CAR_Public/191023.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 212

                            Headlines

3M CO: More Firefighters Expected to Take Part in PFAS Lawsuit
AKAMI INC: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in Zhang FLSA/NYLL Suit
ALDER BIOPHARMA: Wolf Balks at Lundbeck Merger Deal
AMAZON.COM INC: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime Wages, Edmonds Says
ASHLEY DIANA BLACK: Elson Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Sued over Monopoly of Seroquel XR
BAUSCH HEALTH: UFCW Sues over Monopoly of Glumetza Sales
BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Hand Seeks to Certify Three Classes
BECTON DICKINSON: Remand of Olson Labor Suit to State Court Denied
BRIDGE PROPERTY: Court Trims Claims in Limson Consumer Credit Suit

BRIGHAM HOME: Hazzard Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses & Caregivers
BULLROCK, LLC: West et al Seek Overtime Pay for Workers
CELTIC MARKETING: Born Files Suit Over Unauthorized Calls
CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Cir. Reverses ERISA Arbitration Case Ruling
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Removes Trujillo Labor Case to C.D. California

CK AUTOMOTIVE: Boyd Asserts Fla. Motor Vehicle Repair Act Breach
COMMUNITY BANK: Plaintiffs Lawyers Resume Fight Over $2MM Fee
CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Nebuchin Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy
CREDIT SUISEE: New York Southern District Dismisses Securities Suit
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Woodson Seeks to Certify Class

DMJJ CONSTRUCTION: Fagerson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
DOROTHY A. BROWN: Smith Seeks to Certify Class
DOUBLE J COLLISION: Cabrera Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DUKE UNIVERSITY: $18.2MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Seaman Suit
ECOTECH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Loveless Says

ELNA CO: Dec. 23 Deadline Set to Object to Deal on Capacitors Suit
EROS INT'L: Opus Chartered Suit Transferred to New Jersey
EUBA CORP: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
FACEBOOK INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Leave to Amend
FRIENDLY LIMOUSINE: Farooq Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

I-44 TRUCK CENTER: Enlow Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
IKEA INDUSTRY: Powell Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
INTEGRITY EMPLOYEE: Frazier Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
INTERNATIONAL CRUISE: Kirlew Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LARSEN & TOUBRO: Faces Meyenhofer Suit for Racial Discrimination

LEPRINO FOODS: Add'l. Depositions in Vasquez Labor Suit Partly OK'd
LIBERTY CHEVROLET: Shover Seeks Overtime Wages for Salespersons
LIBERTY POWER: Court Trims Claims in Second Amended Katz TCPA Suit
LIFE TIME: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Rodriguez FLSA Suit Denied
LIFESTYLE DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Loans

LOGITECH INC: Asks Supreme Ct. to Stay Proceedings in Porath Suit
MDL 2034: $15MM Deal in Cable TV Antitrust Suit Gets Final OK
MIASOLE HI-TECH: Jensen Seeks OT Wages, Damages Under WARN Act
MIKE POSTLE: Class Action Mulled Over Poker Cheating Allegations
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta FCRA Suit Underway in E.D. Virginia

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Patton Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Call Center Employees Class Certified in Cowan
NCAA: Deptula Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Dimmack Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Justice Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety

NCAA: Kosminskas Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NEW YORK: Diederich's Fed. Claims Tossed; Case Returns to State Ct.
NEW ZEALAND: Dairy Farmers Mull Class Suit Over Bovis Expenses
OVATION CREDIT: Class in Diggs FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
PATHWAY SENIOR: Thomas Sues over Collection of Biometeric Data

PICORE BERISTAIN: Viloria Seeks Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
PORTABLES UNLIMITED: Jones Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Pipkin Sues over Insurance Claims
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Thrasher EFTA Suit Dismissed; Default Entry Vacated
S & W SUPERMARKET: Clemente Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Denial of Indemnification in Class Action Upheld
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bail System Ruling Fails to Deliver Change
SECURE HOME: Kingara Seeks Overtime Pay for Health Staff
SIXT RENT: Faces Calderon Suit in Southern District of Florida
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Docs over 2019 IPO Misleading, Vang Says

SS&S TECHNOLOGIES: Siyam Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
SURF STYLE: Erdman Seeks Copy of Background Check Report
TACO'S PUEBLA: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lea Securities Suit Granted
TEAM LUBRICATION: Wilhite et al Seek Overtime Wages

THERANOS: Former CEO Unable to Pay Lawyers' Fees
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Stay or Transfer Cardenas RICO Suit Denied
TRUMAN ROAD: Smith Seeks Class Certification
TWITTER, INC: Doshier Case Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
U.S. SOCCER: Files Motion Against Gender Bias Class Action

UNITED STATES: $5.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Kane County Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Decertifies Subclass in Abdi Detainees Suit
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Probe on Detainees Healthcare Class Suit
US BANK: Maryland Dist. Ct. Dismisses Suazo Suit with Prejudice
VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Sues Over Share Price Drop

VOLKSWAGEN: Emissions Class Action Proceeding Commences in Germany
WAL-MART STORES: Hamilton Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
WHOLE FOODS: Pinkston Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels
WYNN RESORTS: Schrader Sues over Sexual Abuse Cover-Up
XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesinger Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.


                            *********

3M CO: More Firefighters Expected to Take Part in PFAS Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Cotero, writing for KUAM News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit recently filed seeks to capture all firefighters who may be
suffering from exposure to toxic chemical foams.

KUAM sat down with the attorney representing the plaintiffs on the
case, Michael Berman.

There are 23 named plaintiffs, a majority of who are airport
firefighters have filed a class-action lawsuit against a variety of
major corporations in the United States that were manufacturing the
toxic chemical foam, P-FAS.

This is a medical monitoring lawsuit that covers everybody that may
have been exposed to the toxins explains the attorney on the case
Michael Berman.

"In case the court does approve the medical monitoring class they
can sign up for the class and on basis they will be able to be
medically monitored going forward and they will have more peace of
mind about their situation," he said.

Berman says the product has been used as early as the 1940s.

"I think the people should understand a gasoline fire, a kerosene
fire or a diesel oil fire cannot be put out by water, so there was
a drive in the community, the science community the chemical
community to come up with compounds or a type of treatment that
would put these fires out rapidly in order to save more lives," he
said.

For this reason, the chemicals became widespread and deeply
entrenched in the firefighting communities across the United
States,

"It really started on the military bases first, and the military
bases were on the cutting edge of using these chemicals and they
began recommending it to civilian firefighters and that's how it
all spread out," Berman said,

This puts Guam in a uniquely dangerous position, as the island is
home to large military bases, and there are concerns of how many
people have been exposed to the foam product and the risk factors
they now suffer from. Berman says several of his clients have
thyroid problems, and that is a prevalent issue connected to the
foam.

"I have approximately 30 people who have come to me to give me
their medical reports and there is a sizeable portion of those
suffering right now from ailments directly connected to this," he
said.

Twenty-three clients now, but Berman says it could easily reach in
the hundreds.

"The next step is all of these cases all across the united states
have been consolidated to a multidistrict court litigation there is
one federal court in South Carolina designated as the mdl," he
said.

Those that were injured in direct connection to toxins and
determined from the medical monitoring would then result in more
cases to follow.

In a separate report, KUAM News noted that the named Defendants are
PFAS manufacturers --
The named Defendants are 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.
[GN]


AKAMI INC: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in Zhang FLSA/NYLL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned YAHUI ZHANG, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AKAMI,
d/b/a AKAMI SUSHI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-4946 (VSB)
(S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiff Zhang, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated, brings the action for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, and for breach of
implied contract.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants systematically failed to:
(1) pay their employees minimum wage and overtime compensation; (2)
properly record time spent by employees working; (3) provide Time
of Hire Notices; and (4) provide employees with accurate paystubs.
He further claims that he was required to commit over 20% of his
workday to doing non-tipped work without receiving notification of
the tip credit claimed by Defendants.  Finally, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants failed to post the required New York
State Department of Labor posters informing their employees about
the minimum pay rates, overtime pay, tip credit, and payday
information.

Akami was incorporated on July 17, 2014.  The Plaintiff began
working for Akami as a deliveryman in about August 2014, and
continued to be employed by Akami until May 4, 2015.  From July 1,
2014 to June 30, 2015, Akami's gross receipts and sales were
approximately $364,160.

The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on Aug. 6, 2015.  On Oct.
13, 2015, he filed a motion to dismiss the Defendants'
counterclaims, and the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On Sept. 26, 2017, Judge Broderick entered a
Memorandum & Opinion, granting the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss
the Defendants' counterclaims, granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint with regard to Counts XII and XIII,
and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
with regard to Counts I through XI.  The Defendants filed their
answer to the Amended Complaint on Oct. 18, 2017.

On Sept. 25, 2018, after the close of discovery, the Defendants
Akami, Yuan Hong Chen, also known as Andy Chen, Liang Jin Zhuo, and
Lan Fang Yang  moved for summary judgment as to all claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.  Defendant Lan Fang Yang
argues that the Plaintiff's FLSA claims should be dismissed because
she is not an employer as that term is defined under the FLSA or
NYLL.  The Defendants argue that Akami was not an enterprise
covered by the FLSA because it was not engaged in commerce that
resulted in at least $500,000 in gross annual sales volume during
the time of the Plaintiff's employment.

Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
there is an issue for trial relating to "enterprise coverage," and
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to his FLSA claims
is granted.  The Plaintiff identifies no concrete evidence that
calls the accuracy of Akami's tax returns into question. Instead,
he impermissibly relies on conclusory allegations and
unsubstantiated speculation.  Moreover, even if speculation could
defeat a motion for summary judgment--which it cannot--the
Plaintiff's speculative calculations only arrive at an estimated
annual gross volume of sales above the statutory threshold by
ignoring the Plaintiff's own testimony about the number of
deliveries per day, notes Judge Broderick.

Because he has dismissed all of the Plaintiff's federal claims, the
Judge must balance the the values of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise
jurisdiction.  All of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims have been
dismissed.  Accordingly, judicial economy, fairness, convenience
and comity will be served best by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining NYLL
claims.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's state-law claims are
dismissed without prejudice to filing those claims in state court,
rules the court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Broderick granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the open motion at Document 63, to enter
final judgment in favor of the Defendant, and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/XOAo6b from Leagle.com.

Yahui Zhang, on behalf of himself & Yahui Zhang, others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kibum Byun, Troy Law, PLLC &
John Troy -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC.

Akami Inc, doing business as Akami Sushi doing business as Akita
Sushi & Liang Jin Zhuo, Defendants, represented by Eugene Kroner,
Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong, Michael Aaron Brand, Law Offices of
Vincent S. Wong & Vincent Wong -- vswlaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices
of Vincent S. Wong.

Yuan Hong Chen, also known as Andy Chen, Defendant, represented by
Michael Aaron Brand, Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong & Vincent Wong,
Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong.

Lan Fang Yang, a/k/a Jane Doe, Defendant, represented by Michael
Aaron Brand, Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong, Vincent Wong, Law
Offices of Vincent S. Wong & John Tro, Troy Law, PLLC.

John Doe, Akami Inc & Liang Jin Zhuo, Counter Claimants,
represented by Eugene Kroner, Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong,
Michael Aaron Brand, Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong & Vincent Wong,
Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong.

Yahui Zhang, on behalf of himself, Counter Defendant, represented
by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC.

ALDER BIOPHARMA: Wolf Balks at Lundbeck Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
The case, JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALDER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., ROBERT AZELBY, PAUL CARTER, PAUL CLEVELAND, JEREMY GREEN, A.
BRUCE MONTGOMERY, HEATHER PRESTON, CLAY B. SIEGALL, WENDY YARNO, H.
LUNDBECK A/S, LUNDBECK LLC, and VIOLET ACQUISITION CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01838-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 30, 2019),
stems from a proposed transaction announced on September 16, 2019,
pursuant to which Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired
by H. Lundbeck A/S, Lundbeck LLC, and Violet Acquisition Corp.

On September 16, 2019, Alder's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Lundbeck. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Alder's outstanding
common stock for $18.00 in cash, plus one contingent value right
per share, which represents the right to receive $2.00 per share.
The Tender Offer was set to expire on October 21, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

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

     -- The Solicitation Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's financial projections.

     -- The Solicitation Statement omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Centerview Partners
LLC.

     -- The Solicitation Statement fails to disclose whether the
Company entered into any nondisclosure agreements that contained
"don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the
counterparties from requesting waivers of standstill provisions to
submit offers to the Company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime Wages, Edmonds Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADY EDMONDS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation;
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01613 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 9, 2019) is a
lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for Amazon's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers
overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek in violation of the FLSA.

As a central part of its delivery and logistics business, Amazon
contracts with incorporated delivery service providers all around
the country, through its Delivery Service Provider program, and
their employees, in order to handle the influx of customer orders,
and to retain control over every aspect of the delivery process.
These DSPs, in turn, hire drivers like Plaintiff to deliver the
Amazon packages within the DSP's service areas. However, even
though Plaintiff and the other drivers were nominally employed
through DSPs, Amazon directed and controlled Plaintiff and other
drivers, dictating nearly every aspect of their delivery work. As
such, Amazon jointly employed Plaintiff and these other similarly
situated drivers and is liable for wage and hour compliance for
these drivers, asserts the complaint.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other drivers
were only paid a flat rate with no additional overtime compensation
paid for their overtime hours worked. Under the FLSA, workers paid
such flat rates are entitled to additional overtime compensation
for overtime hours worked. However, the flat rates paid to drivers
failed to compensate each of those drivers at a rate of one and one
half times the driver's regular hourly wage for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week, in violation of the FLSA. Amazon
also failed to keep accurate records of the hours that Plaintiff
and those similarly situated worked each week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Brady Edmonds, worked for Amazon as a driver from June
2018 thru February 2019.

Amazon is the largest digital retailer in the United States,
recently becoming the second company in world history to reach $1
trillion in value.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
            tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

          - and -

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
     8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone. (954) WORKERS
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
     Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
            pbotros@forthepeople.com



ASHLEY DIANA BLACK: Elson Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California transferred the case, EMILY ELSON, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. ASHLEY BLACK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-CV-00116-ODW (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The instant matter is a putative class action involving the
FasciaBlaster, a self-care product.  According to the Plaintiffs,
the Defendants market the product on AshleyBlackGuru.com, which
contains statements indicating that use of the FasciaBlaster
lessens the look of cellulite, improves blood flow, helps reduce
pain, and accelerates muscle recovery.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs
maintain members of the class read the following statement prior to
purchasing a FasciaBlaster online: "FasciaBlaster(R) is designed
for self-treatment and can be used by anyone on any area of the
body. With regular use of the FasciaBlaster(R), one can expect pain
reduction and improved flexibility, joint function, circulation,
muscle definition and performance, nerve activity, posture, and
enhanced beauty including the virtual elimination of CELLULITE."

Defendant Ashley Black is an individual who is the founder and
principal owner of the corporate entity Defendants and is the
person primarily responsible for the wrongdoing alleged.  At the
time of filing, the Plaintiffs maintained, Ms. Black resides in
California and in the Central District.  Ms. Black is actively
involved as the spokesperson extolling the virtues of the
FasciaBlaster.

