trial compared to the
results from past Lucentis trials.

Third, the Plaintiffs point to the final Occult Lesions Results
announced by the company in May 2015.  These suffer from the same
problem as the two data points, i.e., a failure to disclose that,
had the control group not materially underperformed in comparison
to historical trials, the results would not have been clinically
meaningful.

In January 2018, the Company announced the results of its phase III
MAKO Trial.  As the Plaintiffs characterize it, the results were an
utter disaster as patients in the treatment arm performed worse
than the control arm.  The Company's stock price subsequently
dropped 81.2%.  The Defendants are alleged to have had access to
the prior clinical trials that are relied on by the Plaintiffs to
show that the results touted by the Company were misleading.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for failure
to plead with the specified particularity and failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

On misrepresentation, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree
that what is at issue are opinions expressed by the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs' argument boils down to the assertion that the
IMPACT Trial's failure to perform consistently with prior
comparable studies necessitated the Company's providing more
context.

With respect to the interpretation of the interim and final IMPACT
Trial results, Judge Preska holds that there was no
misrepresentation.  The Defendant's omission is a failure to
include a fact that would have potentially undermined their
optimistic projections.  The Plaintiffs' attempt to analogize to
failures to disclose an illegal bribery scheme, a three-month long
Stop Work Order, and subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and information requests from the Department of
Justice, are unavailing, the District Court notes.

The Court notes that the Plaintiffs have certainly not established
that their definition of "clinically meaningful" is the definition
of the term. Such an establishment could come through other usage
in the industry or FDA regulations and requirements.  Additionally,
the term, as a matter of law, is not a statement of fact, but is
instead puffery, much like the term "success."

Judge Preska also holds that the Defendants' opinions regarding
Genaera's earlier studies are not actionable.  The Plaintiffs call
these opinions misleading because the Genaera trials did not
demonstrate Squalamine had a favorable biological effect, Genaera
terminated its development of the drug, and Genaera's trials for
Squalamine were inferior to those produced by Lucentis.  The Judge
will not adopt a rule that discourages free scientific inquiry in
the name of shielding investors from risks of failure.

With respect to scienter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
had access to omitted facts and information, namely other trial
data, that would have put their positive claims in the proper
context.  For the reasons she stated, Judge Preska rejects this
argument as establishing a misrepresentation.  She also rejects
knowledge of this information as establishing scienter.  Had the
MAKO Trial succeeded, which the Plaintiffs do not allege was out of
the realm of possibility as envisioned by the Defendants, then
there clearly would have been no scienter.  It cannot be the case
that ex ante intent is based on ex post results.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs do not allege any direct financial benefit to individual
Defendants but instead point to the Company's desire to "avoid
bankruptcy" as the Defendants' motive.

Accordingly, because neither scienter nor material
misrepresentation has been plead here, there is no Section 10(b)
violation, and because there is no primary violation, there is no
Section 20(a) violation.  The Judge does not reach the Defendants'
additional arguments.

For the reasons stated, Judge Preska grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.  She denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion to strike
various documents.  The Clerk of the Court shall mark the action
closed and deny all pending motions as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/dn97sb from Leagle.com.

George Lehmann & Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Richard William Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
-- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Dillon Hagius -- dhagius@faruqilaw.com --
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Megan Marie
Sullivan -- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Jeevesh Khanna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eduard Korsinsky -- ek@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Joyce Soll & Stephen Soll, Movants, represented by Nicholas Ian
Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Adele J. Bark, Lisa Karp, Debra Katz, Christopher Lyon & Farhan
Skaikh, Movants, represented by Thomas James McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.

Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., Jason Slakter, Sam Backenroth & Irach
Taraporewala, Defendants, represented by Aurora Cassirer --
aurora.cassirer@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Mary M. Weeks
-- mary.weeks@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP & Patrick
Morgan Ryan -- patrick.ryan@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.


OVERSTOCK.COM: November 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation
firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors of a
class action lawsuit filed against Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OSTK) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  Class members interested in serving as
lead plaintiff are required to move for appointment by November 26,
2019, and are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn
more.

The Complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Utah,
and captioned Benjamin Ha v. Overstock.com Inc., et. al.,
2:19-cv-00709 (D. Utah) alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.  Among other things, it is
alleged that the Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
transition to a crypto currency exchange provider and the related
tZERO offering of a crypto dividend was designed to artificially
inflate the price of Overstock's common stock by creating a "short
squeeze."  This alleged ruse allowed Patrick Byrne, the Company's
founder, to sell over $90 million in his privately held Overstock
shares at an inflated price while in possession of material
non-public information.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired OSTK securities in
between May 9, 2019 and September 23, 2019 of this year, and have
questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant
to this matter, you are encouraged to contact attorney Mark Delaney
at (617) 398-5600, by email at mdelaney@blockesq.com, or by
visiting http://shareholder.law/ostk.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:

BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
Mark Delaney
(617) 398-5600 phone
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
mark@blockesq.com
https://blockesq.com
[GN]


PENN DUTCH: Sacked Workers Without 60-Day Closure Notice, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Fleming, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Penn Dutch Food Center, Inc. and Penn Dutch Food
Center Ii, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-62358 (S.D. Fla.,
September 23, 2019), seeks recovery of compensation and benefit
plans, actual payroll checks for payment of wages/salary, vacation
benefits, deferred compensation and bonuses, including incentive
bonuses, severance and retention bonuses as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

In September 11, 2019, Penn Dutch, without warning, closed their
Hollywood and Margate plants without properly notifying its
employees, and without the mandatory 60 days advance written notice
of their termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORKY'S CABARET: Final Summary Judgment Bid in Dginguerian Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AIX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AMY
DGINGUERIAN, et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-24099-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman (S.D. Fla.), Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Summary Judgment.

The case is an insurance coverage dispute.  The
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant seeks summary judgment declaring its
Commercial Lines Policy does not provide coverage for the claims
asserted in an underlying lawsuit -- Dginguerian v. Porky's
Cabaret, Case No. 18-cv-22231 (S.D. Fla. filed June 5, 2018)
("Underlying Litigation") -- brought by the Model Defendants
against Cabaret.  Cabaret and the Model Defendants argue the Model
Defendants' claims are covered.

The Model Defendants commenced the Underlying Litigation against
Cabaret on June 5, 2018, each stating separate claims for (1)
violations of the Lanham Act, for "False Advertising" and "False
Endorsement" (Counts I and II); (2) violation of section 540.08,
Florida Statutes, "Right of Publicity" and "Unauthorized
Misappropriation of Name/Likeness" (Count III); (3) violation of
the "Common Law Right of Publicity" for "Unauthorized
Misappropriation of Name and Likeness" (Count IV); (4) conversion
(Count V); and (5) unjust enrichment (Count VI).

The Model Defendants claim Cabaret used their images to promote its
business without their authorization.  The parties agree the claims
of only one Model Defendant -- Sarah Underwood -- fall within the
time period covered by the Insurance Policy.  Ms. Underwood alleges
Cabaret posted a stolen image of her to its Facebook page on Aug.
26, 2014, to advertise for a "back to school party," implying Ms.
Underwood was a stripper at Cabaret.  She further alleges Xcitement
magazine posted an image of her on Aug. 26, 2014 as part of an
advertisement for Cabaret, insinuating Ms. Underwood was a stripper
for Cabaret.  According to Ms. Underwood, Cabaret did not seek
permission to use her image, and she was never hired by nor
compensated to advertise for Cabaret.

From Oct. 15, 2013 through Oct. 15, 2014, Cabaret was insured under
the Insurance Policy issued by the Plaintiff.  Under the Insurance
Policy, the Plaintiff must pay for damages the insured becomes
legally obligated to pay because of personal and advertising
injury.  The Plaintiff has the "right and duty to defend" the
insured against any action seeking damages for personal or
advertising injury.

Read together, coverage for personal advertising injury includes
damages arising from (1) oral or written publication that slanders
or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or
organization's goods, products or services; (2) violations of
privacy; (3) use of another's idea in the insured's advertisement;
and (4) copyright, trade dress or slogan infringement. And read
together, coverage for personal advertising injury excludes damages
arising from (1) patent, trade mark, and trade secret infringement;
and (2) other intellectual property rights.

The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment on May
17, 2019.  Neither Cabaret nor the Model Defendants filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.  On July 9, 2019, Cabaret filed
its Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's Motion requesting the Court denies in
its entirety the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Summary Judgement
and, instead, grants summary judgment to Cabaret and orders the
Plaintiff to defend and indemnify Cabaret in the Underlying
Litigation.  No party suggests there are any triable issues of
fact.

There are two questions before the Court: (1) whether Ms.
Underwood's allegations in the Underlying Complaint obligate the
Plaintiff to defend the Underlying Litigation; and if yes, (2)
whether the Plaintiff must defend all claims in the Underlying
Litigation.

Judge Altonaga construes the Underlying Complaint as containing
grounds for liability expressed by allegations of fact that are
sufficient to state a cause of action for defamation.  She finds
that read together, Ms. Underwood's allegations satisfy the
elements of a defamation claim under Florida law: (1) Cabaret made
a statement -- the advertisement; (2) that was false -- by
associating Ms. Underwood with Cabaret or the striptease lifestyle;
(3) to a third party -- any person who viewed the Facebook page;
(4) which has resulted in harm to Ms. Underwood's reputation by
"impugning her character."  That Ms. Underwood does not bring a
specific cause of action for "defamation" or "disparagement" does
not matter.  Analysis of the duty to defend turns on the fairly
read grounds for liability expressed by allegations of fact in the
underlying complaint -- not the specific label of the cause of
action.