The Plaintiffs maintain that all other Defendants are corporate
entities owned and controlled by Ms. Black, but the precise role of
each Defendant in the alleged wrongdoing is unclear, and hence will
be the subject of discovery.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit in California State Court on Oct. 23,
2017.  The Defendants removed the matter on Jan. 5, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint under the Class Action
Fairness Act on April 17, 2018, alleging 35 causes of action, which
include violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Song-Beverly
Act, California Business and Professions Code, Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, as well as express and implied warranty violations
under the laws of at least eight states.

On Aug. 14, 2018, the Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss,
and added another Motion to Dismiss and Strike on Aug. 16, 2018.
The Motions were taken under submission on Dec. 4, 2018.

In the interest of judicial economy, Judge Wright resolves only the
Defendants' motions to dismiss concerning 12(b)(2) and (4)-(5).  

Initially, the Judge determines facially that it has subject matter
jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs assert that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and CAFA
because: (1) it is a class action involving thousands of class
members; (2) the Plaintiffs are citizens of the States of
California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, New
York and Ohio; Defendants are citizen of the States of Texas and
California; and on information and belief more than two-thirds of
class members reside outside of California; and (3) the amount in
controversy is in excess of $5 million, exclusive of interests and
costs.  Moreover, the Defendants removed the case from Los Angeles
Superior Court under CAFA; accordingly, the Defendants do not
challenge the Court's jurisdiction under CAFA.  Hence, for purposes
of transfer the Court determines that it has subject matter
jurisdiction.

Next, the Judge finds that the service by posting the Complaint on
Facebook was reasonably calculated to provide Ms. Black with actual
notice of the action.  The Plaintiffs have been unable to locate
and serve Ms. Black personally after repeated attempts to do so.
The Judge finds this is sufficient to show that Ms. Black "cannot
with reasonable diligence be served" through non-electronic means.
Further, Ms. Black's social media accounts are actively used.  Ms.
Black publicly referenced the lawsuit on the internet to
communicate with her audience and share her view on the lawsuit.
Under these circumstances, the Judge finds that service by social
media is the best method for providing actual notice to Ms. Black,
and service was therefore proper.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for insufficient service of process is denied.

The Judge also determines that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied
the "exacting" standard necessary to establish general jurisdiction
over Ms. Black or any corporate entity, as they have offered no
evidence demonstrating that Ms. Black is domiciled in California or
that any entity is registered or incorporated to do business in the
state, has staff in California, has a registered agent for service
of process, or pays state taxes.  Even if the Court found general
jurisdiction over Ms. Black, the alter ego theory does not succeed
in conveying that jurisdiction to the corporate Defendants because
the Plaintiffs have fails to sufficiently allege alter ego.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
Accordingly, because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, it may not exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over
non-California Plaintiffs' claims.

As the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, the
Judge must determine whether to dismiss or transfer the action.  He
finds that all the Defendants are domiciled in Houston, Harris
County, Texas.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 and 1404(a), the
Judge finds that transfer is appropriate to the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division because all of the Defendants are
subject to general personal jurisdiction in the state of Texas.
Moreover, dismissal of this action would not serve the interest of
justice here because transfer is proper.  Therefore, he denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(2), and instead
transfers the matter to the Southern District of Texas.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Wright (i) struck the Defendants'
motions to dismiss and to strike; (ii) denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss for insufficient process and failure to timely
serve; and (iii) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, but instead transferred the matter to the
Southern District of Texas.  Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, TX
77002.  

The Judge denied without prejudice the Motions to Dismiss in light
of the Court's order to transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/P0xaxg from Leagle.com.

Emily Elson, Stacy Haavisto, Loretta Oakes, Michelle Lanum, Julia
Lefebvre, Sue Grlicky, Tilly Dorenkamp, Dina Salas, Arlene
Rodriguez & Jerry Gaines, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Perrin Ferrari Disner --
pdisner@disnerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Perrin F Disner & Michael
M. Liskow, Sultzer Law Group PC.

Sharon Dalton, Allyson McCarthy, Sheila Smith, Mary Dennis, Kelli
Frederick & Joey Campbell, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by David
R. Shoop, Shoop APLC, Perrin Ferrari Disner, Law Offices of Perrin
F Disner, Thomas S. Alch, Shoop APLC, Bonner C. Walsh, Walsh PLLC,
pro hac vice & Michael M. Liskow, Sultzer Law Group PC.

Carol Richter & Brooke Neufeld, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Perrin Ferrari Disner, Law Offices of Perrin F Disner & Michael M.
Liskow, Sultzer Law Group PC.

Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig L. Winterman --
cwinterman@hrllp-law.com -- Herzfeld and Rubin LLP, Richard C.
Moreno -- rmoreno@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison and Cumming LLP &
Scott L. Hengesbach -- shengesbach@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison
and Cumming LLP.

ADB Interests LLC, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Daniel J. Kasprzak, Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC, pro hac
vice, George A. Kurisky, Jr., Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC,
pro hac vice, Gregory J. Finney, Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould
PC, pro hac vice, Mark A. Bankston, Johnson Deluca Kurisky and
Gould PC, Matthew G. Johnston, Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC,
pro hac vice, Richard C. Moreno, Murchison and Cumming LLP, Scott
L. Hengesbach, Murchison and Cumming LLP & Craig L. Winterman,
Herzfeld and Rubin LLP.

ADB Innovations, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Craig L.
Winterman, Herzfeld and Rubin LLP, Richard C. Moreno, Murchison and
Cumming LLP, Scott L. Hengesbach, Murchison and Cumming LLP & Tina
H. Vo -- tvo@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison and Cumming LLP.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Sued over Monopoly of Seroquel XR
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, WELFARE PLAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCALS 137, 137A, 137B, 137C and 137R, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; ASTRAZENECA LP; ASTRAZENECA UK
LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09036 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2019),
arises from Defendants' illegal scheme to delay competition in the
United States and its territories for Seroquel XR, a prescription
medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
the treatment of: (1) schizophrenia; (2) acute depressive episodes
of bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed episodes of bipolar
disorder in conjunction with other medications; (4) long-term
bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications; and (5)
major depressive disorder in conjunction with other medications for
those patients who have not had an adequate response to
antidepressant medications.

Recognizing the huge market for this medication, in 2008, Handa
became the first drug manufacturer to file an Abbreviated New Drug
Application with the FDA seeking approval to market the 50mg,
150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of generic extended-release
quetiapine fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as its Reference
Listed Drug.

Accord Pharmaceuticals, Inc. became the first drug manufacturer to
file an ANDA for the 400mg strength of extended-release quetiapine
fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as its Reference Listed Drug.
Handa later filed an ANDA for the 400mg strength of
extended-release quetiapine fumarate.

Handa sent AstraZeneca four separate paragraph IV notice letters
between July and November 2008. Accord sent AstraZeneca two
separate paragraph IV notice letters dated September 5, 2008 and
January 23, 2009. In these letters, Handa and Accord each certified
that they would seek final FDA approval to launch and market their
generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate products prior to the
expiration of U.S. Patent No. 5,948,437 (437 Patent), a follow-on
patent, which supposedly covered Seroquel XR. Handa and Accord both
claimed that the '437 Patent was invalid and/or would not be
infringed by Handa's and Accord's respective proposed generic
extended-release quetiapine fumarate products.

The Plaintiff brings this action as an end-payor purchaser of
Seroquel XR, on its own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated end-payor purchasers. Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate
manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic
products and has cost Plaintiff and end-payor purchasers hundreds
of millions of dollars in overcharge damages.

Seroquel XR is a dopamine, serotonin, and adrenergic antagonist. As
such, it blocks the effects of these neurotransmitters in the
brain, resulting in a reduction of symptoms. In patients with
schizophrenia, antagonism of the 5-HT 2A serotonin receptor in the
frontal cortex of the brain relieves the negative symptoms while
antagonism of the D 2 dopamine receptor relieves negative symptoms.
As of 2016, it was the 86th most prescribed medication in the
United States, with more than 8 million prescriptions and annual
sales exceeding $1 billion.[BN]

Counsel for the Welfare Plan of the International Union of
Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C and 137R and the
Proposed Class, are:

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          David R. Cheverie, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  dcheverie@hrsclaw.com
                  drehns@hrsclaw.com

BAUSCH HEALTH: UFCW Sues over Monopoly of Glumetza Sales
--------------------------------------------------------
UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES
INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
SANTARUS, INC., ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., and LUPIN LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-06156-KAW
(N.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief
arising from Defendants' anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreement,
which eliminated generic competition in the United States for
branded and generic versions of Glumetza (extended release
metformin), in violation of the state antitrust, consumer
protection, and common laws.

Glumetza is a drug used to treat Type 2 diabetes. Prescription
metformin has been available as a generic drug since 2002.

Assertio developed an extended-release version of metformin that
can alleviate some of the drug's common side effects, particularly
gastrointestinal intolerance. Assertio obtained several patents on
the extended-release technology and began selling extended-release
metformin, marketed under the brand name Glumetza, in 2005.
Extended-release mechanisms are very common, however, and
Assertio's patents were weak and narrow and could not prevent
competition from generic versions of the drug.

When Defendant Lupin developed a generic version of Glumetza,
Assertio and its co-venturer, Defendant Santarus, sued Lupin for
patent infringement. That lawsuit triggered an automatic stay,
prohibiting Lupin from entering the market for 30 months. Just
before the 30 months were over, and Lupin could enter the market
with generic Glumetza, Assertio/Santarus and Lupin settled their
lawsuit on or about February 22, 2012, with Assertio/Santarus
paying Lupin to delay generic entry.

The settlement agreement was a pay-for-delay agreement whereby (1)
Lupin agreed not to compete in the market for Glumetza until
February 1, 2016, thereby allocating the entire Glumetza market to
Assertio/Santarus until that date; and (2) Assertio/Santarus agreed
not to compete in the generic Glumetza market from February 1, 2016
to at least August 1, 2016, allocating the entire market for
generic versions of Glumetza to Lupin for that six-month period.

One possible wrinkle with this plan stemmed from the fact that the
weakness of the Assertio patents created the risk that another
manufacturer could avoid them and market a generic Glumetza before
February 2016, thereby upending the Assertio/Santarus/Lupin
anticompetitive scheme. To prevent that possibility,
Assertio/Santarus and Lupin included in their agreement two
deterrent provisions aimed at other competitors: (a) if another
generic manufacturer succeeded in entering the market before
February 2016, Lupin could also enter on that earlier date; and (b)
Assertio/Santarus would not grant a license to any other
manufacturer to enter the market sooner than 180 days after Lupin.

These deterrents ensured that, no matter how many resources another
manufacturer might expend in overcoming Assertio's patents, they
could not reap the financial reward of being the only generic
manufacturer on the market. Even if another generic
18 manufacturer won a patent lawsuit against Assertio/Santarus, the
deterrent provision would allow Lupin to enter earlier. And even if
another generic manufacturer sought to negotiate a license from
Assertio/Santarus, the deterrent provision expressly prohibited any
license that would deprive Lupin of its 180-day exclusivity
period.

The agreement between Assertio/Santarus and Lupin unlawfully closed
every pathway to generic competition before February 2016 and
extended the anticompetitive effect beyond February 2016 by
agreeing that Lupin would be the only generic competitor from
February 2016 until at least August 2016. In short,
Assertio/Santarus and Lupin conjured a monopoly in the sale of
Glumetza and its generic equivalents where a monopoly would not
have existed under lawful, competitive practices.

In November 2013, Santarus, with Glumetza accounting for almost
half its sales, announced that it was being acquired by Defendant
Salix for $2.6 billion. Through its acquisition of Santarus, Salix
acquired commercial rights to Glumetza and joined the
Assertio-Santarus-Lupin unlawful patent settlement and reverse
payment scheme and wasted no time in exploiting the monopoly that
Assertio/Santarus had fashioned: from 2012 to 2015 Salix raised
Glumetza prices.

In April 2015, when Glumetza accounted for more than 25% of its
sales, Salix in turn sold the Glumetza monopoly to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as Bausch Health). Valeant paid
$14.5 billion to acquire Salix. Through its acquisition of Salix,
Valeant acquired commercial rights to Glumetza and joined the
Assertio-Santarus-Lupin unlawful patent settlement and reverse
payment scheme.

Valeant was known in the industry as an exploiter of drug-product
monopolies. As Forbes magazine later characterized it, Valeant's
business strategy "emphasized boosting drug prices, gutting
research and development budgets, [and] firing employees"

"Scientists were seen as unnecessary costs to be cut,"while
Valeant's "drug-price increases became legendary. "Industry
observers concluded that "Valeant was the pure expression of the
view that companies are there to make money for shareholders, every
other consideration be damned."

Within four months of acquiring the Glumetza monopoly, Valeant
raised the price by approximately 800%, with a monthly supply
increasing for some patients from approximately $500 to $4,600. In
the six months before the price hike, Salix made $145 million on
Glumetza; in the six months after, Valeant made more than $800
million, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
          Colleen Cleary, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
                  chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
                  ccleary@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com
                  kgarvey@labaton.com
                  mperez@labaton.com
                  dminerva@labaton.com
                  jcrevier@labaton.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Hand Seeks to Certify Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as J.T. HAND, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
BEACH ENTERTAINMENT KC, LLC d/b/a SHARK BAR, et al., the
Defendants, Case No.: 4:18-cv-668-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. granting his Motion for Class Certification;

   2. certifying the SendSmart, TXT Live!, and Do-Not-Call Classes
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

      SendSmart Class:

      "all individuals who received one or more text messages from
      Shark Bar sent using the SendSmart text messaging system, as

      reflected in the SendSmart Class";

      TXT Live! Class:

      "all individuals who received one or more text messages from

      Shark Bar sent using the TXT Live! text messaging system, as

      reflected in the TXT Live! Class List";

      Do-Not-Call Class:

      "all individuals on either the SendSmart or TXT Live! Class
      Lists who received more than one text message from Shark Bar

      in any twelve-month period to a number included on the
      National Do-Not-Call Registry"

   3. appointing himself as representative of the SendSmart, TXT
      Live!, and Do-Not-Call Classes;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and

   5. awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems
      reasonable and just.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are:

          Bill Kenney, Esq.
          William C. Kenney, Esq.
          BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 842-2455
          Facsimile: (816) 474-8899
          E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  erapp@edelson.com

BECTON DICKINSON: Remand of Olson Labor Suit to State Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case captioned PHIL OLSON, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 19cv865-MMA (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), back to the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego.

The Plaintiff, a California resident, previously worked for the
Defendant as a non-exempt employee in California from December 2016
to September 2017.  The Defendant is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business in New Jersey.

On April 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
San Diego Superior Court on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated California employees, alleging the following
eight claims for relief: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1198; (2) failure to
provide meal periods, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections
226.7, 512(a); (3) failure to provide rest periods, in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum wages, in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1197; (5) failure to
timely pay wages, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202;
(6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a); (7) failure to
reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs, in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2800, 2802; and (8) unfair and
unlawful business practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200 et seq.

The Plaintiff defines the proposed class as all current and former
California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals employed by
the Defendants within the State of California at any time during
the period from four years preceding the filing of the Complaint to
final judgment.