The Plaintiff argued that Ms. Underwood's claims for violation of
her publicity rights are intellectual property claims subject to
the IP exclusion.  Judge Altonaga holds that despite the
allegations of publicity violations, Ms. Underwood's complaint
still sets forth grounds, other than those triggering the IP
exclusion, upon which the Plaintiff could be held liable.  Stated
otherwise, because the Underlying Complaint sets forth grounds for
a defamation claim and the Insurance Policy unambiguously covers
injury arising from "oral or written publication that slanders or
libels a person," the Plaintiff has a duty to defend.

Finally, because the Plaintiff has a duty to defend Ms. Underwood
given her allegations bring the Underlying Litigation within
coverage, Judge Altonaga holds that the Plaintiff must defend all
the Model Defendants claims.  Notably, the Plaintiffs duty to
defend exists only so long as the covered factual allegations
remain at issue.  If the covered claim falls out of the dispute,
the Plaintiff may withdraw from the defense.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Altonaga denies the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Summary Judgment.  The Plaintiff has a duty to
defend the Underlying Litigation.  Judgment will be entered by
separate order in favor of Cabaret and the Model Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HDrvmU from Leagle.com.

AIX Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Scott
Allen Markowitz -- smarkowitz@dldlawyers.com -- DeMahy, Labrador,
Drake, Victor, Payne & Cabeza & Tiya Shardae Rolle --
trolle@dldlawyers.com -- DLD Lawyers.

Amy Dginguerian, also known as Amy Weber, ARIANNY CELESTE LOPEZ,
Tara Leigh Patrick, also known as Carmen Electra, Camila Davalos,
Cielo Jean Gibson, Danielle Ruiz, Denise Trlica, agent of Denise
Milani, Jaclyn Swedberg, Jaime Edmondson-Longoria, Jessica
Burciaga, Ina Schnitzer, agent of Jordan Carver, Lina Posada, Lucy
Pinder, Paola Canas, Sara Underwood, TIFFANY TOTH GRAY & TYRAN
MAKELLE RICHARD, Defendants, represented by David H. Urias --
info@fbdlaw.com -- Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward
PA, pro hac vice & Ludmila Khomiak, The Casas Law Firm, P.C.

Porky's Cabaret, Inc., doing business as Bella's Cabaret,
Defendant, represented by Barry Oliver Chase --
barry@chaselawyers.com -- Barry Oliver Chase PA.

Porky's Cabaret, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Barry
Oliver Chase, Barry Oliver Chase PA.

AIX Specialty Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Tiya Shardae Rolle, DLD Lawyers & Scott Allen Markowitz, DeMahy,
Labrador, Drake, Victor, Payne & Cabeza.


PROPETRO HOLDING: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of ProPetro Holding Corp. (NYSE: PUMP)
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with ProPetro's March 2017 initial public offering ("IPO
or the "Offering") and/or (b) between March 17, 2017 and August 8,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for ProPetro investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the ProPetro class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1680.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) ProPetro's executive officers were improperly reimbursed
for certain expenses; (2) ProPetro had engaged in certain
undisclosed transactions with related parties; (3) ProPetro's
lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; (4) ProPetro's
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5)
as a result, ProPetro'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 November
15, 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-1680.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, 40th 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]



PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD BEHFARIN, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. PRUCO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   -- granting preliminary certification of the settlement class
      and preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement and
      directing notice to the Class;

   -- appointing Settlement Class Counsel and Class
      Representative;

   -- scheduling a final approval hearing; and

   -- setting deadlines for exclusion from the Class and
      objections to the Settlement as set forth in the Proposed
      Preliminary Approval Order.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had a
practice of billing amounts in excess of those allowed under their
universal and variable universal life insurance policies for the
holders of those policies to cure or reinstate when they defaulted
on their premium payments or lapsed their policies.  He contends
the amounts required were billed not at the then current rates the
Defendants were charging the policyholders for the insurance, but
at the maximum allowable, or guaranteed, rates under the policies,
which he contends was not permitted by the policies.

The Stipulation of Settlement defines the Settlement Class as:

    "All Policyowners of Class Policies and, where all
     Policyowners and insureds of a Class Policy are deceased,
     then also any designated beneficiary(s) of that Class Policy
     at time of final lapse."

The Stipulation of Settlement defines "Class Policy(ies)" as:

    "One or more individual universal life or variable universal
     life insurance policies issued by a Defendant, as to which
     Guaranteed Charges were applicable to the calculation of the
     deficiency and/or reinstatement amount, and which policy
     either entered into default or lapsed between July 18, 2013
     and the date of Preliminary Approval, or which had default
     cured or was reinstated on or after July 18, 2013 and
     remains in force on the date of Preliminary Approval."

The Stipulation of Settlement defines "Class Period" as "July 18,
2013 to and through the date of Preliminary Approval."

The Settlement provides these benefits to Settlement Class
members:

   * Former Policyholders with at least one living insured (the
     "Lapsed/Alive Population") may reinstate their policies
     without medical underwriting and without back premium
     payments for the time since lapse, provided the
     policyholders meet certain "gating rules", sign
     representations establishing standing and occurrence and
     impact of the alleged conduct, and pay the amounts required
     for reinstatement, including three months' future premium at
     current rates;

   * Former Policyholders where all insureds are deceased (the
     "Lapsed/Deceased Population") will receive a cash payment
     equal to a percentage of the death benefit reduced by an
     equal percentage of the premium between lapse and death,
     plus interest, with the percentage (or minimum payment of
     $250) corresponding to a score on a zero to three scale
     measuring, according to agreed guidelines, how clear a link
     exists in Prudential's records of communications with
     policyowners between the challenged conduct and the lapse,
     as determined by an independent Claims Administrator; and

   * Prudential has changed how it will bill current
     policyholders for curing defaults and reinstating policies
     to assure use of current rates (in the absence of a no-lapse
     guarantee that provides for a lower amount), not guaranteed
     rates.

The Settlement, thus, will provide immediate benefit in the form of
reinstatement or monetary compensation to qualified members of a
class of more than 32,000 policies potentially subject to the
challenged conduct, and the change in practice for about 13,500
current Policyowners.

The Settlement contemplates that the Court will (a) appoint Richard
Behfarin as the Settlement Class Representative, (b) appoint
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq., as
Settlement Class Counsel, and (c) confirm these proposed
appointments satisfy Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Separate from the relief to the Settlement Class,
Prudential has agreed to pay fees, costs and expenses of Class
Counsel, including for consultants and experts, and has agreed not
to object to an award of fees up to $3,500,000 and an award of
costs and expenses up to $500,000, and the Plaintiff has agreed to
limit the request for fees, costs and expenses to those amounts.
Prudential has further agreed to pay, and not to object to, an
award to Richard Behfarin of up to $50,000.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 18, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter J. Lack, Esq.
          Steven C. Shuman, Esq
          Robert Mobasseri, Esq.
          ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
          Telephone: (310) 552-3800
          Facsimile: (310) 552-9434
          E-mail: wlack@elllaw.com
                  sshuman@elllaw.com


PURE BIOLOGY: Clark Sues Over Misleading Night Cream Ad
-------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PURE BIOLOGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
37-2019-00053341-CU-FR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct.
8, 2019) is an action brought to remedy Defendant's unfair,
deceptive, immoral, and unlawful conduct. On behalf of the class,
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to (1) cease
marketing and selling Night Cream as an unapproved new drug; (2)
conduct a corrective advertising campaign; (3) destroy all
misleading and deceptive materials and products; (4) award
Plaintiff and the Class members restitution; and (5) pay costs,
expenses, and reasonable attorney fees.

Defendant manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Pure
Biology Enhanced Night Cream, purchased by Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Pure Bio is engaged in a consistent,
long-term effort to fraudulently market Night Cream as a safe and
effective drug that improves skin health and reduces the signs of
aging, primarily on its website and Amazon.com. The claims made on
the Night Cream label, website, and Amazon page are misleading
under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law. Moreover, the labeling and advertising of Night Cream also
violate California's "baby FDCA" statute, also known as the Sherman
Law. Similarly, the claims on Night Cream's label, website, and
Amazon page throughout the class period are contrary to those
allowed by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and subject any
individual manufacturing or selling it to liability for the sale of
an unapproved new drug.

The Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions deceive consumers
into believing that Night Cream is a safe and effective formulation
which improves and protects skin health and removes wrinkles.
Howard Clark purchased and used Night Cream in reliance upon these
deceptive claims, and with the belief that the product was sold in
compliance with state and federal regulations, says the complaint.

Mr. Clark is a resident of San Francisco who purchased Night Cream
for personal use during the class period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     GREGORY S. WESTON, ESQ.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Phone: (619) 798-2006
     Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
     Email: greg@westonfirm.com



QUEBEC: Compensation Sought for Abused Youth at 'Reception Centres'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that after
learning she was being transferred from one Quebec government-run
youth centre to another, Eleanor Lindsay finally felt a rare sense
of hope.

At the Maison Notre-Dame-de-Laval centre, where she had been placed
after a traumatic childhood, the 13-year-old was often confined to
a small cell in the basement. It was equipped only with a thin foam
mattress on a cement box and a steel toilet visible to the men
guarding her.

She hoped being moved to Marian Hall, another provincially run
centre in Beaconsfield, would bring better conditions. But as she
would find out, the culture of abuse she suffered in Laval was not
isolated to one centre. The problem was systemic across Quebec's
youth protection network.

More than 40 years later, Lindsay, 59, is now the lead plaintiff in
a new class-action request seeking compensation for all children
who spent time in the centres. It argues their lives were crippled
by rampant abuse--including solitary confinement, sexual assault
and arbitrary medication--while under government care.

"If it had happened to only one child, it would have been a
tragedy," Lev Alexeev, Esq. the lawyer behind the request, said on
October 4. "But from what we know right now, it happened to
thousands and thousands of kids over several years. It's
overwhelming."