On May 8, 2019, the Defendant removed the action to the District
Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.  On June 7, 2019,
the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action back to state
court.  The Defendant filed an opposition, to which the Plaintiff
replied.

There is no dispute that the proposed class includes more than 100
employees or that the parties are minimally diverse.  Thus, the
sole issue before the Court is whether the Defendant has shown, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

Upon review of the Plaintiff's allegations, the Defendant's
evidence, and the applicable caselaw, Judge Anello finds that the
Defendant has satisfied its burden, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy with respect to the
Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims is $5,543,730.  As a result,
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and remand is improper.
Based on the foregoing,  Judge Anello denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/m4yMj3 from Leagle.com.

Phil Olson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation &
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice
Law Corporation.

Becton, Dickinson and Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jesse C.
Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins &
Timothy L. Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

BRIDGE PROPERTY: Court Trims Claims in Limson Consumer Credit Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARYROSE LIMSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-02795-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(i) granted in part and denied in part BPMC's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Jurisdiction, and (ii) denied
its Motion to Strike Complaint.

The putative class action asserts claims under the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"), and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"). The claims are based on Bridge Property
Management Company's (BPMC) alleged failure to follow certain
disclosure requirements with respect obtaining consumer background
reports about the Plaintiffs, who applied to be tenants and
residents of a low-income apartment complex managed by BPMC.

The named Plaintiffs are four adults who applied to be tenants or
are residents at the Ivy II at College Park, a low-income apartment
complex in Chino, California, and their minor children.  The Ivy II
is owned and managed by BPMC, which is a corporation formed under
the laws of the State of California that has its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants requested, procured, processed, used and/or assisted
in acquiring investigative consumer reports on the Plaintiffs as
part of their applications for residency at the Ivy II and as part
of the annual re-certification of the Plaintiffs to be residents at
the Ivy II, without providing proper disclosures in compliance with
the FCRA and ICRAA, and without obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the ICRAA.

In their Class Allegations, the Plaintiffs seek to assert class
claims on behalf of the following class:  All persons in the United
States who applied to become tenants and/or completed tenant
recertifications, and/or were minors with permission to reside at
any of Defendants' properties within the applicable Class Period.

In their ICRAA claim, among other things, the Plaintiffs allege
that BPMC willfully violated California Civil Code Section
1786.16(b)(1) because it failed to provide, by means of a box to
check on a written form, the opportunity to request and receive a
copy of the consumer background report obtained for them.  They
further allege that BPMC violated the ICRAA by not informing them
that investigative consumer reports would be prepared regarding
their character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and
mode of living and failing to provide Plaintiffs with the names and
addresses of the investigative consumer reporting agency or
agencies that made the reports, or a summary of the provisions of
Civil Code Section 1786.22.

In their FCRA claim, the Plaintiffs allege that BPMC willfully
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681d(a)(1) by failing to inform them
and the putative class of their rights to request additional
disclosures, and failing to provide them the written summary of
their rights under the FCRA.  They allege that BPMC's failure to
inform them and the putative Class of their rights under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1682d(b) deprived them and the putative Class of the
benefit of information that they had been entitled by law to
receive, and runs afoul of the FCRA's rationale.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that BPMC engaged in "unlawful
conduct" by violating the FCRA and the ICRAA.  They further allege
that BPMC engaged in "fraudulent conduct" by willfully concealing
investigative consumer reports from the tenants it was
investigating in violation of the FCRA and the ICRAA.

In addition to the remedies described, the Plaintiffs request
declaratory relief to quiet title to their leasehold interests in
the Defendants' properties so that the Plaintiffs may hold and
continue to occupy their residential apartment homes without fear
of unlawful eviction.  

BPMC filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike, which came
on for hearing on Sept. 6, 2019.  In the Motion to Dismiss, BPMC
argued, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' FCRA and ICRAA
claims fail for lack of standing under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo v.
Robins.  BPMC also argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) as to their FCRA claim because they have
alleged no facts showing that the consumer reports obtained by BPMC
fall under the FCRA's definition of an "investigative consumer
report."  BPMC asks the Court to award attorneys' fees in
connection with the instant motion under the FCRA, arguing that the
law is clear that the Plaintiffs must allege a concrete injury and
their filing of the Complaint therefore was in bad faith or for the
purposes of harassment.

In the Motion to Strike, BPMC argued that the Plaintiffs'
allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, seeking declaratory
relief to quiet title in the Plaintiffs' leasehold interest should
be stricken because no quiet title claim has been asserted and
there are no allegations suggesting such relief is appropriate.
Consequently, BPMC contends, these allegations are immaterial and
redundant.  It also asked the Court to strike allegation in the
Complaint referring to an "illegal contract" and asking the Court
for a declaration that the Defendants' residential contracts and
applications are illegal contracts.  According to BPMC, these
allegations should be stricken because violation of the FCRA and/or
the ICRAA does not invalidate lease agreements or other contracts.


Magistrate Judge Spero granted in part and denied in part BPMC's
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of
Jurisdiction.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' FCRA claim on the basis
that it fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  He dismissed
Plaintiffs' UCL claims on the basis that the Plaintiffs have not
alleged an economic injury that establishes standing as to that
claim.  The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint to address
these deficiencies no later than Nov. 15, 2019.  In addition,
targeted discovery will be permitted to address the question of
whether the Defendant obtained "investigative reports" about the
Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FCRA, as set forth in the
Court's minute order.

The Magistrate Judge further denied the Defendant's Motion to
Strike.  To the extent the Defendant's arguments turn on the
substantive merits of a possible quiet title claim and the remedies
requested by the Plaintiffs in their complaint, the Judge declined
to strike those allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ID6Que from Leagle.com.

Maryrose Limson, individually, as guardian ad litem for AL, a
minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Tesha
Gamino, individually, as guardian ad litem for minors RR1 and RR2,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Robert Colon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Michelle Colon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C., Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot
& Wolfson, P.C. & Bradley Keith King -- bking@ahdootwolfson.com --
Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C.

Bridge Property Management Company, Defendant, represented by Celia
Wan-Tsing Lee -- clee@goldfarblipman.com -- Goldfarb & Lipman LLP &
Rye Ryan P. Murphy , Goldfarb & Lipman LLP.


BRIGHAM HOME: Hazzard Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses & Caregivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY HAZZARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated. the Plaintiff, v. BRIGHAM HOME CARE SERVICES, INC. and
CATHERINE G. KAMANDU, the Defendants, Case No. 19-1254 (Mass
Super., Sept. 6, 2019), alleges the Defendants failed to pay
employees for intra-day travel time between client locations;
reimburse employees for transportation expenses; and pay employees
overtime wages, all in violation of Massachusetts wage and hour
laws. In addition, Ms. Hazzard brings an individual claim against
the Defendants for failure to pay her earned sick time wages in
violation Massachusetts law.

Brigham employs various employees, including licensed practical
nurses (LPN), registered nurses, and home health care aides, whose
job responsibilities include providing clients with in-home health
care and assistance.  Brigham employed Ms. Hazzard as a licensed
practical nurse from on or around September 30, 2015 through on or
around August 9, 2019.  Her job responsibilities included traveling
to Brigham clients homes to provide healthcare services.

During the course of her employment, Brigham paid Ms. Hazzard
between around $25.00 and $27.00 per client visit. Brigham also
agreed to pay other LPNs and health staff per client visit.

Like other health staff, Brigham required Ms. Hazzard to work a
multiple clients' homes each workday, which required them to have
to travel between clients' homes to fulfill their job duties, the
lawsuit says.

In fact, Ms. Hazzard many times worked more than 80 hours in a
workweek for Brigham. However, Brigham failed to pay Ms. Hazzard
one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Brigham also fails to pay other health
staff one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Brigham is a company offering in-home health care and assistance to
individuals throughout Massachusetts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

BULLROCK, LLC: West et al Seek Overtime Pay for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WEST and JAMES FLEENER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly, the Plaintiff, vs. BULLROCK, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00214-CRH (D.N.D., Sept. 26, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Bullrock workers, like West and
Fleener, were typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7 days a
week, for weeks at a time.

West worked for Bullrock as a mix technician at a Bullrock
saltwater treatment and disposal facility. Throughout his
employment with Bullrock, he was paid a salary with no overtime
compensation.

From July 2018 through April 2019, Fleener worked for Bullrock as a
dirty water processor. Throughout his employment with Bullrock, he
was paid a salary with no overtime compensation.

Bullrock does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.  Instead,
Bullrock pays them a salary without overtime, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

CELTIC MARKETING: Born Files Suit Over Unauthorized Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS BORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. CELTIC MARKETING, LLC D/B/A VAD also known
as CM AUTO, a limited liability company, SUNPATH LIMITED CORP., a
Delaware corporation, NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, JOHN DOE 1, an unknown business entity,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01950 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2019) is a
Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants
to stop their illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that
play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by their conduct.

As a primary part of marketing their products and services,
Defendants and their agent John Doe 1 placed thousands of placed
thousands of automated calls to consumers' cellular and residential
phones nationwide. The Defendants did not obtain consent prior to
placing these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By placing the calls at issue,
Defendants violated the privacy and statutory rights of Plaintiff
and the Class, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks an injunction requiring Defendants, to
stop its unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and
statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff is a natural person and is a citizen of the District of
Wisconsin.

Defendants sell and provide "vehicle protection" contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Javitch Law Office
     480 S. Ellsworth Ave
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 650-781-8000
     Facsimile: 650-648-0705
     Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Cir. Reverses ERISA Arbitration Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Ondrasik, Esq., Edward Thomas Veal, Esq., Melanie Nussdorf,
Esq., Eric G. Serron, Esq., and Sara Pikofsky, Esq.,of Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's recent reversal of the district
court's decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. has finally
opened the door to arbitration of ERISA fiduciary breach claims in
that circuit. Last year, district courts in California handed down
two decisions rejecting motions to compel the arbitration of claims
alleging violations of the fiduciary standards of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Munro v. University
of Southern California, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166135 (C.D. Cal.
2017), affirmed, 896 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139
S. Ct. 1239 (Feb. 19, 2019); Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co., 2018
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9107 (N.D. Cal., 2018), reversed and remanded,
2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) and 2019 U.S.
App. LEXIS 24791 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) (memorandum opinion).
[GN]


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Removes Trujillo Labor Case to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chefs' Warehouse West Coast, LLC  et al. removed the case
captioned as RICHARD TRUJILLO, individually, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, and as an
aggrieved employee pursuant to the Attorneys General Act (PAGA),
the Plaintiff, vs. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., a Delaware
corporation DEL MONTE CAPITOL MEAT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; QZINA SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., a Washington
corporation; and/or QZINA SPECIALTY FOODS (AMBASSADOR), INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25377 (Filed July 22, 2019), from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 27, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08370
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover award of unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, civil penalties, attorneys' fees,
costs, and such other and further relief under the California Labor
Code.

The Chefs Warehouse Westcoast, LLC operates as a specialty food
distributor. The company offers its products to restaurants,
hotels, caterers, and gourmet stores.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
          Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: 213 532 2000
          Facsimile: 213 532 2020
          E-mail: mbeilke@huntonAK.com
                  jtrankiem@huntonAK.com
                  rtumanyan@huntonAK.com

CK AUTOMOTIVE: Boyd Asserts Fla. Motor Vehicle Repair Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY BOYD, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CK AUTOMOTIVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 96986106 (13th
Circuit Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Fla., Oct. 9, 2019) is a Class
Complaint against Defendant for violation of the Florida Motor
Vehicle Repair Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

CK Automotive LLC is a repair shop and a Florida limited liability
company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida.
Plaintiff Ms. Boyd is the current owner of a 2000 Nissan Altima
bearing Vehicle Identification Number 1N4DL01D7YC114622.

According to the complaint, it is the Defendant's pattern and
practice to charge a shop supply fee to its customers without
including the required disclosure required under Section 559.905,
Florida Statutes.

On September 10, 2015, Ms. Boyd began experiencing problems with
her vehicle and took it to the Defendant's repair shop for
diagnosis and repair. After completing the diagnosis and repairs,
the Repair Shop provided Ms. Boyd with a Repair Order. The Repair
Order included a charge of $9.60 for "SHOP SUPPLIES". The Repair
Order did not include the disclosure that the "SHOP SUPPLIES"
represents "charge for miscellaneous shop supplies or waste
disposal." On or before January 30, 2018, Ms. Boyd began
experiencing problems with the Vehicle and took it in to the Repair
Shop for diagnosis and repair. It was determined that the Vehicle
had a blown head gasket, and the Repair Shop provided Ms. Boyd with
an estimate. Additionally, the Estimate included a $39.87 for "SHOP
SUPPLIES." The Estimate did not include the disclosure for the
"SHOP SUPPLIES" again, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
     ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
     4610 Central Ave., Suite B
     St. Petersburg, FL 33711
     Phone: (813) 304-2131
     Email: rmason@flautolawyer.com
            admin@flautolawyer.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Plaintiffs Lawyers Resume Fight Over $2MM Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that
prominent Western Pennsylvania plaintiffs' lawyer Bruce Carlson
continues to haggle over the rights to millions of dollars in legal
fees with his former firm, Specter Specter Evans & Manogue.

Carlson was co-lead counsel in a class action lawsuit against
Community Bank of Northern Virginia. However, following a $24
million settlement that granted more than $2 million to Carlson,
who left SSEM during the case, SSEM filed a breach of contract
action, claiming Carlson ignored separation agreement terms
dictating he could keep only 20 percent of the first $2 million
payable to the firm and 35 percent of anything beyond that.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
bounced the matter back to the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas. The firm filed an amended complaint on Jan. 14; Carlson
responded with preliminary objections on Feb. 22. On April 1, the
firm filed a reply to those objections, but in so doing, Carlson
said, improperly introduced new factual matters.

In an April 16 motion, Carlson said the firm "could have chosen to
file a Second Amended Complaint in response" to his preliminary
objections, but by not doing so "waived its right to assert new
facts of record at this time." He accused the firm of "attempting
to sidestep" his preliminary objections--which didn't raise any new
facts--and said he shouldn't be compelled to respond while his
initial filing is pending.

SSEM responded to those objections with an opposition brief
offering extensive detail about Carlson's history as an SSEM
employee and his June 2004 decision to break off and form his own
firm along with Gary Lynch, who is a named defendant in the action,
along with Carlson Lynch LTD and Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter.

"A reading of the entire Separation Agreement shows that where SSEM
intended to waive any interest it may have had in the attorneys'
fees awarded in a particular case, that intent was set forth
clearly and unequivocally," the firm wrote, adding the June 30
separation contract superseded any preceding agreements on fee
sharing.

"Carlson wants this Court, as he wanted the District Court, to
extricate him from a deal which he voluntarily undertook but which
simply did not turn out as good as he had hoped," the firm
continued.

"Carlson was an experienced class action lawyer. He knew that class
action litigation is risky and that some cases take a lot more work
than others. Sometimes you make a lot of money. Sometimes you
don't.

"He voluntarily and specifically assumed the known risk that there
might be a lot more work involved after he took the case with him
and the deal might not be as good as he thought it would be. The
Separation Agreement specifically and by its language accounted for
that. But Carlson cannot expect this Court to get him out of a bad
deal."