Filed this week at the Montreal courthouse, the class action will
seek at least $500,000 in damages from the province for each
member, without yet considering the compensation for punitive
damages. It names more than 70 centres across the province, for
girls and boys.

The abuse taking place in the centres, known as "reception centres"
at the time, was revealed by then-Montreal Gazette reporter Gillian
Cosgrove in a series of articles published in early 1975.

The articles led to a provincial inquiry, known as the Batshaw
report, which confirmed children were being detained for
"unacceptable" reasons and ruled the detention system had given
rise to "aberrant practices" that could cause them irreparable
harm.

In one case, it found a girl had been placed in solitary
confinement for 21 days.

In Lindsay's case, the request says the abuse continued when she
arrived at Marian Hall. She was again put in isolation and was
forced to take several medications that caused jaw issues and
severe drooling.

When she was 15, it says, she was sent to solitary confinement for
three days when she couldn't stop crying over her friend's death.
Afterward she cut her wrists for the first time.

Lindsay was released from the centre the next year but her
struggles continued into adulthood, including battling substance
abuse and periods of homelessness.

The request says she's now in a place in her life where she's ready
to carry out the action. She could have done so anonymously, but
decided not to in hopes of encouraging others to come forward.

The request needs to be approved by a judge before moving ahead.
Alexeev said it's been impossible to pinpoint exactly when the
abusive practices started and when they ended, meaning there could
be a significant difference between class members' ages today.

"But what we would like to make sure now is that they have their
voices heard," he added. "And that past mistakes are addressed."

'They needed help and protection and love,' says reporter who broke
the story

Gillian Cosgrove was at home watching Netflix when a Facebook
message flashed across her tablet screen.

The stranger reaching out to her had a question: Was she the same
Gillian Cosgrove whose articles revealed rampant abuse at Quebec
youth detention centres?

Forty-five years having passed, Cosgrove asked who wanted to know.

The response sent a shiver down her spine.

"We are the children that were in those detention centres," the
woman answered.

Being youths at the time, she told Cosgrove, they had no voices
then. Reconnected years later, five women who lived through the
system were now ready to share their stories for the first time.

"I felt tremendous gratitude they trusted me enough to reach out. I
didn't know them; they didn't know me," Cosgrove, whose reporting
in the Montreal Gazette won her the Michener Award for public
service in 1976, said this week.

"But they obviously clung to my articles as some sort of beacon of
hope in their despair," she added. "They remembered me so many
years later."

The women are now at the core of a class-action request filed this
week at the Montreal courthouse. The request is seeking
compensation for anyone who was detained in the youth centres, and
states the class members "probably count by tens of thousands."

It also credits Cosgrove's reporting for revealing the "widespread
horror" she witnessed inside one of the centres and leading to
sweeping reform in Quebec.

Cosgrove was 22 years old and only 18 months into her journalism
career--"very green around the ears and just out of college," she
said--when the Gazette tasked her with looking into civil affairs
issues in the province.

Unsure where to start, Cosgrove began speaking to social workers
about any problems they were aware of. When one worker told her
children prisons still exist, she said she didn't believe him.
"Then go see for yourself," she remembers being told.

When the Maison Notre-Dame-de-Laval youth centre refused Cosgrove
access or a formal interview, she went undercover: She applied for
a job as a child-care "educator" and started working at the centre
in December 1974.

What she witnessed during her two weeks inside has always stayed
with her.

Young girls, ages eight to 17, were routinely sentenced to
isolation for the smallest of disturbances, including crying. Some
were handcuffed to cement beds for entire days, soaking in their
urine and feces. Staff and supervisors had little training or
qualifications. There was no distinction made between juvenile
delinquents and runaways; everyone was mixed together.

In her articles, Cosgrove reported what she witnessed and relayed
testimony she gathered from the girls in detention. She described
the centre's guiding philosophy as "punitive and devoid of remedial
programs."

Reaction from the government was swift. Social Affairs Minister
Claude Forget immediately announced a provincial inquiry into the
matter. Two years later, a committee headed by Manny Batshaw
released a report calling for reform in the youth detention system
and demanding the province do more to protect children's rights.

The five women who contacted Cosgrove this year no longer live in
Quebec. They passed through the Laval detention centre but, being
English, were sent to Marian Hall in Beaconsfield. Now in their
late 50s, they remain traumatized by their experience.

Though they first wanted her to tell their stories, Cosgrove, who
went on to work as a producer after her time as a newspaper
reporter, said she knew after speaking with them that a documentary
was the best way forward. The result, titled The Forgotten: The
Children of Marian Hall Speak, will air on CBC's The Fifth Estate
this Sunday.

For Cosgrove, diving back into the story has been like being
visited by a ghost. She remembers crying the last night she left
the centre, knowing she could have been the one in detention had
she been born into different circumstances.

Not wanting to reveal she was a journalist, she couldn't take notes
of what she witnessed during her work hours. But every night she
would sit in her bed and write down everything she could
remember--names, dates, what the girls were telling her.

Rereading those notes this summer, she was struck by how naive she
was at the time, and how her experience changed the idealistic view
she had of Quebec society. But what also stood out was the
helplessness she felt.

"I wasn't able to help the girls. I couldn't hold them, and that's
what I wanted to do--hug them," she said. "These were all children
that needed help and protection and love. Not solitary confinement
and beatings." [GN]




SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:12-cv-01341-G (W.D. Okla), the Hon. Judge
Charles B. Goodwin entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

   2. certifying Lead Plaintiffs' proposed class under Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue the
      pending securities-fraud claims;

   3. holding that, with the exception of Vladimir Galkin, the
      Lead Plaintiffs -- Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern
      Nevada, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater
      St. Louis, and Angelica Galkin -- will continue as Class
      Representatives; and

   4. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
      Counsel.

The record before the Court, including the allegations regarding
data transmitted by SandRidge to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, does
not support a finding that individual questions predominate over
common ones or are "more prevalent or important" than the common,
aggregation-enabling issues in the case, according to Judge
Goodwin.

Having considered the arguments and the record, the Court finds
that "the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."
The Court further finds that a class action is the superior method
for the adjudication of the claims raised in this case.

The Court rejects Defendants' attempt to have the Court dissect the
claims in a manner inconsistent with the directives of Amgen or to
revisit its Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) rulings as to those
underlying claims, as neither is a proper focus in determination of
the class-certification issue.

In December 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging that
Defendants had violated the federal securities laws in 2011 and
2012. Following dismissal of various claims, there remain pending
allegations of violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5.[CC]


SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Suit on Vacation Rental Ban Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Catanzaro, writing for Santa Monica Mirror, reports that a
federal court has upheld the City of Santa Monica's short term
vacation rental ordinance in the face of a class-action lawsuit.

Santa Monica has some of the strictest home-share regulations in
the United States. Santa Monica's ordinance prohibits property
rentals of 30 days or less with an exception for rentals where a
primary resident remains in the dwelling.

The plaintiff in the class-action case is Arlene Rosenblatt, a
Santa Monica resident and homeowner who, prior to the ordinance's
passage in 2015, rented out her house on Airbnb for $350 per night
when she and her husband traveled. After the City of Santa Monica
enacted the ordinance, Rosenblatt sued the city and Santa Monica
City Council to repeal the ordinance and recover damages on behalf
of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, claiming
that the ordinance violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution, which denies the States the power
unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow
of articles of commerce.

According to Rosenblatt, Santa Monica's real reason for enacting
the vacation rental ordinance was to prop up demand for the city's
high-end hotels and thereby reverse a decline in revenue from the
City's 14 percent transient occupancy tax, which the hotels paid
but the vacation rentals did not.

Rosenblatt claimed that the development of the online marketplace
for short term rentals allowed tourists to opt for less expensive
residential rentals over luxurious, highly occupied and pricey
hotels in Santa Monica. According to Rosenblatt, Santa Monica's
real reason for enacting the vacation rental ordinance was to prop
up demand for the city's high-end hotels and thereby reverse a
decline in revenue from the City's 14 percent transient occupancy
tax, which the hotels paid but the vacation rentals did not.

In her opinion, however, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, a federal judge
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said
the ordinance is not a per se violation of the dormant Commerce
Clause because it does not directly regulate interstate commerce.

"The panel rejected the plaintiff's argument that the ordinance
violates the dormant Commerce Clause by directly regulating booking
and payment transactions that may occur entirely out-of-state. The
panel held that the ordinance applies evenhandedly and does not
directly restrain interstate commerce."

"The ordinance penalizes only conduct in Santa Monica, regardless
of whether the visitors are in-state or out-of-state. The panel
rejected the plaintiff's argument that the ordinance violates the
dormant Commerce Clause by directly regulating booking and payment
transactions that may occur entirely out-of-state. The panel held
that the ordinance applies evenhandedly and does not directly
restrain interstate commerce although it may regulate transactions
with an interstate component," Judge Nguyen wrote.

In August, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its rejection of Airbnb,
Inc. and Homeaway.com's challenge to the City of Santa Monica's
Home-Sharing Ordinance in a separate case. Airbnb, Inc. and
Homeaway.com argued that the City's ordinance ran afoul of the
Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment because it
required the platforms to monitor the content of third-party
listings on their sites and remove listings for unlicensed
properties. [GN]


SELLERS, ET AL.: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JARMOND CURRY, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. Warden ERIC SELLERS, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00424-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T.
Treadwell entered an order:

   1. denying Rodriguez's motion for reconsideration of the order
      vacating an entry of default;

   2. denying a motion for joinder, class certification, and
      appointment of class counsel;

   3. denying a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary
      restraining order;

   4. denying a motion to amend the complaint;

   5. denying Plaintiff McCoy's motion to amend the complaint;

   6. denying Plaintiff Coleman's motion for appointment of an
      expert witness;

   7. denying a motion for a physical and mental examination;

   8. granting Plaintiff Brooks's motion to amend the complaint;

   9. denying a motion for a "liberty deprivation hearing"

  10. denying a motion for leave to interview witnesses ;

  11. denying Plaintiff Emberson's motion to appoint counsel;

  12. denying a renewed motion to appoint counsel; and

  13. denying Plaintiff Diaz's motion to appoint counsel.

Eric Sellers became Warden at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Prison (GDCP), effective July 1, 2016.[CC]

SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled TAYLOR CARROLL, individually
and on behalf of the Class v. SGS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 3:16-cv-00537-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.),  moves the Court for an order
certifying a class:

   * Pre-Recorded Message Class:

     All persons in the United States whose telephone number was
     provided to American Honda Finance Corporation ("AHFC") in a
     credit application and designated as a home number, which
     was then provided to SGS North America, Inc. ("SGS"), and
     who received an artificial or prerecorded message between
     October 16, 2013 and May 17, 2017 from a telephone call
     initiated or made by SGS regarding vehicles that were the
     subject of a vehicle lease that was signed between the dates
     of October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2013.  Excluded from
     the class are all judges and court personnel employed by the
     Court assigned to this matter, and all officers, directors,
     and employees of Defendant;

     and/or this joint/alternative class:

   * Cell Phone Class:

     All persons or entities in the United States whose cellular
     telephone number was provided to American Honda Finance
     Corporation ("AHFC") in a credit application, which was then
     provided to SGS North America, Inc., and who received a
     telephone call between October 16, 2013 and May 17, 2017
     initiated by SGS from its dialing system regarding vehicles
     that were the subject of a lease that was signed between the
     dates of October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2013.  Excluded
     from the class are all judges and court personnel employed
     by the Court assigned to this matter, and all officers,
     directors, and employees of Defendant.

The Plaintiff also seeks to be appointed as the class
representative, and for the appointment of Keogh, Cox & Wilson,
Ltd. and Bohrer Law Firm, L.L.C., as class counsel.

Under the circumstances in this case for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a class action is the most
effective and efficient method by which to litigate this dispute
and it should be certified as a class action, the Plaintiff
contends.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Wolff, III, Esq.
          Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-3796
          Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
          E-mail: jwolff@keoghcox.com
                  cjones@keoghcox.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PEREZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. SIXTH AVENUE RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC
d/b/a L'AMICO, LT HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT INC., and LAURENT
TOURONDEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09316 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 8,
2019) is a Collective Action Complaint against Defendants, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law,
asserting that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages due to time shaving, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff MARIA PEREZ was not paid for
all of her hours worked. Throughout her employment with Defendants,
30 minutes were automatically deducted per workday. However,
despite Plaintiff being clocked out for her meal break, Plaintiff
was required to work throughout her break. This resulted in unpaid
wages due to Defendants' time shaving policy. FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and Class members worked similar hours and were
similarly not permitted a free and clear meal break.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain proper employment
records, as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants provided
fraudulent wage statements to Plaintiff, which failed to accurately
show the number of hours worked by Plaintiff in a given workweek.
Class Members received similar fraudulent wage statements due to
Defendants' policy of time shaving, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MARIA PEREZ, was hired by Defendants as a food preparer
for Defendants' restaurant, L'Amico in or around July 2017.
Plaintiff's employment was terminated on September 20, 2018.

Defendants operate a restaurant located at 849 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10001 under the trade name L'AMICO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Reminds of Nov. 18 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Slack Technologies, Inc. pursuant
or traceable to Slack's initial public offering of ordinary shares
conducted in June 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Slack investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Slack class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1682.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) the Company's Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring
service-level disruptions; (2) such disruptions were increasingly
likely to occur as Slack scaled its services to a larger user base;
(3) Slack provides credits even if a customer was not specifically
affected by service-level disruptions; (4) any service-level
disruptions would have a material adverse impact on Slack's
financial results; and (5) as a result, Slack'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 November
18, 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-1682.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, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]



SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of SmileDirectClub, Inc.
("SmileDirectClub" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SDC) between September
8, 2019, and October 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan seeks to recover damages for SmileDirectClub
investors under the Securities Act of 1933.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 2, 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.

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: (1) that administrative personnel,
rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's
customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under
applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of
dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was
overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive
marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) 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 September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by
dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub,
alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint disputed the accuracy of
several statements in the Company's Registration Statement and
highlighted that the Company is subject to litigation for operating
as a dentist without proper licensing in several states, as well as
other litigation.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%,
to close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The price stock continued to decline over the
next two trading sessions by $2.74, or over 17%, to close at $12.94
per share on September 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from the $23 per
share IPO price.

If you purchased SmileDirectClub securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/smiledirectclubincorporated-sdc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-195/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]




SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation
firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors that
there has been a class action lawsuit filed against
SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) and certain of its officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  Class members
interested in serving as lead plaintiff are required to move for
appointment by December 2, 2019 and are encouraged to contact Block
& Leviton LLP to learn more.

The class action complaint, which was filed in the Eastern District
of Michigan and captioned Andre v. Smiledirectclub, Inc. et al.,
No. 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich.) alleges that Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.  Among other things, it is alleged that
the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that administrative
personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the
Company's customers and, as a result, the Company was subject to
regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry.

These allegations came to light on September 24, 2019, when a group
of dentists, orthodontists and consumers filed a lawsuit against
the SmileDirectClub, alleging that the Company was engaged in the
unlicensed practice of dentistry, and false and deceptive
advertising. Upon the filing of this lawsuit, the Company's share
price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%, to close at $15.68 per share.
Within the last week, the Company's stock was trading as low as
$12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from its $23.00 per share
IPO price.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub securities
pursuant and traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's September 13, 2019 IPO, and
have questions about your legal rights, or possess information
relevant to this matter, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Mark Delaney at (617) 398-5600, by email at mdelaney@blockesq.com,
or by visiting http://shareholder.law/sdc

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.

Contact:

         Mark Delaney, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         Tel: (617) 398-5600 phone
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Email: mark@blockesq.com
[GN]



SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan captioned Andre v. SmileDirectClub,
Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:19-cv-12883), on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SDC) ("SmileDirectClub" or the "Company") Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's September 2019 initial public
offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

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

In September 2019, the Company held its IPO in which it sold
approximately 58.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a
price of $23.00 per share.

On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by
dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub,
alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint disputed the accuracy of
several statements in the Registration Statement and highlighted
that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a
dentist without proper licensing in several states, as well as
other litigation.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%,
to close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from the $23 IPO
price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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 administrative personnel,
rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's
customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under
applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of
dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was
overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive
marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) 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.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased SmileDirectClub Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement, you may move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class 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.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

        Lesley Portnoy, Esquire
        Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
        1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
        Los Angeles, California 90067
        Tel: 310-201-9150
        Toll-Free at 888-773-9224
        E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
        Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN]


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDC) Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with SmileDirectClub's September
2019 initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for SmileDirectClub investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the SmileDirectClub class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1679.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) administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors,
provided treatment to SmileDirectClub's customers and monitored
their progress; (2) SmileDirectClub's practices did not qualify as
teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) SmileDirectClub was
subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of
dentistry; (4) the efficacy of SmileDirectClub's treatment was
overstated; (5) SmileDirectClub had concealed these deceptive
marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about SmileDirectClub's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
2, 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-1679.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]


SRC ENERGY: Plumley Files Suit Over Sale to PDC Energy
------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SRC ENERGY INC., LYNN A. PETERSON, RAYMOND
E. MCELHANEY, JACK AYDIN, DANIEL E. KELLY, PAUL KORUS, JENNIFER S.
ZUCKER, and PDC ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01912-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 8, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on August 26, 2019, pursuant
to which SRC Energy Inc. will be acquired by PDC Energy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation.

On August 25, 2019, SRC's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with PDC. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, SRC's stockholders will receive
0.158 shares of PDC common stock for each share of SRC common stock
they own. On September 25, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff notes that 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 the
Company's and PDC’s financial projections. Specifically, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose, for each set of
projections: (i) all line items used to calculate EBITDA; (ii) all
line items used to calculate operating cash flow; and (iii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Registration
Statement also fails to disclose the combined company's financial
projections. Second, the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. With
respect to Citi's Selected Public Companies Analyses, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples
and metrics for the companies observed by Citi in the analyses.
Third, the Registration Statement omits material information
regarding potential conflicts of interest of Citi and Goldman. The
Registration Statement fails to disclose the circumstances under
which "Citi may receive an additional fee of up to $3.5 million,"
and whether the Individual Defendants intend to pay Citi this
additional fee, says the complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of SRC common stock.