Carlson is represented by lawyers from Burns White LLC, of
Pittsburgh.

Stanley M. Stein, of Pittsburgh, is representing SSEM. [GN]


CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Nebuchin Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
VADIM NEBUCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER INC. d/b/a PREMIER STUDENT
LOAN CENTER; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
4:19-cv-06335-KAW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2019), seeks remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in contacting
the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Consumer Advocacy Center Inc., doing business as Premier Student
Loan Center, is a small business loan company.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT SUISEE: New York Southern District Dismisses Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISEE GROUP
AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM,
DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX &
CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS
HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants. GLENN EISENBERG, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT
SUISSE AG and JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants.
SHAOLEI QIU, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG and JANUS INDEX &
CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 18 Civ. 2268 (AT)
(SN), 18 Civ. 2319 (AT) (SN), 18 Civ. 4045 (AT) (SN) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The case arises out of the collapse of a complex investment vehicle
known as VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange
Traded Notes ("XIV notes" or "XIV ETNs").  XIV notes provided a
mechanism by which investors could profit from low volatility in
the stock market.  In purchasing an exchange traded note ("ETN"),
investors agree to pay money to the institution sponsoring the ETN
in return for a payment when the note matures, the amount of which
is determined by the value of a market index.

In the case, the value of XIV notes was derived from the VIX
Futures Index, an index that aggregates the price of "VIX futures,"
which in turn track a measure of market volatility.  To allow
investors to bet against market volatility, the value of XIV notes
was inverse to the value of the VIX Futures Index, such that when
the VIX futures contracts underlying the VIX Futures Index
decreased in value by 1%, the XIV notes' value increased by 1%, and
vice versa.  Credit Suisse AG issued and sold the notes, and Janus
Henderson Distributors, LLC placed and marketed them.

Several Plaintiffs filed suit against Credit Suisse AG (the
issuer), Credit Suisse International (one of the calculation
agents), Credit Suisse Group AG (their holding company), Tidjane
Thiam (Credit Suisse Group's CEO), David R. Mathers (Credit Suisse
Group's CFO); and Janus Henderson Distributors, LLC (the marketer),
Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC (the other calculation
agent), and Janus Henderson Group plc (their holding company).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the suits were
consolidated, and the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

The Plaintiffs assert three primary categories of claims.  First,
they claim that the offering documents for the XIV notes made
material misstatements or omissions in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, concerning (1) the
existence of a conflict of interest between Credit Suisse and
investors; (2) the reliability and accuracy of the intraday
indicative value; and (3) the effect of Credit Suisse's hedging on
the value of XIV notes.  Second, they claim that the Credit Suisse
entities and individuals engaged in a scheme to manipulate the
market in violation of Section 10(b), by issuing more than 16
million additional XIV notes in January of 2018 as part of a plan
to trigger a liquidity crunch, which would cause the notes' value
to crater and allow Credit Suisse to accelerate the notes at a
large profit.  Third, they claim that the Credit Suisse entities
and the Janus entities effectively made a material misstatement or
omission in violation of Section 10(b) by failing to take action to
correct the intraday indicative value or warn the market during the
Flatline Period.

In addition, they assert claims under Section 9(a)(4) of the
Exchange Act, based on the same alleged false statements supporting
the Section 10(b) claims, and assert claims for secondary liability
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Thiam, Mathers,
Credit Suisse Group, and Janus Henderson Group as controlling
persons of the other entities.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on Dec. 17,
2018, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Sarah Netburn.
On Aug. 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Defendants' motions to
dismiss be granted in their entirety.  She found that the January
Supplement had expressly warned of all the risks involved in
purchasing XIV notes that the Plaintiffs claim ultimately caused
their losses, and that the Plaintiffs' allegations could not
support a strong inference of scienter, as required by the PSLRA,
for either their market-manipulation or failure-to-correct claim.

The Plaintiffs timely filed their objections to the R&R on Aug. 30,
2019.  The Defendants timely filed their responses on Sept. 13,
2019.  

The Plaintiffs raise several objections to Magistrate Judge
Netburn's conclusion that they did not allege any misstatements or
omissions in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 11 in the XIV
notes' offering documents.  They raise several objections to the
R&R's conclusion that their allegations that Credit Suisse executed
a scheme to manipulate the market for XIV notes fail to produce a
strong inference of scienter.  They also raise several objections
to the R&R's conclusion that they failed to establish a strong
inference of scienter on their claim that the Credit Suisse and
Janus entities made a material misrepresentation or omission by
failing to correct the intraday indicative value during the
Flatline Period on Feb. 5, 2018.  Finally, they object to Judge
Netburn's implicit denial of leave to amend their complaint,
arguing that leave to amend should be freely granted, especially in
the context of securities litigation and especially where dismissal
of the complaint was based on Rule 9(b).

Judge Torres overruled the Plaintiffs' objections with respect to
their offering-documents claims.  She finds that the Plaintiffs
have not identified any specific documents that would have put
Credit Suisse on notice of the statistical certainty of volatility
spikes or the effect of Credit Suisse adjusting its hedge during
such spikes.  And Judge Netburn did not clearly err in concluding
that, notwithstanding the size of the January sale, the innocent
explanation for the large volume of XIV notes sales in January 2018
was more plausible than the inference that Credit Suisse engaged in
those sales in order to later cause a liquidity crash.

The Judge also overruled the Plaintiffs' objections with respect to
their failure-to-correct claims.  The Plaintiffs do not
specifically identify the reports or statements containing
information that would have put Janus or Credit Suisse on notice
that the Index was not updating.  Though they argue that Janus and
Credit Suisse's failure to monitor the Index and the underlying
value of VIX futures would also be circumstantial evidence of
scienter, they have not shown that Judge Netburn committed clear
error in rejecting that argument on the grounds that an allegation
that a defendant merely ought to have known is not sufficient to
allege recklessness.  The Plaintiffs also have not alleged that
anyone at Credit Suisse International was monitoring the price
movements of VIX futures.

The Judge further overruled the Plaintiffs' objections with respect
to their Section 9 and Section 20 claims.  He finds that the Judge
Netburn's sole basis for recommending dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims under Section 9 of the Exchange Act was that those claims
parallel Section 10(b) claims, and the sole objection the
Plaintiffs raise to that recommendation is that their Section 10(b)
claims are meritorious.  Similarly, the Plaintiffs' claims for
secondary liability under Section 20 of the Exchange Act are viable
only if they establish primary liability.

Finally, the Judge overruled the Plaintiffs' objection to the
denial of leave to amend.  She finds that the Plaintiffs have not
established clear error.  An amendment is not warranted absent some
indication as to what the Plaintiffs might add to their complaint
in order to make it viable.  Although the R&R made them aware of
the potential deficiencies in their complaint, the Plaintiffs have
provided no such indication.

Judge Torres has reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to
which the Plaintiffs properly object and has reviewed the remainder
of the R&R for clear error.  For the reasons stated, Judge Torres
adopted the R&R in its entirety.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the motions in Case No. 18 Civ. 2268 at ECF Nos. 101 and
105, and to close Case No. 18 Civ. 2268, Case No. 18 Civ. 2319, and
Case No. 18 Civ. 4045.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/A5MDyV from Leagle.com.

Rajan Chahal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laura Helen Posner, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Eduard Korsinsky -- ek@zlk.com --
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Shaolei Qiu, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray, Law
Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.

Howard Cannon, Naresh Puri, Nick Singh, Zero Labs Group, LLC &
David Silver and Michelle Lynn Silver GST, Movants, represented by
Andrei V. Rado, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP.

Y-GAR Capital LLC, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Kershner Trading Group, LLC, Movant, represented by Barbara J. Hart
-- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg P.C.

XIV Investor Group, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, Carol V. Gilden, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Eric Steven Berelovich, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Laura Helen Posner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC &
Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Princeton Opportunistic Credit Fund L.P., Movant, represented by
Mark Allen Strauss, I, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Andrew MacEntee, Movant, represented by Michael Walter Stocker,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Credit Suisse Group AG, David R Mathers, Tidjane Thiam, Credit
Suisse AG & Credit Suisse International, Defendants, represented by
David George Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com --
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Peter James Linken, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Sesi V. Garimella, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP &
Sheila Chithran Ramesh -- sramesh@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP.

Janus Henderson Group PLC, Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC &
Janus Distributors, LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, Defendants, represented by Jason Michael Halper --
jason.halper@cwt.com -- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Gillian
Groarke Burns -- gillian.burns@cwt.com -- Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft LLP & Jared Jon Stanisci -- jared.stanisci@cwt.com --
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Woodson Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA WOODSON, the
Plaintiff, vs. DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, ET AL., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10890-BWA-DMD (E.D. La., Oct. 14, 2019), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order certifying a class of:

   "all current and former residents of the Lagana Run Apartment
   Complex located at 7001 Martin Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana
   70126, who have suffered damages as a result of the negligent
   operation and management of the apartment complex, including
   but not limited to, bodily injuries, emotional distress, loss
   of use and enjoyment, and  economic losses."

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have negligently owned
and/or managed the Laguna Run Apartment Complex causing damages to
the Named Plaintiff and putative class of similarly situated
persons. The Defendants have direct knowledge that there is a
widespread, unabated mold infestation problem throughout the
apartment complex. Every unit that has been tested by Plaintiff
counsel's expert has evidenced the presence of harmful and toxic
mold, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Suzette P Bagneris, Esq.
          Emile A. Bagneris, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM LLC
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810-3995
          E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Ernest P. Gieger, Jr., Esq.
          Emily E. Eagan, Esq.
          Tucker T. Bohren, Esq.
          GIEGER, LABORDE, & LAPEROUSE, LLC.
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          E-mail: eeagan@gllaw.com
                 egieger@gllaw.com
                 tboln-en@gllaw.com

DMJJ CONSTRUCTION: Fagerson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fagerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DMJJ Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01854 (S.D. Tex., September 18, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

DMJJ Construction, Inc. operates as a home contractor. Fagerson
claims to have received prerecorded voice messages from DMJJ on his
cellphone. Fagersonis is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex S. Madar, Esq.
      MADAR LAW CORPORATION
      14410 Via Venezia #1404
      San Diego, CA 92129
      Telephone: 858-299-5879
      Fax: 619-354-7281
      Email: alex@madarlaw.net


DOROTHY A. BROWN: Smith Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROLINE J. SMITH, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DOROTHY A. BROWN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05238 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying a
class consisting of:

   "all Illinois private eviction-defense attorneys who have paid
   and are being required to pay court fees, costs and charges for

   clients who previously had those fees, costs and charges waived

   due to indigency, and all eviction defendants who have been or
   will be subjected to the fee requirement despite being issued
   fee waivers."[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  chris@krislovlaw.com

DOUBLE J COLLISION: Cabrera Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Double J Collision Corp., Juan Chopurian
and Joseph Vitta, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05471 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 26, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages due,
liquidated damages, and all reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and New York labor laws.

Defendants operate as "Double J," an auto body repair shop where
Vitta worked as a car detailer. He claims to have worked in excess
of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine Morales, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, New York 10016
      Tel: (212) 460-0047
      Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


DUKE UNIVERSITY: $18.2MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Seaman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIELLE SEAMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY and DUKE
UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-462 (M.D.
N.C.), Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted the Class Counsel's
uncontested motion for attorney's fees, attorney's expenses, and
service award for the class representative.

In the antitrust class action, the Court has approved a settlement
between the employee class members and Defendants Duke and Duke
University Health System.  The settlement requires Duke to pay
$54.5 million and will also result in significant injunctive
relief.  The Plaintiffs' counsel asks for attorney's fees of
$18,166,666.67, 30% of the common fund.  The counsel also seeks
$3,320,066.35 in reimbursement for costs.  Plaintiff Danielle
Seaman also seeks a service award in the amount of $125,000.

The Court is familiar with this case and the work of plaintiffs'
counsel, which the Court has taken into account. It has reviewed
Class Counsel's request and the supporting evidence, as well as
attorney's fees and class representative awards from similar cases.
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant the motion.

Judge Eagles finds that an attorney's fee equal to one-third of the
common fund ($18,166,666.67) is reasonable, based on the resources
the Class Counsel advanced, the quality of the Class Counsel's
work, the results obtained, the risks and obstacles the Class
Counsel faced, and fees awarded in similar antitrust cases.

Next, he finds that the Class Counsel's zealous advocacy, despite
the resources required and the risks involved, supports the
multiplier.  Courts have found that lodestar multipliers ranging
from 2 to 4.5 demonstrate the reasonableness of a requested
percentage fee. A 2.89 multiplier is reasonable and appropriate in
the case.

The Judge then finds that the Class Counsel's cost reimbursement
request is fair and reasonable.  The remaining costs and expenses
are reasonable and legitimate costs associated with prosecuting the
case, such as travel, telephone, postage, delivery services,
settlement costs, legal research, depositions, and so on.

Finally, in light of Dr. Seaman's contributions to the case, the
risks she faced and will continue to face, the reasonable ratio
between her service award and other Class Members' recovery, and
comparable service awards in similar cases, the Judge concludes
that the $125,000 request is fair and reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Eagles finds that the Class Counsel's
uncontested motion for attorney's fees, attorney's expenses, and
service award for the class representative is well-supported and
reasonable.  Accordingly, he granted the Class Counsel's motion for
attorney's fees, reimbursement of costs, and service award for the
class representative.  The Class Counsel is entitled to an
attorney's fee of $18,166,666.67, to be paid from the settlement
amount, which is a common fund.  The Class Counsel will be
reimbursed for expenses of $3,320,066.35, which are to be paid from
the settlement amount.  A service award of $125,000 will be paid to
Dr. Danielle Seaman, also to be paid from the settlement amount.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/4wrFdu from Leagle.com.

DANIELLE SEAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT M. ELLIOT --
rmelliot@emplawfirm.com -- ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, P.A., ABBYE R.
KLAMANN -- aklamann@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,
LLP, ANNE B. SHAVER -- ashaver@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP, BRENDAN P. GLACKIN -- bglackin@lchb.co -- LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, DANIEL C. LYON, ELLIOT MORGAN
PARSONAGE, PLLC, DEAN M. HARVEY -- dharvey@lchb.com -- LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, KATHERINE C. LUBIN, LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, KELLY M. DERMODY --
bglackin@lchb.com -- LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, LIN
Y. CHAN, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, R. MICHAEL ELLIOT
-- michaelelliot@emplawfirm.com -- ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC,
SHIRA J. TEVAH, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, WILSON M.
DUNLAVEY, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP & YAMAN SALAHI,
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
BARRY L. CREECH, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST
DIVISION, NICKOLAI G. LEVIN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST
DIVISION, ERIC D. WELSH, US Department of Justice & JOHN P. LOHRER,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION.

DUKE UNIVERSITY & DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants,
represented by BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP,
DEREK LUDWIN -- dludwin@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP, EMILY
E. ERIXSON, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, GREGG H. LEVY -- glevy@cov.com --
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP, JAMES P. COONEY, III, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US), LLP, ASHLEY BASS, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, MARIANNE
F. KIES, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP & SARAH MOTLEY STONE, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US), LLP.

WILLIAM L ROPER, Defendant, represented by CLINTON R. PINYAN,
BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, D. BRYAN STARRETT, Jr.,
BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD & KEARNS DAVIS, BROOKS
PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE & UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM, Defendants, represented by CARY B. DAVIS , ROBINSON
BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., ERIK R. ZIMMERMAN, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW &
HINSON, P.A. & LAWRENCE C. MOORE, III, ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON,
P.A.

PRIVATE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, PLLC, Interested Party, represented by
JOHN ANTHONY ZALOOM, MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC.


ECOTECH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Loveless Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON LOVELESS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. ECOTECH, LLC and MICHAEL AVRUSHENKO, Case No.
4:19-cv-02698 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 3, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers to work a substantial amount of overtime
without properly paying all compensation.

Ecotech, LLC, is a domestic for-profit limited liability company
with a principal place of business in Saint Louis, Missouri.
Michael Avrushenko is the owner and principal of Ecotech.

The Defendants operate an automotive repair and maintenance company
located in St. Louis, Missouri.  The Defendants specialize in
repairs and maintenance services on Subaru, Toyota, Honda, Saab,
Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, and Nissan.  The Defendants employ
technicians, like the Plaintiff, to repair and service customers'
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  kmcgregor@bchlaw.com


ELNA CO: Dec. 23 Deadline Set to Object to Deal on Capacitors Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
electrolytic and film capacitors ("Capacitors") is currently
pending. Capacitors are electronic components that store electric
charges between one or more pairs of conductors separated by an
insulator.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants and co-conspirators engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
prices of Capacitors. Plaintiffs further claim that indirect
purchasers of Capacitors may recover for the effect that the
conspiracy had on the prices of these electronic components.
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the unlawful price fixing
conspiracy involving Capacitors, they and other indirect purchasers
paid more for Capacitors than they would have paid absent the
conspiracy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

Settlements totaling approximately $31 million have now been
reached with Defendants ELNA Co., Ltd. and ELNA America, Inc.
("ELNA"); Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd. ("Matsuo"); Nichicon
Corporation and Nichicon (America) Corporation ("Nichicon"); and
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and SANYO Electronic Device (U.S.A.)
Corporation ("Panasonic") (collectively, "Settling Defendants").

Only certain Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuit. In
addition to the Settling Defendants, NEC TOKIN Corp. and NEC TOKIN
America, Inc. ("NEC TOKIN"); Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd.
("OEI"); Nitsuko Electronics Corporation ("Nitsuko"); Hitachi
Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi AIC Inc., and Hitachi Chemical Co.
America, Ltd. ("Hitachi"); Soshin Electric Co., Ltd. and Soshin
Electronics of America, Inc. ("Soshin"); Rubycon Corp. and Rubycon
America, Inc. ("Rubycon"); Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd., Holy
Stone Holdings Co., Ltd., Holy Stone Polytech Co., Ltd., and
Milestone Global Technology, Inc. ("Holystone"); and Nippon
Chemi-Con Corp. and United Chemi-Con, Inc. ("NCC/UCC") have
previously agreed to settlements. The case is continuing against
the remaining Defendants ("Non-Settling Defendants"). Additional
money may become available in the future as a result of a trial or
future settlements, but there is no guarantee that this will
happen.

The Non-Settling Defendant companies include: Nissei Electric Co.,
Ltd., Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., Taitsu Corp., and Toshin Kogyo
Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Non-Settling Defendants").

The Settlement Classes for all of the Settlement Agreements include
the following:

All persons and entities in the United States who, during the
period from April 1, 2002, through February 28, 2014, purchased one
or more Electrolytic Capacitor(s) from a distributor (or from an
entity other than a Defendant) that a Defendant or alleged
co-conspirator manufactured.

A second class is included in the Panasonic Settlement Agreement
including the following:

All persons and entities in the United States who, during the
period from January 1, 2002, through February 28, 2014, purchased
one or more Film Capacitor(s) from a distributor (or from an entity
other than a Defendant) that a Defendant or alleged co-conspirator
manufactured.

The Court in charge of the case still has to decide on final
approval of the Settlements. Payments will be made only (1) if the
Court approves the Settlements and after any appeals are resolved,
and (2) after the Court approves a Distribution Plan to distribute
the Settlement Funds minus expenses and any Court-approved
attorneys' fees ("Net Settlement Funds") to Class Members. The
proposed Distribution Plan for these Settlements is to make a pro
rata distribution to each Class Member that purchased capacitors in
a state that permits indirect purchaser antitrust claims based upon
the number of approved purchases per Class Member of Capacitors of
film or electrolytic Capacitors during the Settlement class period.


YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
The only way to be eligible to receive a payment.
March 23, 2020

EXCLUDE YOURSELF
You will not be included in the Settlement(s) from which you
exclude yourself. You will receive no benefits from the
Settlement(s) from which you exclude yourself, but you will keep
any rights you currently have to sue the Settling Defendants about
the claims in the case(s) from which you exclude yourself.
December 23, 2019

DO NOTHING NOW
You will be included in these Settlements. If you do not submit a
Claim Form you will not be eligible to receive a payment. If you do
not exclude yourself from these Settlements, you will give up your
rights to sue these Settling Defendants about the claims in the
lawsuit.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENTS
If you do not exclude yourself, you can write to the Court
explaining why you disagree with these Settlements.
December 23, 2019

GO TO HEARING
The Court will consider whether the Settlements are fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
January 23, 2020
[GN]


EROS INT'L: Opus Chartered Suit Transferred to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as OPUS CHARTERED ISSUANCES S.A.,
COMPARTMENT 127 and AI UNDERTAKING IV, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EROS
INTERNATIONAL PLC, KISHORE LULLA, PREM PARAMESWARAN, and JYOTI
DESHPANDE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07242 (Filed Aug. 20,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, to U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on Sept 30, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-18547-ES-SCM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Eros securities between July 28,
2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Eros is a global company in the Indian film entertainment industry
that co-produces, acquires, and distributes Indian language films
in multiple formats worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

EUBA CORP: Certification of Delivery Drivers Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as The Estate of Michael
McConnell (represented by Kacey LeAnn McConnell), On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EUBA
Corp., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-355 (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certify the case as a collective action:

      "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for
      Defendants at any of their Domino's Pizza locations from
      October 30, 2015 to present";

   2. approve the Plaintiff's proposed notices and methods of
      disseminating notice;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide name and contact
      information for all potential class members within 15 days
      of the court's order;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the notices via regular
      U.S. mail and e-mail; and

   5. authorizing a 90-day opt-in period.

The case seeks unpaid minimum wages and associated damages on
behalf of Domino's delivery drivers who work for approximately 12
franchise stores in Ohio. The drivers make a straightforward and
too-common claim: they have not been properly reimbursed for their
delivery expenses, and therefore have "kicked back" a portion of
their wages to Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state wage law.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


FACEBOOK INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-01725-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.  

The lawsuit stems from the revelation that Cambridge Analytica
acquired the private Facebook data of millions of users and that,
upon learning of the leak, Facebook allegedly attempted to suppress
evidence of the breach contrary to its stated privacy policy.

The Plaintiffs are persons who purchased shares of Facebook common
stock between Feb. 3, 2017 and July 25, 2018, who believe that Mark
Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, and David M. Wehner, made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
connection with the purchase and sale of Facebook stock.  They
allege that the Defendants violated Section 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder because the Defendants made guarantees that the
Cambridge Analytica, and related data-privacy scandals, would not
impact Facebook stock while knowing it to be false.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs focus on the Defendants' statements and omissions
concerning Facebook's privacy and data protection practices and
their impact on Facebook's stock price during two time periods:
March and July 2018.

The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing
that the Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, meet Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud and instead
allege "an overarching hindsight theory.  They make four main
arguments all centered around the Plaintiffs' inability to meet the
elements of securities fraud.

First, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have not pled an
actionable misstatement or omission because they have not
identified any false statements.  They argue the 36 "actionable"
statements or omissions Plaintiffs raise are, in fact, neither
actionable nor fraudulent because the Plaintiffs make no attempt to
plead that the Defendants lied or mislead investors.

As to all the allegations, Judge Davila holds that only Statement
22 is actionable.  Statement 22 is Defendant Sandberg's 2017
statement that "no one is going to get your data that shouldn't
have it" because "you're controlling who you share with."  The
Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that users could not control
their data.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
falsity as required by the PSLRA for Statement 22.

Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have not pled a strong
inference of scienter because the Plaintiffs do not (1) relate the
alleged misstatements to any conduct establishing scienter or (2)
show facts that the Defendants knew the challenged statements were
false.  Further, they contend that the Plaintiffs offer only
conclusions without alleging any specific facts to support these
conclusions.  

As the Judge explained, the one actionable Statement, Statement 22,
lacks scienter because the Plaintiffs do not allege with sufficient
particularity that Defendant Sandberg made the statement knowing it
was false.  Among other things, the Judge finds that the SEC
Consent Decree alone was not enough to infer scienter and,
likewise, the FTC Consent Decree alone is insufficient to infer
scienter as the Plaintiffs have provided no particularized facts
from which this Court can infer Sandberg consciously lied.

Third, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs fail to plead
loss causation since Defendants had already warned investors of a
potential stock decline and cannot trace any corrective disclosure
to the stock price's drop.  Finally, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs cannot show reliance based on a "fraud-on-the market"
theory because the Cambridge Analytica scandal was already known a
year before the start of the putative class action and so the
market already reacted to the data breach.  The Judge does not
reach the third and fourth arguments because he grants the Motion
to Dismiss on alternative grounds.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not adequately plead a securities
fraud violation, rules the Court.  It is the Plaintiffs' burden to
point to plausible and particular facts tending to show fraudulent
behavior by the Defendants.  Without such a showing, the Plaintiffs
cannot survive the higher evidentiary pleading standard enumerated
in Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Judge
will grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Although the Judge has determined that the Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim, it is possible they can cure their allegations by
alleging, among other things, more particular facts as to why
statements by the Individual Defendants were false when made.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs may salvage their Complaint,
the Judge finds amendment would not be futile.  The Plaintiffs'
claims, therefore, will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety with leave to
amend.  Should the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint,
they must do so by Oct. 26, 2019.  Failure to do so, or failure to
cure the deficiencies addressed in the Order, will result in
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs
may not add new claims or parties without leave of the Court or
stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XZ64zU from Leagle.com.

Fan Yuan, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP,
J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice.

Ernestine Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Suzanne
Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kenneth Joseph Black, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Jason Cassidy Davis, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

James Kacouris & James Kacouris, individually and on behalf of all
others similary situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP &
Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP.

Fern Helms, Plaintiff, represented by David Lawrence Hecht --
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price and
Hecht LLP, Claiborne R. Hane, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price and
Hecht LLP & Thomas David Warren, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price and
Hecht LLP.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Orin Snyder --
osnyder@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, pro hac vice,
Brian Michael Lutz -- blutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP,
Kristin A. Linsley, Esq. -- klinsley@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher LLP & Paul J. Collins -- pcollins@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher LLP.

Mark E. Zuckerberg, David M. Wehner & Sheryl K. Sandberg,
Defendants, represented by Orin Snyder, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher &
Brian Michael Lutz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Michael P. Carfagna, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay
-- info@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd., Bilkish Patel & Engin Taner,
Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy
Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Movant,
represented by Avi Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy P. Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, John Christopher Browne, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Matthew
Kirschberg Gadow Tyler, PLLC, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP & Kate Whitman Aufses, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.

Jeremiah F. Hallisey, Interested Party, represented by Mark Cotton
Molumphy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Natalie Ocegueda, Interested Party, represented by Francis A.
Bottini, Jr., Bottini & Bottini, Inc.

Securities And Exchange Commission, Interested Party, represented
by Robert Lootfi Tashjian, Securities & Exchange Commission.

Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LV LargeCap 1000 Growth Index
Fund, Long View Quantitative LargeCap Fund and Long View quant
LargeCap Equity VERB Fund, Intervenor, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jeremy P. Robinson,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, John Christopher Browne,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Dennis J. Herman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jason Cassidy Davis, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP, Kenneth Joseph Black, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP & Michael Albert, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.


FRIENDLY LIMOUSINE: Farooq Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Imran Farooq, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Friendly Limousine Service, Inc., Paul
Muller, Jr. Glenn T. Muller and Shahzad Mohammed Rauf, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-05472 (E.D. N.Y., September 26, 2019), seeks minimum
wages, unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor
Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate a chauffeured town car and related motor vehicle
car service business located in the town of Great Neck, Nassau
where Faroog was employed as a driver from June 20, 2016 until
April 11, 2019. He worked in excess of forty hours per week, six
days per week, with Saturdays off, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately
1:00 a.m., without any break for meals, or a total of sixty-six
hours per week, asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur H. Forman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR H. FORMAN
      90-20 Metropolitan Avenue
      Forest Hills, New York 11375
      Tel: (718) 268-2616
      Email: mail@ahforman.com


I-44 TRUCK CENTER: Enlow Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ENLOW, GARY TROLINGER, and DONALD DORAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. I-44
TRUCK CENTER & WRECKER SERVICE, LLC, PEACOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, MARK ROBBINS, and GAIL ROBBINS, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-02767 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 11, 2019) is an action for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs and putative class members were hourly-paid employees
who worked in various capacities with the Company, including
working in the office handling billing, sending employees on
service calls, as well as performing various mechanic related
duties. Regardless of the work they performed, Plaintiffs and the
other employees of I-44 Truck Center were not paid overtime
compensation at one-and-a-half-times their regular rate of pay for
each hour worked over 40 each workweek, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiffs bring this suit individually and on behalf of other
hourly-paid employees of I-44 Truck Center to recover overtime
compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for I-44 Truck Center at its Rolla location.

Defendants operate a 24/7 roadside service company with locations
along I-44 in central and eastern Missouri, including locations in
Rolla, Sullivan, Pacific, and St. Clair, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
     HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     1008 West Second Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: 501.975.5040
     Fax: 501.975.5043
     Email: tim@johnholleman.net


IKEA INDUSTRY: Powell Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRI POWELL, On behalf of
Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IKEA
INDUSTRY DANVILLE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00058-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all hourly, non-exempt employees, regardless of actual
      title, who worked for the Defendant at any time during the
      last three years and who reported work time using the
      Defendant's electronic time-keeping system";

   2. directing IKEA, within seven calendar days, to provide
      Plaintiff's counsel, in computer-redable electronic format,
      the names, job locations, dates of employment, mailing
      addresses, phone numbers and email address of all persons
      who are, have been, or will be employed by IKEA, at any time

      within the last three years;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiff to mail, e-mail and text the
      Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to the putative

      class members;

   4. directing the Defendant to post the notice at its facility
      until the opt-in period closes; and

   5. approving a 90-day opt-in period in which putative class
      members may return their signed consent form.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Greeg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          www.zagfirm.com
          87857 Georgia Avenue, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839 9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Strianse, Esq.
          STRIANSE HUCKERT, PLLC
          www.strilaw.com
          3501 Monroe Rd.
          Charlotte, NC 28205
          Telephone: (704) 998 2577
          Facsimile: (704) 998 5301
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com

               - and -

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
          1600 Genesse St., Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569 2629
          Facsimile: (816) 447 3939
          E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com
                  www.dgmlawywers.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Tevis Marshall, Esq.
          Bret G. Daniel, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK AND STEWART P.C.
          Riverfront Plaza West Tower
          901 E. Byrd Street, Suite 1300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 663 2333
          Facsimile: (804) 225 8641
          E-mail: rshaw@gordonrees.com

INTEGRITY EMPLOYEE: Frazier Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBRE FRAZIER, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY EMPLOYEE LEASING, INC.,
PURPLE SQUARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS,
Defendants, Case No. 19-006795-CI (6th Judicial Circuit Ct.,
Pinellas Cty., Fla.., Oct. 11, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint
brought against Defendant under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of
1970.