SRC is an oil and natural gas exploration and production
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Moves for Certification of 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM MONTGOMERY and
DONALD R. WOOD JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., d/b/a
CRAFTSMAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-01182-AVC (D. Conn.), move the Court
for an order to certify these Classes and Subclasses:

   -- Nationwide Class:

      "All persons who purchased one or more Craftsman brand
      vacuum with a 1.75 or greater HP claim in the United
      States from March 10, 2017 through the date of class
      notice (the "Class Period"), excluding persons who
      purchased for purpose of resale" (the "Nationwide Class");

   -- Multi-State Consumer Protection Class:

      "All persons who purchased one or more Craftsman brand
      vacuum with a 1.75 or greater HP claim in the states of
      California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, and Washington
      from March 10, 2017 through the date of class notice (the
      "Class Period"), excluding persons who purchased for
      purpose of resale" (the "Multi-State Consumer Protection
      Class");

   -- Multi-State Warranty Class:

      "All persons who purchased one or more Craftsman brand
      vacuum with a 1.75 or greater HP claim in the states of
      Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas,
      Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
      Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
      Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
      West Virginia, and Wyoming from March 10, 2017 through the
      date of class notice (the "Class Period"), excluding
      persons who purchased for purpose of resale" (the
      "Multi-State Warranty Class");

   -- New York Subclass:

      "All persons who purchased one or more Craftsman brand
      vacuum with a 1.75 or greater HP claim in the state of New
      York from March 10, 2017 through the date of class notice
      (the "Class Period"), excluding persons who purchased for
      the purpose of resale" (the "New York Subclass"); and

   -- Virginia Subclass:

      "All persons who purchased one or more Craftsman brand
      vacuum with a 1.75 or greater HP claim in the state of
      Virginia from March 10, 2017 through the date of class
      notice (the "Class Period"), excluding persons who
      purchased for the purpose of resale" (the "Virginia
      Subclass").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel, Bursor
& Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel; to appoint them as representatives
of the Nationwide Class and Multi-State Warranty Class; to appoint
Donald R. Wood Jr. as representative of the Multi-State Consumer
Protection Class and New York Subclass; and to appoint William
Montgomery as representative of the Virginia Subclass.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 955-9455
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
          E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com


SUNDIAL GROWERS: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman alerts Sundial Growers Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) investors
to the pending securities class action and urges SNDL investors who
have suffered losses in excess of $50,000 to contact the firm.

CLASS PERIOD: July 28, 2019 - Sept. 25, 2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: Nov. 25, 2019
Email:  SNDL@hbsslaw.com
Visit:  https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SNDL
Call: Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation:
(510)725-3000.

SNDL Securities Class Action:

According to the Complaint, in connection with Sundial's August
2019 IPO, Defendants concealed that (1) Sundial did not supply
saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis
Global Inc., and (2) before the IPO, Zenabis returned a half ton of
cannabis because it was of poor quality and contained bits of
rubber.

By August 20, 2019, when MarketWatch reported these issues, the
price of Sundial shares closed down about 23% from the $13 IPO
price and continued to decline through the remainder of the Class
Period.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants may have misled investors by concealing product returns
that appear to be about 10% of Sundial's sales," said Hagens Berman
partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Sundial should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email SNDL@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit the firm's newsroom or
follow it on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]


TENCENT MUSIC: Brualdi Law Reminds of Nov. 25 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of TME and
MO. If you purchased shares in any of these companies during the
class periods below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000,
please contact The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. at (212) 952-0602 to
learn how you can request to be appointed lead plaintiff.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not need to seek appointment as a
lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
Class period: December 12, 2018 and August 26, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 25, 2019
The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with
major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently,
sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably
expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these
anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. The complaint alleges that, as a result, the
purported class purchased TME's securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged thereby.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class period: December 20, 2018 through September 24, 2019,
inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding Altria Group, Inc.'s business, operational and compliance
policies. The complaint further alleges that the purported class
was damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

CONTACT:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com
                dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com
[GN]



TENCENT MUSIC: De Campos Files IPO-related Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAMILA MONTEIRO PEREIRA BRETAS DE CAMPOS, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TENCENT
MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, CUSSION KAR SHUN PANG, MIN HU, TONG TAO
SANG, ZHENYU XIE, GUOMIN XIE, TAK-WAI WONG, LIANG TANG, BRENT
RICHARD IRVIN, HAIFENG LIN, and MARTIN CHI PING LAU, Defendants,
Case No. 655863/2019 (N.Y Sup. Ct., Oct. 8, 2019) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Tencent
American depository shares (ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering commenced on or around December
12, 2018, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The claims in this action arise from Tencent's materially
misleading Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO.

Tencent offers QQ Music, Kugou Music, and Kuwo Music that
purportedly enable users to discover and listen to music in
personalized ways; WeSing, to enable users to sing and interact
with friends, share singing performances with friends, and discover
songs that others have sung; Kugou Live and Kuwo Live, to provide
an interactive online stage for performers and users to showcase
their talent and engage with those interested in their performance;
as well as online music event ticketing services, and services for
smart device and automobile makers to build and operate music
services on devices and vehicles. On October 2, 2018, Tencent filed
a registration statement on Form F-1 with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, which, after two amendments, the SEC declared
effective on December 11, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, Tencent filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering
Documents"). That same day, Tencent commenced the IPO at the
Offering price of $13.00 per ADS, with each ADS representing two
Class A ordinary shares, and began trading as a public company on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TME". Tencent
completed the IPO on December 14, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.

Specifically, the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tencent engaged in
anti-competitive behavior through its exclusive licensing deals
with Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner
Music Group; (ii) Tencent was consequently out of compliance with,
and violated, relevant PRC antitrust regulations, which put the
Company at an increased risk of becoming the subject of
investigation by PRC authorities; (iii) accordingly, revenues
generated as a product of the foregoing unlawful conduct were
unsustainable; (iv) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to
have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results;
and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Camila Monteiro Pereira Bretas de Campos acquired Tencent
ADSs at artificially inflated prices pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents for the Company's IPO and was damaged
thereby.

Tencent operates online music entertainment platforms that provides
music streaming, online karaoke, and live streaming services in
China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com



TEXTRON INC: Zhang Law Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Textron Inc. (TXT)
between January 31, 2018 and October 17, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the case go:
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=textron-inc&id=1993
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=textron-inc&id=1993.

According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Textron suffered from
slowing end-market sales of Arctic Cat products, leaving the sales
channel filled with excess inventory. The Company provided
significant discounts in an effort to clear the aging inventory,
which impacted its earnings. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading. When the
market learned the truth about Textron, investors suffered
damages.

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

Contact:

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


UNITED FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities 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 United Financial Bancorp, Inc.
(NASDAQ GS: UBNK) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of United Financial by People's United Financial, Inc.
announced on July 15, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
United Financial, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
People's Financial, is captioned Parshall v. United Financial
Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01716 (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 15, 2019, United Financial entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with People's Financial.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
United Financial will receive 0.875 of a share of People's United
common stock per share of Untied Financial (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 Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and People's United's
financial projections and the analyses performed by United
Financial's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of United
Financial common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 2, 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
         Email: info@rl-legal.com, sdr@rl-legal.com,
                gms@rl-legal.com
         Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]


UNITED SERVICES: Court Issues Protective Order in Spielman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, has entered a
Stipulated Protective Order in the case, LESTER I. SPIELMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY (d/b/a USAA), Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01359-AB-MAA (C.D. Cal.).

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulated to and petitioned the Court to
enter their Stipulated Protective Order.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.  Whether the Protected Material is returned or
destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification
to the Producing Party by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies
(by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that
was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party
has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or
any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or
criminal contempt proceedings, financial or evidentiary sanctions,
reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action
at the discretion of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Stipulated
Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/BBVMeE from
Leagle.com.

Lester I Spielman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP,
Andrew J. Shamis -- ashamis@shamisgentile.com -- Shamis and Gentile
PA, pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert PA, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- stresifeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilberg PA, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael
Vincent Stewart, Moneymaker and Stewart LLP, Scott A. Edelsberg --
scott@edelsberglaw.com -- Edelsberg Law PA, pro hac vice & Tanya
Koshy -- tkoshy@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP.

United Services Automobile Association Casualty Insurance Company,
Erroneously Sued As United Services Automobile Association,
Defendant, represented by Jay Williams --
jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice &
Jean-Paul P. Cart -- jcart@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP.


UNITED STATES: USCIS & ICE Classes Certified in Nightingale Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to both the USCIS Class and the ICE Referral Class
in the lawsuit captioned ZACHARY NIGHTINGALE, et al. v. U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-03512-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Classes are defined as:

   * USCIS Class:

     All individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA
     requests with USCIS which have been pending, or will be
     pending, with USCIS for more than 30 business days without a
     determination; and

   * ICE Referral Class:

     All individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA
     requests with USCIS that USCIS has referred, or will refer,
     to ICE and which have been pending, or will be pending, for
     more than 30 business days from the date of the initial
     filing with USCIS without a determination.

The Plaintiffs challenge the systematic delay noncitizens face in
obtaining access to immigration case files maintained by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and its component
agencies, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").  These files,
commonly referred to as Alien Registration Files ("A-Files"),
contain documents relating to all interactions that a noncitizen
has had with the immigration system, and therefore are critical to
defending against removal or determining eligibility for
immigration benefits.

The only way a noncitizen can obtain an A-File is by submitting a
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request from the same agency
adjudicating their case.  Congress mandated that FOIA requests must
be answered within 20 business days.  Adherence to this statutorily
prescribed time frame is especially important for A-File FOIA
requests, yet while defendants push to accelerate adjudication of
immigration cases they routinely fail to timely provide noncitizens
a copy of their A-Files.  For people attempting to navigate the
complex immigration system, often without counsel and in danger of
deportation, this is a serious impediment.

While this may be the first class action addressing the Defendants'
systematic failure of making timely determinations on A-File FOIA
requests, the Plaintiffs have shown that class certification is
appropriate in these extraordinary circumstances, Judge Orrick
notes.  The Plaintiffs have established that noncitizens nationwide
experience significant delays in obtaining their A-Files and that
such delays are harmful to their immigration cases, Judge Orrick
adds.

"Accordingly, I grant plaintiffs' motion for class certification
because a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide
relief to each member of the proposed classes--the timely
determination of their time-sensitive A-File FOIA requests," Judge
Orrick rules.[CC]


VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 21, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Valaris plc (NYSE: VAL)
investors who purchased securities between April 11, 2019 and July
31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

On April 11, 2019, Ensco plc and Rowan Companies plc combined to
form Ensco Rowan plc, which was later renamed Valaris plc.