The Defendants routinely obtain and use information in consumer
reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees and
existing employees, and frequently relies on such information, in
whole or in part, as basis for adverse employment action, such as
denying employment, removal form job assignment, and denying
promotions or other job related opportunities. The Defendants were
required to disclose to its applicants and employees--in a document
that consists solely of the disclosure--that it might obtain a
consumer report for employment purposes. However, the Defendants
did not make the disclosure in a "stand alone" document consisting
solely of disclosure, asserts the complaint.

Thus, the Defendants willfully violated the FRCA, in systematic
violation of Plaintiff's rights and of other putative class
members.

Plaintiff is a consumer/applicant who was subject of a consumer
report used for employment purposes by Defendants.

Defendants are corporations and user of consumer reports as
contemplated by the FCRA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LUIS A. CABASSA, ESQ.
     Direct Dial: 813-379-2565
     BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ.
     Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No: 813-224-0431
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
            bhill@wfclaw.com
            jcornell@wfclaw.com


INTERNATIONAL CRUISE: Kirlew Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUA KIRLEW, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL CRUISE & EXCURSION GALLERY, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-01955-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2019) is an action
brought for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Over the last three years, ICE has been engaged in a scheme to
avoid paying overtime compensation to its Accounts Managers,
alleges the complaint. As a result, many of ICE's Account Managers
have been denied overtime wages for their work performed in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has worked for ICE since around February 2018 in their
office located at 8427 Southpark Circle, Orlando, Florida 32819.

INTERNATIONAL CRUISE & EXCURSION GALLERY, INC., is a Foreign
Limited Liability Company that does business in Orlando, Florida
and is a "leading provider of travel-based loyalty, rewards, and
incentive programs".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
            JPavlos@forthepeople.com



LARSEN & TOUBRO: Faces Meyenhofer Suit for Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARKUS MEYENHOFER and ANDREW RAGLAND, on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LARSEN &
TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED, and LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LLC
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09349 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 9, 2019) is an
action on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated
individuals to remedy pervasive, ongoing race, national origin, and
citizenship discrimination by Defendants' employment practices in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While only about 12% of the United States' IT industry (the
industry in which LTI operates) is South Asian, at least 95% (or
more) of LTI's United States workforce is South Asian, and is
primarily composed of visa holders from India. This grossly
disproportionate workforce is the result of LTI's intentional
pattern or practice of employment discrimination against
individuals who are not of South Asian race, who are not of Indian
national origin, and who are not visa holders and its utilization
of employment practices that result in a disparate impact on these
same groups. This discrimination is pervasive throughout the
organization and extends to LTI's hiring, job placement, promotion,
and termination decisions and practices. In this four
inter-related, mutually reinforcing prongs, applicants, employees,
and contractors outside of LTI's favored class are similarly
disadvantaged and harmed, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were born in the United States, are United States
citizens, are of Caucasian race, and are of American national
origin.

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is an Indian company that provides
information technology software and services to clients in the
United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael von Klemperer, Esq.
     KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
     1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
     Washington, DC 20009
     Phone: (202) 471-1995
     Email: mvk@kotchen.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Add'l. Depositions in Vasquez Labor Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' request for leave to conduct additional
depositions.

The Plaintiffs filed a wage-and-hour class action against Leprino
Foods and Leprino Foods Dairy.  The action stems from the
Defendants' alleged custom and policy to "de crew," i.e., sending
workers home prior to the start of their scheduled shift without
pay because the Defendants reportedly misjudged its production or
labor needs and from their alleged policy of requiring the
Plaintiffs and workers to remain on call and subject to return to
discuss business matters and/or return to their work stations
during their rest and meal breaks if called upon to do so by
supervisory personnel.

On June 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  The Defendants opposed the motion on Aug. 30, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' reply deadline is Nov. 19, 2019, and a hearing is
scheduled for Dec. 9, 2019, before Senior District Judge Anthony W.
Ishii.  In anticipation of filing their reply, the Plaintiffs now
seek leave to exceed Rule 30's 10-deposition limit to depose the
putative class members who submitted declarations in support of the
Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification.

Prior to filing the motion, the parties engaged in unsuccessful
meet-and-confer efforts.  Specifically, on Aug. 20, 3019, after the
Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs requested that the Defendants
stipulate to the Plaintiffs taking the depositions of the 56
individuals whose declarations the Defendants had submitted with
their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs served written discovery on the
Defendants, which included demands for production of documents and
special interrogatories related to the declarants' personnel
records.  These requests seek the declarants' personnel files, time
records, work schedules, time off request forms, payroll variance
forms, pay records, and any records of phone calls the Defendants
made to their cell phones.  The Plaintiffs also seek the employee
ID number corresponding to each declarant in the Defendants' prior
time sheet productions.

On Sept. 9, 2019, the Defendants advised that they would not
stipulate to the Plaintiffs taking 56 depositions.   In response,
on Sept. 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs proposed 20 depositions.  On
Sept. 17, 2019, the Defendants rejected the proposal for 20
depositions and advised that they would agree to a total of 15
depositions, including the 8 that the Plaintiff had already taken
and 7 additional depositions.  The Defendants' proposal was
conditioned upon the additional depositions being scheduled for
mutually agreeable dates and upon the Plaintiffs' agreement not to
seek an extension of time to file their reply to the class
certification motion.  

Following additional email exchanges, the Plaintiffs stated that
they must first know when the Defendants would be available for the
depositions before agreeing not to seek an extension of the reply
deadline.  They also indicated that any agreement reached would be
contingent on the Defendants producing electronically all
responsive documents for the seven deponents at least one week
before their depositions and without the Plaintiffs waiving their
right to seek additional depositions from the Court after taking
the additional seven depositions and without waiving their right to
compel all responsive documents for all remaining declarants.

The Defendants did not agree to the proposal.  In particular, they
did not agree with the parts: (1) where the Plaintiffs did not
agree to limit their total depositions to 15, (2) where the
Plaintiffs insisted that the Defendant do more in response to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests than required by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; and (3) where the Plaintiffs insisted on
locking down dates at this juncture, without knowing who the
Plaintiffs seek to depose.

The motion presents two issues: (1) whether the Plaintiffs should
be granted leave to exceed the 10-deposition limit of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 30 in order to depose the putative class members
who submitted declarations in support of the Defendants' Opposition
to their Motion for Class Certification; and (2) whether the
Defendants should be compelled to produce certain personnel data
for these individuals prior to their depositions.  The parties
submitted a Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement on Sept. 20,
2019.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe finds that limited depositions of a
sampling of the absent, putative class members who have "injected"
themselves into the action by submitting such declarations are
appropriate.  This additional discovery is relevant to the claims
and defenses in the instant case.

However, the Plaintiffs' request to conduct 56 additional
depositions, which is well-beyond the presumptive 10-deposition
limit, is not proportional to the needs of the case, is burdensome
and is likely to result in cumulative or duplicative information.
Similarly, even if limited to the 33 putative class member
declarants, such a request is not reasonable or proportional to the
needs of the case.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not made a
particularized showing of necessity as to all 33 declarants in
order to exceed the 10-deposition limit or that the information is
not available from other sources.

Although the Defendants now oppose the request for additional
depositions, they previously expressed their willingness during
meet-and-confer efforts to allow the Plaintiffs to conduct seven
depositions of the declarants, in addition to the eight depositions
already completed during class certification discovery, for a total
of 15 depositions.  In light of this offer, the Magistrate Judge
holds that it appears reasonable to allow the Plaintiffs the
opportunity to select seven declarants for deposition as offered by
the Defendants.

The Magistrate Judge does not believe, however, that full-day
depositions are necessary to thoroughly question absent class
members about the substance of their declarations.  In allowing
depositions of absent class members, other courts have often
limited their length.  Therefore, each of the seven depositions of
absent class members contemplated by the Order will be limited to
no more than four hours in length.  The Plaintiffs will identify
the seven deponents no later than Oct. 2, 2019, and the parties
will meet and confer and work out a schedule for these depositions.
All depositions must be completed no later than Nov. 8, 2019, with
no corresponding extension of the reply deadline.

As to the Plaintiffs' related request that the Defendants be
required to produce personnel documents for the declarants, the
Magistrate Judge finds the request premature.  She says it was not
part of the original motion for leave to conduct additional
depositions and responses to the pertinent discovery requests are
not due until Oct. 7, 2019.  Even if not premature, the request is
not timely.  The parties were required to complete all discovery
relative to class certification issues no later than May 7, 2019.
Additional, ongoing written discovery for purposes of class
certification is disfavored.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' request for leave to conduct
additional depositions.  The Plaintiffs' are permitted to conduct
seven depositions of the putative class members who have submitted
declarations in support of the Defendants' opposition to the motion
for class certification.  They will identify the seven deponents no
later than Oct. 2, 2019, and the parties will meet and confer to
work out a schedule for these depositions.

The Plaintiffs are limited to four hours for each deposition of the
seven deponents.  All depositions must be completed no later than
Nov. 8, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/uNN2ZP from Leagle.com.

Isaias Vasquez, on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals & Linda Hefke, on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Cory Lee, The
Downey Law Firm, LLC, Philip A. Downey, The Downey Law Firm, LLC,
pro hac vice, Robert Gibson, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, pro
hac
vice, Eric Daniel Rouen -- rouenlaw@att.net -- Law Office of Eric
D. Rouen & Randall Martin Rumph -- rmrlaw10@sbcglobal.net -- Law
Office of Randy Rumph.

Leprino Foods Company, a Colorado corporation & Leprino Foods
Dairy
Products Company, a Colorado corporation, Defendants, represented
by Lisa M. Pooley -- lpooley@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett
LLP, Sandra L. Rappaport -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com --
Hanson
Bridgett LLP & Kyle Aaron Mabe -- kyle.a.mabe@gmail.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP.


LIBERTY CHEVROLET: Shover Seeks Overtime Wages for Salespersons
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON SHOVER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY CHEVROLET, INC., CHARLES E.
KNOPF, JR., and JEFFREY P. MANNING, the Defendants, Case No.
19-3034-A (Mass. Super, Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay as required by
state law.

The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current
employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and
related products. These employees work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours
and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law, the
lawsuit says.

Liberty hired Mr. Shover as a salesperson in or around 2013.

Liberty is a company operating a car dealership and selling
vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN]

Plaintiff's counsel are:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com
                  sco@mass-legal.com

LIBERTY POWER: Court Trims Claims in Second Amended Katz TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL KATZ and LYNNE RHODES, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY
POWER CORP., LLC and LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 18-cv-10506-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i)
granted in part and denied in part Liberty Power's motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; and (ii) denied its motion
for summary judgment.

In the putative class action, Mr. Katz and Ms. Rhodes allege that
Liberty Power Corp., LLC and Liberty Power Holdings, LLC or their
agents placed calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  They bring claims on behalf of four
putative classes and claim that Liberty Power violated the TCPA by
placing robocalls to cell phones, making telemarketing calls that
used an artificial or prerecorded voice, calling numbers that were
registered on the national Do Not Call Registry, and failing to
maintain and respect an internal do-not-call list.  Additionally,
the Plaintiffs allege that Liberty Power is engaged in actual and
constructive fraudulent transfers in violation of Florida's Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA").

The Plaintiffs brought claim on behalf of each of the following
four putative nationwide classes:

     a. Robocall Class: All persons in the United States who
received one or more telemarketing calls to their wireless
telephone numbers by or on behalf of Liberty Power, that were made
using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, from
March 16, 2014 through the date the Court certifies the class.

     b. Residential Class: All persons in the United States who
received one or more telemarketing calls to their residential
(wireless or landline) telephone numbers by or on behalf of Liberty
Power, that were made using an artificial or prerecorded voice,
from March 16, 2014 through the date the Court certifies the
class.

     c. National Do Not Call Class (NDNC Class): All persons in the
United States whose residential (wireless or landline) telephone
number was registered with the national Do-Not-Call registry for at
least thirty days prior to receiving at least two telemarketing
calls by or on behalf of Liberty Power to such number within any
12-month period at any time from March 16, 2014 through the date
the Court certifies the class.

     d. Internal Do Not Call Class (IDNC Class): All persons in the
United States who received at least two telemarketing calls to
their residential (wireless or landline) telephone number by or on
behalf of Liberty Power within any 12-month period at any time from
March 16, 2014 through the date the Court certifies the class.

Ms. Rhodes is the sole named representative for the Robocall Class,
and both Ms. Rhodes and Mr. Katz purport to represent the
Residential, NDNC, and IDNC Classes.  The Plaintiffs claim that
Liberty Power or its agents: (1) called Robocall Class members in
violation of the TCPA's prohibition on using an ATDS or with an
artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) ("Count I"); (2) called Residential Class members
using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(B) ("Count II"); (3) called NDNC Class members'
registered Do Not Call Registry phone numbers with impermissible
frequency in violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2) ("Count
III"); and (4) placed telemarketing calls to IDNC Class members
without proper internal do not call list procedures in violation of
47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) ("Count IV").  The Second Amended
Complaint also asserts claims for actual fraudulent transfers
("Count V") and constructive fraudulent transfers ("Count VI") in
violation of the UFTA.

Liberty Power has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).  It
argues that Ms. Rhodes' claims should be dismissed because she
lacks standing to assert claims for calls made to her late father,
who was the primary target of most of the calls at issue, and that
Mr. Katz's demand for injunctive relief should be dismissed because
he is not likely to face future injury.

Liberty Power next argues that the TCPA claims should be dismissed
because the Second Amended Complaint does not adequately
distinguish between Liberty Power and Liberty Power Holdings, and
that the TCPA is unconstitutional because it contains a
content-based restriction on speech.  It asserts that the UFTA
claims should be dismissed because they are not pled with
particularity and fail to plausibly allege a claim for fraud.

Liberty Power argues that summary judgment should be granted on
Counts II, III, and IV as alleged by Mr. Katz because, as a
professional TCPA litigant, he lacks standing and further because
he consented to two of the calls at issue.  It also argues that the
Court should grant summary judgment on Count I as alleged by Ms.
Rhodes because she did not pay for one of the calls she received on
her cell phone and on Counts II, III, and IV because she lacks
standing to assert claims based on calls to her late father's
residential line where she was not named as the subscriber for that
phone number.

Judge Burroughs (i) granted in part and denied in part Liberty
Power's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; and (ii)
denied its motion for summary judgment.  Counts V and VI, actual
and constructive fraudulent transfers, are dismissed without
prejudice.  The motion to dismiss and the motion for summary
judgment are denid as to Counts I, II, III, and IV.

Among other things, the Judge holds that the debt-collection
exception to the TCPA is unconstitutional.  The government debt
collection exception is content based because determining whether a
given call comes within the exception turns on the purpose(s) of
the call and its subject matter.  

However, the Judge concludes that the exception is severable from
the remainder of the TCPA.  There is little doubt that the
debt-collection exception is severable.  Chapter 5 of Title 47,
which contains the TCPA, has a "Separability" provision that
provides, if any provision of this chapter or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances will not be affected thereby.
Additionally, the 2015 adoption of the debt-collection exception
occurred without any indication that Congress would not have wished
to continue protecting citizens from unwanted telemarketing calls
if the debt-collection exception was held unconstitutional.  For
the same reasons articulated by the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, the
Judge concludes that the government debt-collection exception of
the TCPA is severable.  Therefore, the claims in the case are
unaffected by the debt-collection exception's unconstitutionality.

With respect to the motion for summary judgment, the Judge finds
that Mr. Katz has standing to pursue Counts II, III, and IV.
Although telemarketing calls may not truly be a scourge for Mr.
Katz, who has turned the calls into a financial opportunity, the
issue of Mr. Katz's standing boils down to whether he maintained
the number that Liberty Power's agents called for any purpose other
than attracting telemarketing calls to support his TCPA lawsuits.


Maintaining a landline for emergencies is arguably prudent and
certainly not beyond believable, particularly considering that Mr.
Katz has three young children.  Furthermore, Mr. Katz has
demonstrated injury that supports standing by testifying that
Liberty Power's agents called numerous times and conversed with him
on multiple calls for extended periods of time.  The fact that Mr.
Katz may now, or might someday, be pleased that he received
incessant calls from Liberty Power or its agents because of the
financial reward the lawsuit could bring does not, by itself,
deprive him of standing.

Finally, considering that Ms. Rhodes resided at Mr. Rhode's
residence, helped register the phone number for the Do Not Call
Registry, and regularly answered the phone line at issue, including
answering several of the relevant calls placed by Liberty Power's
agents, the Judge concludes that she has standing to pursue Counts
II, III, and IV.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum
& Order is available at https://is.gd/fhC6QI from Leagle.com.

Samuel Katz, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David
Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens
LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, pro
hac
vice, Grace Parasmo -- gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- Parasmo
Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, Suzanne L. Havens Beckman --
shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens, LLP, pro hac
vice, Yitzchak H. Lieberman -- ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
-- Parasmo Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, John L. Fink --
jfink@westborolawyer.com -- Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R.
Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice.  

Alexander Braurman & Lynne Rhodes, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ethan
Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, David Christopher Parisi Parisi
& Havens LLP, Grace Parasmo, Parasmo Lieberman Law, John L. Fink,
Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz &
Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company &
LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Charles A. Zdebski --
czdebski@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey P. Brundage -- jbrundage@eckertseamans.com
--
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R.
Waksler -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC & Rachel E. Moynihan -- rmoynihan@eckertseamans.com
--
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Jefferson Sessions United States Attorney General, Interested
Party, represented by Susan M. Poswistilo, United States
Attorney's
Office.

LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company &
Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company,
ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Charles A. Zdebski, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R. Waksler,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Jeffrey P. Brundage, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.


LIFE TIME: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Rodriguez FLSA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and SARAH GIESMAN, Plaintiff, v.
LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., etc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1123
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' Motions to Strike Class and Collective Action Claim.

Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Giesman are Ohio residents who worked at
Life Time Fitness as personal trainers, from 2007-2016 and
2016-2017, respectively.  Life Time Fitness owns and operates
fitness centers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs have brought suit alleging that Life Time's
compensation scheme, practice of not recording hours worked or
informing personal trainers of their rate of pay, and failure to
pay minimum wage or overtime violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Ohio labor laws.  They bring their claims under the
FLSA as a collective action for past-due wages, liquated damages
for opt in putative class members, and also request additional
remedies available under Ohio law by certifying a class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23.

The Defendants have brought a Motion to strike the class and
collective claims from the Plaintiffs' pleadings on the basis that
another federal district court has already heard these claims and
decided not to certify a nationwide collective action -- Steger v.
Life Time Fitness, Inc., No. 14-CV-6056, 2016 WL 245899 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 21, 2016).  The Plaintiffs argue that the Illinois decision
only addressed a nationwide class, not the more narrowly drawn Ohio
class and that intervening Sixth Circuit case law, Stein v.
HHGREGG, Inc., 873 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2017), counsels against the
application of comity because that decision held a compensation
scheme like the one at issue in their complaint unlawful.

Despite similarities in the claims alleged in the Illinois action
and in the instant case, Judge Marbley finds that the more narrowly
drawn Ohio class could qualify for class certification under the
FLSA or FRCP 23.  Further, the Plaintiff's pleadings do not rise to
the level of "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter" and it would thus be inappropriate to strike their class
and collective action claims.  Since the Defendants cannot
establish with certainty on the face of the pleadings that the
Plaintiffs will fail to certify a class, the Judge declines to
strike the Plaintiffs' class and collective action claims at this
time.

But the Judge finds that the Defendants are correct that HHGREGG
held that a recoverable-draw compensation plan like Lifetime's is
lawful.  The Plaintiffs, however, are not challenging the
lawfulness of a recoverable draw compensation plan in their
complaint, but rather, alleging that the Plaintiffs and the members
of the Ohio class were consistently and uniformly not paid the
minimum wage or overtime pay for all the work they performed during
the course of their employment.  Thus, the fact that a recoverable
draw compensation plan is lawful in theory says nothing about
whether the Plaintiffs were actually paid the minimum wage for all
the work they performed for Lifetime (and not just the work that
they clocked in for).  

Further, the HHGREGG decision's focus was on whether the district
court erred in dismissing certain of the plaintiff's class and
collective action claims, whereas Defendants here have brought
forth a motion to strike.  Since the standard for dismissing claims
is different from that for striking pleadings, HHGREGG has little
bearing on the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to
strike.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Marbley denied the Defendants'
Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/LGCvAc from Leagle.com.

Sarah Giesman & Gabriel Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael Fradin -- mike@fradinlaw.com -- Fradin Law Office, Brian
Chase -- bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisner and Chase, pro hac vice,
Ian Silvers, pro hac vice & Jerusalem F. Beligan --
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- pro hac vice.

Life Time Fitness, Inc., LTF Club Management Company & LTF Club
Operations Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Robert J.
Bowes, III -- Robert.Bowes@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.,
Eric R. Magnus -- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., pro hac vice & Matthew Richard Byrne --
Matthew.Byrne@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP.


LIFESTYLE DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Loans
-----------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan, writing for Moneyweb, reports that Stellenbosch
University Law Clinic is bringing a class action suit to the
Western Cape High Court, to stop internet loan lender Lifestyle
Direct and 18 other respondents from deceiving the public into
applying for bogus loans.

Customers who signed up complained that they did not receive any
loans, but had their bank accounts debited for so-called "legal
services packages".

The Law Clinic also wants the court to stop Lifestyle from debiting
the accounts of people who applied for what they thought were loan
agreements, and from harassing or threatening them for payment.

Lifestyle was approached to comment on this article before
publication. Its only response, via Henno Bothma of attorneys
Abrahams & Gross, which is defending most of the respondents, was
that Lifestyle intends defending the case. "Our instructions are to
oppose the matter," said Bothma.

Asked how Lifestyle intends to answer the claim of misleading the
public, Bothma says numerous clients who qualified for loans were
referred to lenders and received loans. "Our case will be more
fully laid out in our opposing affidavit," he says.

'Unconscionable'

The Law Clinic says the lending practices of Lifestyle violate the
Consumer Protection Act and are "unconscionable, unjust,
unreasonable or unfair". It wants any money deducted from consumers
misled by these websites to be returned to them, as well as for the
respondents to compensate them for wasted bank charges.

The loans are offered to the public via websites such as Loan Quest
SA, Loan Locator SA and Loan Hub SA, none of which are registered
credit providers.

Complaints started dribbling through to consumer website Hello
Peter in 2016 when 'loan applicants' reported funds disappearing
from their accounts, followed by harassing phone calls, after
filling out what they assumed to be an online loan application. The
dribble became a flood, with thousands of complaints online by
consumers who have fallen victim to these scams.

There is also a Facebook group called 'Action Against Lifestyle
Legal, Loan Hub SA and other scams'.

Those who signed up thought they were applying for a loan or for
assistance in finding a loan. They did not believe they were
entering into an agreement to purchase unwanted services.

All the websites have virtually identical terms of service and
legal disclaimers, and require the applicant to provide the date of
salary payment to facilitate successful debit orders.

Deception intentional

The purpose of the websites is to deliberately mislead the public,
says the court application. Some offer a 30-day cooling-off period
during which applicants can cancel the agreement, but none knew
they had entered into an agreement. Consumers also report that
their pleas to cancel the unwanted agreements during this
cooling-off period fell on deaf ears.

The Law Clinic has applied to the court for an 'opt-out'
class--meaning anyone who has been adversely affected is assumed to
be a member of the class unless specifically opting out.

In an affidavit before the court, the Law Clinic's senior attorney
Stephan van der Merwe says hundreds of complaints were received
from members of the public who had visited one or more of the dozen
websites operated by Lifestyle, which appear to offer loans or free
loan-finding services.

Unrelated 'services'

The websites all employ the same modus operandi: they invite
consumers to submit an application online for what appears to be a
loan or a loan-procuring service. Buried in the terms of service,
consumers submitting applications are deemed to have entered into
an 'agreement' for a service that has nothing to do with loans,
such as "telephonic legal advice assistance".

Consumers are required to fill in their bank account details as
part of the loan application process, but what they appear not to
realise is that they have consented to a monthly debit order
against their bank accounts.

"Attempts to cancel the 'agreements' and to stop the debit orders
are met by stonewalling and threats from companies behind the
websites," says Van der Merwe's affidavit.

Despite acres of adverse publicity over the years, Lifestyle
"continues to operate this scam with impunity and the number of
consumers harmed is continuously growing".

The Law Clinic is asking the court for recognition as a class, and
for an interim interdict to shut down the offending websites and a
prohibition on Lifestyle harassing and threatening 'customers' for
the recovery of bogus debts.

One of the applicants in the case is Ignatius Heyns, who submitted
an application through the Loan Zone SA website. Loan Zone SA then
debited his bank account. Heyns reversed this, but was then hit
with demands for payment and threats of "punitive" action.

The more-than-a-dozen websites offering loans are making fraudulent
misrepresentations to the public, says the Law Clinic.

All but one of the companies that operate the relevant websites
were registered on the same day (May 20, 2015), and all share the
same directors, namely Malander and Paich. Their websites are also
hosted on the same server.

On June 10, 2016, Malander resigned as director of some of the
companies and was replaced by Paich.

Lifestyle Legal, a subsidiary of the Lifestyle Direct Group, plays
a critical role in the scam, says the Law Clinic.

When a customer fails to make payment in terms of an 'agreement'
allegedly concluded through one of the websites, they are handed
over to Lifestyle Legal for debt collection.

In one case cited by the Law Clinic, after interacting with one of
these websites, a consumer's bank account was debited by an entity
called All Wheel Auto (Pty) Ltd, despite the fact that the consumer
had no prior interaction with the company. Malander is also a
director of this business.

The case for the interdict to stop these websites from operating in
this misleading way (or at all) will come before the court on
November 27. [GN]


LOGITECH INC: Asks Supreme Ct. to Stay Proceedings in Porath Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Logitech Inc. files with the Supreme Court of the United States an
application for stay of proceedings in the matter styled LOGITECH
INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; JAMES PORATH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Real
Party in Interest.

Specifically, Logitech seeks an order staying proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari from the
order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denying Logitech's petition for a writ of mandamus in the appellate
case titled In re Logitech, Inc., Case No. 19-70248 (9th Cir.). The
Ninth Circuit denied the petition on September 12, 2019, on the
sole ground that any legal error was not sufficiently clear to
warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus.

The Application is directed to the Honorable Elena Kagan, Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court and circuit justice for the Ninth
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2019,
Plaintiff James Porath moved the Court for an order certifying a
class and a subclass:

     Class:

     "all United States persons who purchased Logitech's z200
      stereo sound system  prior to May 23, 2018, either in
      person or from website page containing any of the following
      phrases       (or derivations therof): "Two drivers per
      speaker", "Two drivers per  satellite", "Two 2.5 drivers
      per satellite", "Two 2.5-inch drivers per satellite", "Four
      high quality 2.5-inch drivers", "Two 2.50 drivers", and
      "Two 2.5 (6.3 cm) driver per satellite"; and

      Subclass:

     "all class members domiciled in the State of California."

The Plaintiff contends that Logitech's decision to advertise the
Z200 speaker set as having two drivers per speaker was fraudulent.
The Plaintiff alleges claims under California's Unfair Competition
and False Advertising Laws and for common law fraud.

The District Court case is captioned as JAMES PORATH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOGITECH, INC.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-03091-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.[BN]

The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri E. Borders, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                  kborders@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real, #300
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 331-2060
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com


MDL 2034: $15MM Deal in Cable TV Antitrust Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted (i) certification of the class and
(ii) final approval of the class settlement in IN RE: COMCAST CORP.
SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
09-md-2034 (E.D. Pa.).

Comcast is the largest provider of cable multi-channel video
programming distribution in the United States, servicing over 24
million customers in 39 states and the District of Columbia.  It
provides cable services in exchange for a monthly fee based upon
the level of service provided.  

In 2008, individuals began filing lawsuits against Comcast,
alleging that Comcast unlawfully tied the sale of Premium Cable to
the rental of a Set-Top Box from Comcast.  On June 17, 2009, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and
consolidated these lawsuits before Judge Brody as a multidistrict
litigation.  In total, 24 civil actions were consolidated into the
MDL.

Plaintiffs James E. Deanne, William Gonzales, John Martich, and
Carrie D. Cooper, on behalf of themselves and the putative class
members they seek to represent, have negotiated and agreed to a
Fourth Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement with Defendants
Comcast Corporation, Comcast Holdings Corporation, Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc., and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,
Inc. in the MDL.  On Sept. 5, 2018, Judge Brody preliminarily
certified the Settlement Class and preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement.

The parties define the Settlement Class as follows:  All persons
who: (i) resided in and subscribed to Premium Cable in California,
Washington, or West Virginia during the Class Period, or (ii)
subscribed to Premium Cable in any state in the United States
during the Class Period and elected to opt out of Comcast's
arbitration clause as reflected in Comcast's records; and paid
Comcast a rental fee for a Set-Top Box at any time during the Class
Period.

The Class Period covers all Class Members who rented a Set-Top Box
anytime starting on or after Jan. 1, 2005 and ending on Sept. 5,
2018, the date of the Court's Order granting preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement is a claims-made
settlement.  Comcast will pay all claims made in the aggregate that
do not exceed $15.5 million in value.  If the Class Members submit
more than $15.5 million worth of claims, then benefits will be
distributed on a pro rata basis.  If they submit less than $15.5
million worth of claims, then Comcast will retain the balance.

All the Class Members will be entitled to a cash payment and
Current Subscribers will have the choice of either a cash payment
or in-kind relief.  The Class Members will be entitled to a cash
payment in accordance with the length of time they rented a Set-Top
Box from Comcast, regardless of the number of Set-Top Boxes they
rented.