On July 31, 2019, the Company announced its second quarter 2019
financial results, its first earnings report since the merger,
which missed market expectations. As noted by Seeking Alpha in an
article published on August 2, 2019, Valaris' results "shock[ed]
investors with massive cash usage [and] . . . surprisingly weak
outlook for the ultra-deepwater segment with further dayrate
recovery likely delayed until at least the second half of next
year."

On this news, Valaris' stock price fell $1.50, or over 18%, to
close at $6.77 on August 1, 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 Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater
segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow;
(2) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on Valaris' second quarter 2019 results; (3) that
the merger leading to Valaris' establishment could not deliver on
its touted benefits; and (4) that as a result, Valaris' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Valaris plc securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
October 21, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com

[GN]



VIEIRA CUSTOM: $450K Deal in Cortez FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIO CORTEZ, MARIA CISNEROS, ANTONIO TOSCANO,
FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZALEZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, CECILIA GARCIA, JOSE
LUIS RAYGOZA, and JOSE GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIEIRA CUSTOM CHOPPING,
INC., a California Corporation; V & S COMMODITY, INC., a California
Corporation; CHRISTINA VIEIRA; and MATTHEW SEPEDA, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01647-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
class action and collective action settlement.

The Defendants provide commercial services to dairy farms.  They
employed the Plaintiffs in their shop in Tulare and other areas of
the Central Valley of California.  The Defendants employ four
groups of employees: shop workers, farm equipment operators, truck
drivers, and weighers.  They classified all employees as exempt
"agricultural" employees under state and federal law, necessitating
overtime compensation only when employees worked 10 hours per day
or 60 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in different positions for
varying lengths of time.  During the corn and wheat season,
plaintiffs were required to work over 12 hours per day for at least
six days per week.  The Plaintiffs allege that because the duties
of shop workers, truck drivers, and weighers did not fall within
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") agricultural exemption, they
were misclassified as agricultural employees and are therefore
entitled to overtime compensation.  

The Plaintiffs further allege that all employees are owed meal and
rest period premiums because they were provided either insufficient
amounts of meal periods or late meal periods.  They also allege
that operators, truck drivers, and weighers were not provided
enough rest periods.  The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs
were provided legally sufficient meal and rest periods but chose
not to take them.

On Dec. 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class and collective
action alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of
the FLSA; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods, in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7, 512, and
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (3) failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, in violation of Labor
Code Section 226(e); (4) failure to pay all wages due upon
termination, in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203;
(5) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.; and (6) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

On May 30, 2018, the parties participated in an unsuccessful
mediation before Justice Steven Vartabedian.  On May 3, 2019, the
parties attended a second unsuccessful mediation before James M.
Phillips.  Several weeks later, the parties reached an agreement
through a mediator's proposal.

On July 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the present unopposed motion
for conditional certification and for preliminary approval of the
class action and collective action settlement.  Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a settlement
class defined as all persons who are or were employed in California
by Defendants as non-exempt (i) shop workers, (ii) farm equipment
operators, (iii) truck drivers, and (iv) weighers at any point
during the Class Period (Dec.7, 2013 through May 3, 2019) and who
do not properly and timely opt out of the Settlement Class by
having requested exclusion.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants would pay a
maximum settlement amount of $450,000 in installments.  The
agreement provides for the following allocation of that payment:
(i) up to $18,500 from the settlement amount to the claims
administrator; (ii) $10,000 from the net settlement fund to the
settlement of PAGA claims, 75% of which will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency pursuant to PAGA;
(iii) $7,500 to each named Plaintiff as an incentive payment; (iv)
25 percent, or $112,500, to be paid to the class counsel in
attorney's fees; and (v) estimated litigation costs of up to
$8,900.

After these deductions, each member of the settlement class and the
FLSA collective action will be entitled to a pro rata share of the
settlement proceeds in installment payments.  Thirty-two percent of
the remaining amount, or $78,335, will be distributed to the FLSA
class only.  Unclaimed FLSA wages will be redistributed among
members of the collective action.  All further remaining unclaimed
funds will be paid to Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., a
nonprofit organization, as cy pres beneficiary.

The Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court: (i) preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement reached with the Defendants; (ii)
preliminarily certifying the settlement class and appointing the
named Plaintiffs to represent the settlement class; (iii)
conditionally certifying the collective action; (iv) approving the
proposed method and form of notice to the members of the class and
collective action, including the opt-in procedures for the
collection action; (v) approving the implementation schedule; (vi)
approving CPT Group Class Action Administrators as the claims
administrator; and (vii) scheduling a final fairness hearing.

Judge Drozd grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement.  The proposed settlement detailed is
approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate, the Court
rules.  Plaintiffs' counsel, Enrique Martinez and John Hill, is
appointed as class counsel; named Plaintiffs, Mario Cortez, Maria
Cisneros, Antonio Toscano, Francisco Javier Gonzalez, Jesus
Rodriguez, Cecilia Garcia, Jose Luis Raygoza, and Jose Guzman, are
appointed as class representatives; and CPT Group Class Action
Administrators is named as the claims administrator.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for Dec. 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

The Plaintiffs' proposed settlement implementation schedule is
adopted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/c8WaiJ from Leagle.com.

Mario Cortez, Maria Cisneros, Antonio Toscano, Francisco Javier
Gonzalez, Jesus Rodriguez, Cecilia Garcia, Jose Luis Raygoza & Jose
Guzman, Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of
John E. Hill.

Vieira Custom Chopping, Inc., a California corporation, V & S
Commodity, Inc., a California corporation, Christina Vieira &
Matthew Sepeda, Defendants, represented by Anthony Peter Raimondo
-- APR@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates, Steven R.
Wainess -- srw@raimondoassociates.com -- jasmine.shams@ndlf.com --
Raimondo & Associates.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Routine Cost Assessment Argued in Queenneville Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Law Times News, reports that in the
class-action against Volkswagen for their emissions-test-cheating
software, Ontario Justice Paul Perell admonished both sides for
what "should have been a straightforward assessment of costs," but
ended in a "cause celebre."

The Ontario Superior Court recently dealt with the dispute over a
cost award for a post-settlement motion, Quenneville v. Volkswagen
Group Canada, Inc., 2019 ONSC 5518, heard on Sept. 24. In the
Volkswagen case, the defendants had asked that class counsel, and
not their clients, pay costs.

Lawyers have professional and fiduciary responsibilities to clients
and it is "not for the court to incentivise lawyers to do their
job," Justice Perell said in the decision.

The dispute over costs, who would pay them and incentivising or
disincentivising class counsel are part of the continuing growth of
the class-action practice area, says Cheryl Woodin, co-head of
class actions at Bennett Jones LLP and who acted for the
defendants.

"In the area of class actions, there are all sorts of policy issues
and legal issues that arise and continue to arise," Ms. Woodin
says.

A $2.1 billion settlement in emissions scandal

Volkswagen was hit with the high-profile class action after the
company was caught installing software in their cars which cheated
emissions tests by detecting when the car was being tested and
lowering the levels of certain chemicals emitted at that time. The
Canadian settlement, collected by around 105,000 drivers, was worth
$2.1 billion, while the American sister-suit cost VW $10 billion.

The Sept. 24 dispute concerned a motion relating to the
administration of the class settlement, part of which was the
installation of an Emissions Complaint Repair to the class members'
vehicles.

Some of the class members were concerned the ECR posed a safety
risk. Media reports show that some VW owners who had the ECR say it
caused their cars to malfunction - losing power at times and at
other times, accelerating out of nowhere. The class members'
lawyers sought a production motion for information about VW's
investigation into the ECR issues, an extension of the claims
period until those issues could be analysed and resolved and
costs.

Cost dispute involves 'provocative request,' judge says.

Justice Perell dismissed the motion and as a result, VW asked for
$17,840 in costs. The defendants then asked that class counsel, and
not their clients, pay those costs. Class counsel had agreed to
indemnify their clients against any adverse cost award.

"Thus, without pretending that their request for costs was being
made in the normal course of having the unsuccessful party on a
motion pay costs, the defendants sought to do directly what would
have happened indirectly had they just not made their provocative
request," Justice Perell said in the decision.

Ultimately, Justice Perell found, it is irrelevant whether it is
lawyer or client who pays, when determining which side of the
dispute will bear the costs. In this and other class-action cases,
class counsel, the class proceedings fund, third-party funders and
after-the-fact cost insurers protect plaintiffs, but that doesn't
change that it is the party to the dispute that pays the cost,
Justice Perell said.

Justice Perell said the request was "ill-advised" as well as "all
of unnecessary, provocative, unfortunate, and wrong" but noted
class counsel responded to the request "with censorious outrage"
which he also found "regrettable and disappointing."

Barriers to the representation of class members

In the class counsel's submission on why they should not pay the
other side's costs on the motion, they told the court they are
obligated to "vigorously and tenaciously" advocate for the class
members, even after the case is settled.

Imposing costs while a settlement is being implemented could
"create unnecessary barriers to the representation of class
members" and create a "very negative perception that class counsel
has abandoned the class," the lawyers said. A possible adverse cost
award could incline class counsel not to advance an issue and could
create the risk that class members will not instruct their lawyers
to advance additional concerns after the claim is resolved, they
argued.

Class counsel also told the court that the defendants' lawyers knew
the settlement prohibits class counsel from getting additional fees
and costs and so, if the motion were successful, VW would not have
to pay costs. So, class counsel reasoned, their opponents then
should not have expected to be paid costs, as it would "create a
one-way costs system" encouraging defendants "to be unreasonable on
issues relating to settlement administration and implementation."

Law continues to evolve

Justice Perell rejected the idea class counsel would be deterred by
the spectre of a cost award.

Ontario's "entrepreneurial" class proceedings regime advances
access to justice with contingency fees and adverse cost
indemnities but that does not dilute a lawyer's responsibilities or
change the law, Justice Perell said. The court simply expects
lawyers to fulfil their duties, "which ironically is actually what
occurred in the immediate case," Justice Perell said in the
decision.

In "accordance with the norms of class action proceedings and
litigation generally," Justice Perell awarded the defendants their
costs, payable by the representative plaintiffs.

"Who may have recourse to the costs indemnity as against class
counsel as they may be advised. Order accordingly," Justice Perell
said.

Luciana Brasil, Esq. -- lbrasil@branmac.com -- partner at Branch
MacMaster LLP in Vancouver acted for the plaintiffs and declined to
comment for this article.

As the law guiding class action continues to be refined and
interpreted, even routine, conventional motions such as these "can
add value to the development of jurisprudence," Woodin says.

"Because the law is continuing to evolve, its continuing to be
supervised by the courts, carefully monitored by the courts. And
the courts are continuing to communicate with the class counsel bar
about how the practice of class actions will be regulated," says
Ms. Woodin. [GN]


WAITR HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cadence-bankcorporation-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Cadence Bancorporation made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk;
(2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans posed an increased
risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to
incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) the Company's
financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Cadence Bancorporation class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH)
Class Period: August 6, 2019 - September 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/match-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: During the class period, Match Group, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company used fake love interest ads to
convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) the
Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel
their subscriptions; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked
adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Match Group, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Waitr Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: WTRH)
Class Period: on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Waitr Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings—such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses—both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

To learn more about the Waitr Holdings Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

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



WAYFAIR LLC: Hamilton Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
LIONESHA HAMILTON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAYFAIR LLC,
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants Case No. RG19006990 was removed from the Superior Court
for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Oct. 10, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-06530.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserts the following
claims: Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3)
Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final
Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment;
(7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure To Keep Requisite
Payroll Records; (9)  Unreimbursed Business Expenses; (10)
Violation of California Business & Professions Code and (11)
Violation of California Labor Code (California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
     Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 460-5000
     Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
     Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
            jriley@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Justin Curley, Esq.
     Melissa B. Black, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 397-2823
     Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
     Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
            mblack@seyfarth.com


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Sowles Seeks to Certify Mich. Residents Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ERIC E. SOWLES, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG &
REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 2:19-cv-10254-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), asks
the Court to certify a class comprised of:

     All persons in Michigan, whom during a time period from
     January 25, 2018, to January 25, 2019, Defendant sent a SCAO
     MC 52 form, that was placed into a glassine window envelope,
     in the form of Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff's Complaint.

Mr. Sowles also asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative and to appoint Curtis C. Warner, Esq., as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          5 E. Market St., Suite 250
          Corning, NY 14830
          Telephone: (888) 551-8685
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897-2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Hengeveld, Esq.
          PLUNKETT COONEY, PC
          38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 594-8202
          Facsimile: (248) 901-4040
          E-mail: JHengeveld@plunkettcooney.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Ca. App. Upholds Class Decertification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In In Re WILLIAMS-SONOMA SONG-BEVERLY ACT CASES, No. A154692, (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three affirmed a trial court ruling decertifying a class of
plaintiffs who alleged that retailer Williams-Sonoma, Inc. violated
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 makes it unlawful for
merchants to request or require customers to provide "personal
identification information" as a condition to accepting a credit
card for payment.

In 1991, Williams-Sonoma began requesting zip codes during
point-of-sale transactions in California. Williams-Sonoma's actual
practices for soliciting and recording customers' personal
identification information varied between individual transactions.
Williams-Sonoma required each of its California stores to post
signs at the cash registers stating that zip codes and email
addresses were requested solely for marketing purposes and were not
required.

In 2013, after legal proceedings not relevant here, plaintiffs
Amanda Georgino, Jessica Pineda and others filed this putative
class action. Their complaint alleges Williams-Sonoma violated the
Act between 2007 and 2011 by requesting and recording zip codes
and/or email addresses from customers who used credit cards for
in-store purchases. In 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
all persons from whom Williams-Sonoma had requested and recorded
such information in conjunction with a credit card purchase. They
argued the Act prohibits all requests for personal identifying
information during credit card sales, and therefore that it is
violated whether or not the customer learns from signage or a sales
assistant that the information is not required.
Relying on plaintiffs' theory for purposes of the motion, the court
certified the class. It noted, however, that decertification could
be appropriate if "either through a motion or other means such as a
bifurcated bench trial, the court determines that defendants are
correct on what it takes to prove a violation of the Song-Beverly
Act."

Williams-Sonoma moved to decertify the class. It argued its
liability would depend on transaction-specific facts to determine
whether any given customer provided personal identification
information under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person
to believe it was necessary to complete the transaction. The court
granted the motion. It ruled: "The objective conditions of the
transactions, specifically whether a reasonable person (or
consumer) would have understood that a zip code request was needed
to complete the transaction, included the statements of salespeople
and visible signage. Thus, the variations in those conditions . . .
together with the absence of a trial plan to manage the individual
issues, shows that the class action is not manageable and that such
common issues as do exist do not predominate."

Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the decertification order.

The Court Applied the Correct Standard of Liability

Plaintiffs contend the court erred when it decertified the class on
the basis of what they call a voluntary defense to liability under
the Act. Relying principally on language in Pineda v.
Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524 (Pineda) and
Florez v. Linens 'N Things, Inc. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 447
(Florez), plaintiffs assert the Act prohibits any request for
personal identification information from customers during a credit
card sale, regardless of whether a reasonable customer would
believe the information was required to complete the transaction.
In plaintiffs' view, any other interpretation would allow retailers
to defeat the Act by claiming their customers voluntarily furnished
personal identification information.

Williams-Sonoma responds that plaintiffs misstate the trial court's
ruling. The court did not, as plaintiffs suggest, invent a standard
of liability dependent upon whether the customer provides the
information voluntarily. Rather, it found that although a retailer
may solicit a customer's zip code during a credit card transaction
if that information is provided voluntarily, it may not request or
require the provision of a zip code as a condition of accepting a
credit card payment.

Agreeing with both parties' position that liability requires the
application of an objective, reasonable consumer" standard, the
court reasoned that it does not matter whether a customer
subjectively believed the information was required, but, rather,
what a reasonable customer would believe under the circumstances of
the particular transaction. Thus, the key issue on the motion to
decertify the class was whether plaintiffs could prove on a
class-wide basis that requests for zip codes and email addresses
were made in a manner such that a reasonable consumer might
perceive the request to be a condition of paying by credit card.

The Court agrees. By any fair reading of the court's rulings, the
court did not decertify the class on the basis of a voluntariness
defense but did so because liability under the Act depends on the
objective circumstances of any given transaction.

The Court also agrees with Williams-Sonoma that the court correctly
applied the controlling law. On this point, the views the Court
expressed in Harrold, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th 1259 are dispositive.
There, affirming denial of a motion for class certification, the
Court reviewed the Act's language and legislative history to
conclude that while the statute is intended to protect consumer
privacy and to prohibit merchants from obtaining personal
identification information under the mistaken impression the
information is required to process a credit card transaction, the
Act is not intended to forbid merchants from obtaining such
information voluntarily, if the customer understands that the
information need not be disclosed in order to use a credit card.

Neither the legislative history nor the cases that have interpreted
the statute indicate that the Act prohibits merchants from
requesting personal identification information if the request is
not made under circumstances suggesting that a credit card will not
be accepted as payment without such information. Thus, the Act is
violated by a request for personal identification information only
if the request is made under circumstances in which the customer
could reasonably understand that the information was required to
process the credit card transaction. Applying the act as so
construed, we concluded the Act does not prohibit collection of
personal identification information after a credit card transaction
is complete.

Consistent with the foregoing authorities, the trial court
correctly ruled the Act is violated only if the retailer requests
personal identification information under circumstances in which a
reasonable customer would understand the information was required
to complete the credit card transaction.

Substantial Evidence Supports the Decertification Order

Plaintiffs argue that even if the court applied the correct legal
standard, there was no evidence, much less substantial evidence to
support its determination that predominant and unmanageable factual
issues make a class proceeding untenable.

Here, too, the Court disagrees.

Legal Standards

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions when
the question is one of a common or general interest, of many
persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable
to bring them all before the court. The party seeking certification
has the burden to establish the existence of both an ascertainable
class and a well-defined community of interest among class members.


The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1)
predominant common questions of law or fact (2) class
representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class and
(3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.

The proper legal criterion' for deciding whether to certify or
decertify a class is simply whether the class meets the
requirements for class certification.

Predominance is a factual question, so the Court reviews the trial
court's finding on whether common issues predominate for
substantial evidence. The Court presumes in favor of its order the
existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce
from the record and where a certification order turns on inferences
to be drawn from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to
substitute its decision for that of the trial court.

Here, the trial court found class certification was inappropriate
because whether a reasonable person would believe their zip code or
email address was required for a credit card purchase would depend
on conditions of individual transactions such as the presence and
visibility of posted signs or verbal advisements by sales clerks.
"Thus the variation in those conditions . . . together with the
absence of a trial plan to manage the individual issues, shows that
the class action is not manageable and that such common issues as
do exist do not predominate."

Substantial evidence supports that finding. Williams-Sonoma
presented testimony and photographs establishing that it required
its California stores to prominently post signs and stickers in
plain view at the cash register area advising customers they were
not required to provide their zip codes or email addresses. It also
presented evidence that the appearance and placement of those
notices are consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements
for various consumer notices. This includes Civil Code section
1723, subdivision (a), enacted during the same legislative session
as the Act, which requires return policies to be "conspicuously
display[ed] . . . on signs posted at each cash register and sales
counter," and other statutes and regulations requiring notice of,
inter alia, health and safety hazards. Employees were trained to
point customers to these notices, and a number confirmed that they
did so. Plaintiffs assert there was no direct evidence that
customers actually saw, read, or understood those notices, but the
trial court correctly concluded Williams-Sonoma's evidence supports
an inference that a reasonable customer would have done so.

In addition, Williams-Sonoma presented evidence that its employees
had discretion about whether to request a customer's zip code; that
they did not always do so; and that they faced no discipline if
they did not. Employees were trained to tell inquiring customers
that the information was for marketing purposes and was not
required, and they sometimes spontaneously explained this to
customers.

In short, Williams-Sonoma presented substantial evidence that the
conditions relevant to a reasonable customer's understanding of
whether personal identification information was required for a
credit card sale varied between individual transactions.

For these reasons, the order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 30, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5rvbfby from
Leagle.com.

Stonebarger Law, Gene J. Stonebarger -
gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - Richard D. Lambert  -
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com - Patterson Law Group, James R.
Patterson -  jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -  Allison H. Goddard -
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com - for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sheppar, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, P. Craig Cardon -
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com - Benjamin O. Aigboboh  -
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com - Elizabeth S. Barcohana  -
efrohlich@sheppardmullin.com - for Defendants and Respondents.

ZOCDOC INC: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid OT for $1.4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Zocdoc Inc.
has agreed to pay nearly $1.4 million to settle a class action
claiming the medical care booking company failed to pay sales staff
overtime, and the Southern District of New York approved the
settlement Oct. 1.

The plaintiffs claimed that until 2015 Zocdoc misclassified its New
York-based inside salespeople who called doctors and other medical
providers to sell Zocdoc's software. The company allegedly treated
them as exempt from overtime pay under state and federal laws and
failed to pay them overtime wages for working more than 40 hours
per week. [GN]


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA ROCHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01846 (D. Mass., Oct. 8, 2019) is an action seeking
redress for Defendant's actions of using false, deceptive and
misleading representation or means in connection with the
collection of an alleged debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

Some time prior to April 30, 2019, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to DISCOVER BANK. DISCOVER BANK directly or through an
intermediary contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged debt.
On April 30, 2019, the Defendant caused to be delivered to the
Plaintiff a letter in an attempt to collect the alleged DISCOVER
BANK debt.

By telling the Plaintiff that she must follow up any oral requests
not to contact her at an inconvenient place or at her place of
employment in writing, Defendant made false and deceptive
representations in connection with the collection of a debt, notes
the complaint.

Plaintiff was misled to believe that Defendant may be permitted to
contact her at her place of employment unless she specifically
requested in writing, or in writing within ten days of making an
oral request that telephone calls regarding the debt not be made to
her place of employment. Plaintiff was left unsure, as would any
least sophisticated consumer, as to what her rights were regarding
being contacted by Defendant at her place of employment. The
Defendant could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions
within compliance with the FDCPA but neglected to do so and failed
to adequately review its actions to ensure compliance with the law,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the State of
Massachusetts.

Defendant is a debt collection law firm with its principal office
located at 80 Minuteman Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
     RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
     100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1400
     Boston, MA 02114
     Phone: (844) 574-4487
     Fax: (888) 622-3715
     Email: k.crick@rightsprotect.com

          - and -

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $218.3MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$218,345,000 reserve at June 30,
2019, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated
since that time.  In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.

"The methodology used by Nathan in its projection in 2018 of the
operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted
potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is
substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior
estimates, relied upon and included the following factors:

   * interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population
likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2016, to August 19, 2018;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2016,
to August 19, 2018, to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2052, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2052.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liability.  In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection
of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to
indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in
effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions
regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior
impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products.  In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability.  Based
upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking
into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was
US$227,922,000.  The reserve at June 30, 2019, was US$218,345,000.
Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$144,934,000 at June 30, 2019)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pvbl7S


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 7,096 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 7,096 asbestos-related claims
pending at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation ("Air & Liquid"), and in some cases the Corporation,
are defendants (among a number of defendants) in cases filed in
various state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 665 and 480 claims in
2019 and 2018, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs
reflected in the above table was reported and paid by insurers.
Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in
large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the
number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to
period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pvbl7S


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Still Faces 36,000 Claimants at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 36,000 claimants as of June 30, 2019, in
pending cases asserting claims against Cabot Corporation's American
Optical Corporation in connection with respiratory products,
according to Cabot's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO
brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.  In connection
with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in
certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities,
including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in
settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products
used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.  In
exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

"The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

"As of June 30, 2019, and September 30, 2018, there were
approximately 36,000 and 35,000 claimants, respectively, in pending
cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products.  Cabot has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XNx80N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 3 Lawsuits vs. Dixie Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc., is still facing lawsuits related to asbestos
matters in Illinois, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three
lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois:

   * styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., et al No. 15-L-374;

   * styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No.
17-L-525; and

   * styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump
Company, et al. No. 18-L-2.

"All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or
the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by us.  Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a
tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases.  We have
denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are
unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this
time.

"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs.  4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special
closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all
remaining defendants.

"In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson,
Deceased vs.  3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without
prejudice.

"In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela
Atkins, Pltfs., vs.  Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was
dismissed without prejudice."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KtxJ18


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Says 32 Buildings Have Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Emmett, Inc. has identified a total of 32 buildings
containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Conditional asset retirement obligations
represent a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement
activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement is
conditional on a future event that may or may not be within our
control.  A liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation
must be recorded if the fair value of the obligation can be
reasonably estimated.  Environmental site assessments have
identified twenty-eight buildings in our Consolidated Portfolio and
four buildings owned by our unconsolidated Funds which contain
asbestos, and would have to be removed in compliance with
applicable environmental regulations if these properties are
demolished or undergo major renovations.

"As of June 30, 2019, the obligations to remove the asbestos from
these properties if they were demolished or undergo major
renovations have indeterminable settlement dates, and we are unable
to reasonably estimate the fair value of the associated conditional
asset retirement obligation.

"As of June 30, 2019, the obligations to remove the asbestos from
properties that are currently undergoing major renovations, or that
we plan to renovate in the future, are not material to our
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/SR7dUZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $577.5MM Liabilities at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of US$577.5 million as of June 30, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$257.0 million as of
June 30, 2019.

Ingersoll-Rand states, "The Company's asbestos insurance
receivables related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were
US$133.9 million and US$123.1 million, respectively, at June 30,
2019, and US$141.7 million and US$126.5 million, respectively, at
December 31, 2018.  The receivable attributable to Trane for
probable insurance recoveries as of June 30, 2019 is entirely
supported by settlement agreements between Trane and the respective
insurance carriers.  Most of these settlement agreements constitute
"coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories
agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for
asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain
claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories
certain releases and indemnifications.

"The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related
matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for
potential future claims are included in the income statement within
continuing operations or discontinued operations depending on the
business to which they relate.  Income and expenses associated with
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos-related matters are recorded
within discontinued operations as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold by the Company in 2000.  Income and expenses associated with
Trane's asbestos-related matters are recorded within continuing
operations.

"In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims.  The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity
costs.  The responding defendants generally challenged the
Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.
Since filing the actions, Ingersoll Rand Company has settled with
approximately two-thirds of the insurer defendants, and has
dismissed one of the actions in its entirety.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies.  The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its recorded
asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlement;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/S5tbvv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 75 percent of the open and active claims against the
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company at June 30, 2019 are
non-malignant or unspecified disease claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts.  In virtually all of the
suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as
defendants.  The vast majority of those claims have been filed
against either Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane)
and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos
contained in certain historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand
Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes.  None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were a
producer or manufacturer of asbestos.

"The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed
analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total
liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related
claims.  In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the
liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount
within the range is a better estimate than any other amount.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred.  The methodology
used to prepare estimates relies upon and includes the following
factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of
non-malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's history to determine the average
settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease
claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward
to 1.0% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting
from the aging of the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future
(currently projected through 2053).

"At June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, over 75 percent of the
open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or
unspecified disease claims.  In addition, the Company has a number
of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets
and expected to have little or no settlement value against the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/S5tbvv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 111 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 111
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 214 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KvxCh5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through June 30, 2019.  In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims settled, the average
settlement was less than US$3,000.  There remained approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2019.  BNS Sub believes it
has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on
the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988.  BNS Sub annually receives
retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any
increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed,
settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement
costs for the then-existing claims are revised.  As of both June
30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000
relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This
accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings
submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle
these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/654ltN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $79.4MM Libby Costs at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$79.4 million
at June 30, 2019, for response costs related to a vermiculite mine
in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state, and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  The RI/FS will determine the specific
areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.

"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3.  Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed.  It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million.  Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized.  Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is expected to be issued by the EPA
during 2021.  Costs associated with the more active remedial
alternatives would be expected to be incurred over a decade or
more.  Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as remedial
alternatives evolve based on further work by the engineering and
consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the RI/FS process
moves toward a ROD.  Depending on the remedial alternatives that
the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of remediating OU3 may
exceed Grace's current estimate by material amounts.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these investigation
and remediation activities and has recorded a liability to the
extent that its review has indicated that a probable liability has
been incurred and the cost is estimable.  These liabilities cover
the estimated cost of investigations and, to the extent an
assessment has indicated that remediation is necessary, the
estimated cost of response actions.  Response actions typically
involve soil excavation and removal, and replacement with clean
fill.  The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future
at other sites that processed Libby vermiculite, but Grace does not
believe, based on its knowledge of prior and current operations and
site conditions, that liability for remediation at such other sites
is probable.

"Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are
currently estimable for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby at June 30, 2019, and December 31, 2018, was
US$79.4 million and US$81.7 million, respectively.  It is possible
that Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related
matters will exceed current estimates by material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/W4fDol



                            *********

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 ***