Current Subscribers will be entitled to elect to receive in-kind
relief in lieu of a cash payment.  They will be entitled to in-kind
relief in accordance with the length of time they rented a Set-Top
Box from Comcast, and will receive additional in-kind relief if
they rented more than one Set-Top Box.

Out of an estimated 3.5 million potential Class Members, 20,262
individuals have filed claims; 59 individuals have opted out of the
proposed Settlement; and four individuals have filed three
objections to the Settlement.  On Sept. 10, 2019, the Court held a
final fairness hearing.

Judge Brody finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  The Judge also grants
final approval of the Settlement.

Because both the percentage-of-recovery method and the lodestar
cross-check indicate that the Plaintiffs' fee request is
reasonable, Judge Brody further approves the Plaintiffs' request
for $1.1 million as an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses.  

Finally, because the named class representatives provided
information necessary to the Plaintiffs' counsel for filing the
Complaint and for negotiating the Settlement, the Judge will
approve the Plaintiffs' request for an incentive award of $1,000 to
each named class representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/bhdT3Y from Leagle.com.

JAMES DEANNE, WILLIAM GONZALES & STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Appellants, represented by DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com --
NASTLAW LLC.


MIASOLE HI-TECH: Jensen Seeks OT Wages, Damages Under WARN Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS JENSEN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MIASOLE HI-TECH CORP., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV356098
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 3, 2019), is brought to
recover wages and penalties arising from the Defendants' violation
of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay proper
overtime wages.

On July 10, 2019, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were laid off and/or terminated by the Defendants.  The
Defendants, however, failed to give the employees 60 days of notice
before implementing the mass layoff and/or termination, as required
by the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN Act), according to the complaint.  Hence, the Plaintiff also
seeks to recover damages under the California WARN Act.

The Defendant is a California corporation that produces and
manufactures solar cell panels and other related cell manufacturing
equipment in the United States, including in the State of
California.  The true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


MIKE POSTLE: Class Action Mulled Over Poker Cheating Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Newell, writing for Legal US Pokersites.com, reports that
longtime poker pro Mike Postle is at the center of the allegations
of poker cheating.

After numerous other poker pros have analyzed videos and considered
all possible angles to give Postle the benefit of the doubt, most
of them can no longer do so.

The claim is that Postle has been cheating in low-stakes cash poker
games livestreamed from Stones Gambling Hall near Sacramento,
California. And the story has evolved so quickly that there are
already attorneys involved, and the story is being covered by an
ever-increasing number of media outlets far beyond the normal poker
circles.

From Accusations to Investigation

It started (in the public eye) on Sept. 28 when poker pro Veronica
Brill, poker pro and live poker commentator, tweeted the
following:

"If someone is displaying a probability of cheating on a live
stream you don't make the entire room not be able to use their
cellphones in an attempt to reduce everyone's anxiety and then
still promote the player as one of the best.

"You take that player off the stream while you launch a proper,
objective investigation done by a third party. Once it's shown that
the player has not been cheating, you make your investigation
public and let the player back onto the stream.

"Am I sure that this player is cheating? No. Do I think that there
is a greater than zero % chance that he is? Yes. Have numerous
professional poker players voiced their concerns to me regarding
this player? Yes.

"Also, I brought up my concerns about this player months ago to the
person running the live stream. I was told that no one gets this
player and that he is just better than everyone. Also, that they
had some one or some company come in to check their security."

Brill went on to say that the player is nice off stream, and she
played with him frequently at Stones. She had been noticing
discrepancies and brought them to the attention of Stones' staff
but was consistently dismissed.

However, the cheating suspicions show Postle had an uncannily high
VPIP (voluntarily put money in pot), one that puts him in the top
95% of results. Brill could not let it go without making it known.

Those accusations and the initial responses to Brill made Joey
Ingram want to investigate on his own. He did some live commentary
and looked through hours and hours of play from the livestreams.

Ultimately, Ingram watched more than 50 hours of hands involving
Postle and concluded that he had two playing styles: "one where he
plays GOD-like, soul-reading poker with very wide pre-flop ranges
and perfect frequencies, the other where he plays really solid
poker most of the time."

Ingram ended up posting several videos with explanations and
analyses, all with the same almost-undeniable conclusion: Postle
cheated.

The videos are each several hours long, and these are only two of
the Ingram videos of five thus far. Poker pro Doug Polk has also
been on the case and producing video content.

Theories and Clues
Many other poker pros have been analyzing hands, and the posts are
all over Twitter and the Two Plus Two thread on the topic. Within
one week, that forum thread had more than 4,500 postings and
counting.

It should be noted that Postle's amazing runs of winning plays have
taken place on the Stones Live streams hosted at Stones Gambling
Hall. He now rarely plays cash games other than streamed ones.

In order for Postle to cheat, he had to be able to know the hole
cards of his opponents or know what plays to make. Considering
Postle's knowledge of the game, if he was shown the hole cards, he
would know how to correctly play the hands.

There are several ways he could have cheated, according to those
who know about livestreaming and the games in question.

   -- Headphones or some type of device under Postle's hat (always
wears a baseball cap, regularly touches his head in the same
general spot)

   -- Key ring, some type of reader mixed with his keys (always
seem to be in sight)

   -- Cell phone in his lap (regularly reaches into his lap,
squirms, looks down into his lap)

Some connected Postle with Taylor Smith, a member of the Stones
Live tech team. However, it doesn't seem that he was always present
when Postle played his winning sessions on the stream.

The most frequently mentioned person who could have coordinated
with Postle to help cheat -- allegedly -- is Justin Kuraitis, the
tournament director at Stones. He is not only in charge of the
Stones Live operation, but he is also reportedly at his desk near
the livestreaming table during the broadcasts. Postle's winnings
seem to only happen when Kuraitis is on site and at his desk.

While the livestreaming commentary and broadcasts are all on a
30-minute delay per California gambling regulations, the tech room
has access to the hands as they happen so as to prep the stream for
the commentators and broadcast. Very few people have access to that
information. Kuraitis is one of them.

Kuraitis, known as JFKPokerTD on Twitter, locked his social media
account but not before tweeting this:

"It is unfortunate that these allegations were made public with
absolutely no evidence. The reputation of my team and an
exciting/fun player are now being publicly mobbed."

Postle Responses and Explanations

When the accusations against Postle began to gain momentum, he took
to Twitter to defend himself. He started with this:

"There is so much I want to say and now so much that I am forced to
say which involves gloating about my 16-year poker career. On that
involves me being so successful everywhere I've played including
online, that I've been accused of having an unfair advantage by a
handful of local individuals who convinced someone it was true, and
to ultimately attack me publicly in the process with nothing but
speculation on a tiny fraction of hands that are questionable at
best. I've played a unique high-variance style my entire poker
career. . ."

Postle claimed that he has put "an enormous amount of time into
just studying the game" and studying human behavior. He claimed he
has been "blessed with very good instincts."

Days later, Mike Matusow interviewed Postle for his podcast in an
effort to allow Postle to explain himself.

On the two-part podcast, Postle claimed to be a winning player for
his 16-year career. He said he never liked the accolades or the
comments about him running like a god at the table. Even so, he
later said he believes he is one of the best poker players in the
game.

While admitting that he loves making good money, he also said that
he doesn't want to travel beyond Sacramento to play the
higher-stakes games in other cities like Los Angeles or Las Vegas.

Postle claimed that the chip stacks on the livestream are rarely
accurate because of hands played before the stream begins and due
to reloads not explained on the streams. Thus, he said his win
rates and win amounts are exaggerated.

Stones Responses and Actions

Initially, when the allegations against Postle surfaced, Stones's
poker room responded via Twitter that the complaint of cheating had
been received earlier in the year and fully investigated.

Days later, as the story came together, Stones Gambling Hall
suspended all broadcasts of live poker play, including the
streaming. There was an investigation in progress, a "multifaceted"
one with "outside experts." It would be thorough and detailed, and
the outcome would be reported "when available."

Since that didn't go over well with anyone following the story,
Stones issued a four-part tweet that read:

"Stones Gambling is committed to the integrity of our games. We
have been alarmed by allegations of unfair play occurring during
the streamed broadcasts of our "Stones Live" games and have acted
quickly to investigate.

"We temporarily halted all broadcasts from Stones. We have also, as
a result, halted the use of RFID playing cards. We have taken these
steps proactively while we conduct a multifaceted and thorough
investigation into every element of these games.

"To that end, we are announcing the creation of an independent
investigation team. The team will be led by Michael Lipman, a
former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of
California and Chief of that office's fraud unit.

"He is assembling other members who will be announced in due
course. Stones intends to conduct this investigation and share
outcomes with transparency. We will provide updates as
appropriate."

Victim Responses and Actions

Many players who have competed against Postle on the stream have
been quick to speak up, as their quiet suspicions have been given
voice.

In fact, players from all corners of the poker world have spoken up
to express their concerns about the likelihood of cheating on a
livestream. Their interest goes far beyond the Stones Live stream
but covers the future of poker in general. Livestreaming has given
poker some new life and helped the game, but a scandal like this
can just as easily tear it all down.

Concerns also immediately arose about the choice of Lipman as the
lead investigator for Stones. Several people in the poker community
very quickly determined that Lipman had served as legal counsel for
the owners of Stones Gambling Hall.

Poker player and gambling attorney Mac VerStandig publicly
questioned Stones about it.

VerStandig also revealed that his law firm is working with Brill
and other victims of Postle. He was meeting in Sacramento with
players who claim to have been cheated. "We anticipate bringing
suit," he wrote on Twitter.

In addition, poker pro and commentator Jamie Kerstetter -- who is
also an attorney -- noted in a tweet that the lawsuit is a class
action.

Mainstream Coverage

The story has so many interesting twists and turns that it is
spreading beyond the world of poker media.

Perhaps, the story hits home because poker is the game played at
the kitchen table and with grandparents. Poker is the most popular
card game in America…and maybe the world. The vast majority of
people in the game have worked for decades to change the image of
poker from a backroom game played by cheaters to a clean game that
is regulated and trustworthy.

Or perhaps, the story resonates because it is the story of an
alleged cheater outed by the affected players and community.

Of course, the story made it to the local news in northern
California where Stones is located.

It made it to ESPN on Oct. 4, as Scott Van Pelt explained it in its
simplest terms for the masses on SportsCenter.

"If a guy were able to cheat his way to six-figure games playing
cards and it got solved by a bunch of poker sleuths on the
internet, is that a story that interests you?" said Van Pelt.

Business cable news network CNBC covered the story, too. [GN]


NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta FCRA Suit Underway in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Consumer
Telecom and Utilities Exchange, Inc. The case is captioned as
Robert Trepeta, On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. National Consumer Telecom
and Utilities Exchange, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va., Aug. 5,
2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark S. Davis. The
suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC and National Consumer Telecom and
Utilities Exchange, Inc. filed their answer to the First Amended
Class Action on Oct. 10.

Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard on Oct. 16 entered a Rule
26(f) Pretrial Order setting a Scheduling Conference for Nov. 15 at
10:00 a.m. in Norfolk.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Tara Boen Keller, Esq.
          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  tara@clalegal.com
                  matt@clalegal.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Patton Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LINDA PATTON, on behalf of
themselves And all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC OF DELAWARE d/b/a CHAMPION MORTGAGE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00099-TJK (D. Colo.),
Glendale Hoggard and Linda Patton move the Court for an order
certifying Nationwide Class and Subclasses pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Champion Mortgage is a division of Nationstar Mortgage and offers
multiple solutions to meet your reverse mortgage needs.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Call Center Employees Class Certified in Cowan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MYRA COWAN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-1225 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D.
Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) denied the Defendant's Motion to
Strike; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part Cowan's Motion
for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to
Putative Class Members.

The Plaintiff is a former hourly non-exempt call center employee of
the Defendant who alleges that she was not paid for pre-shift and
lunch break work activities in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Florida common law.  Nationwide is an
Ohio corporation that operates one of the largest insurance and
financial services companies in the world, and is comprised of
customer service call centers throughout the United States.  The
Plaintiff attached her consent to join the case to the Original
Complaint and 18 others followed.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its customer service
call center in Gainesville, Florida from February 2017 until
November 2018.  Of the eight other Declarants, four Declarants also
worked in the Defendant's Gainesville, Florida call center, one
worked in the Defendant's Canton, Ohio call center, three worked in
the Defendant's San Antonio, Texas call center, two worked in
Defendant's Lynchburg, Virginia call center, and three work/worked
from home.

Regardless of their titles or locations (including work-at-home
employees), the Declarants' duties included receiving inbound
customer calls, answering general customer inquiries, looking up
claims, and troubleshooting customer problems.  The Declarants were
paid an hourly rate for 38.75 hours worked each week.  They
performed the same off-the-clock work for the same reasons.

The Defendant's policy, as communicated through management,
required that all the Declarants arrive early so that they could
log into their computer systems and be in available mode by shift
start.  If the Declarants were not in available mode at shift
start, managers could give them an "occurrence" or a "point," which
cumulatively could lead to the employee being fired.  Logging onto
the computer and loading the required programs before shift start
could take up to one hour.  The Declarants also had to be in
available mode as soon as their lunch break ended.  This
necessitated logging back into Nationwide's computer programs and
required anywhere from two to 20 minutes of work.  The Declarants
were not permitted to do any pre-shift work while on the clock.
Based on the Declarants' personal observations and conversations
with their call center coworkers, all putative class members were
subject to the same policies and practices of the Defendant.

Taking into account Declarants' pre-shift and lunch work, they
performed anywhere from two to 10 hours of unpaid work per week.
Although the Defendant had a system for making time alteration
requests if the Declarants worked outside their weekly shift
schedule of 38.75 hours, time alteration requests for pre-shift
work were never granted.  According to the Declarants, management
consistently denied time alteration requests for pre-shift and
lunch work because they viewed the time as non-compensable.  They
believe that others would be interested in joining the action.

On May 21, 2019, the Defendant moved to strike and dismiss all
"Consent to Join Wage Claim" forms without prejudice, and requested
an order requiring the Plaintiff's counsel to issue a curative
notice, remove an improper notice from its website, and for
sanctions.  In its Motion Strike, the Defendant contends that the
Plaintiff's counsel misled putative class members and circumvented
the court-sanctioned notice process when the Plaintiff's counsel
provided information about the lawsuit as well as opt-in consent
forms on its website, prior to the Court's decision on conditional
certification.  Further, a Nationwide employee then posted the
information on their personal Facebook page.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice followed.  While the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint presents a hybrid collective and class action, she
presently moves only for collective FLSA certification.

She seeks collective action status pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), and has defined the FLSA collective class she wants to
represent as: All hourly call-center employees who have been
employed by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., anywhere in the United
States, at any time from April 1, 2016 through the final
disposition of the matter.  The Defendant opposes, and the
Plaintiff's Reply is lodged.

As the Plaintiff's counsel removed the information from the firm's
website on May 22, 2019--just 40 days after its posting--any minor
concerns the Court has with the content of the communication have
been remedied.  However, in future cases, the Plaintiff should
better clarify that the potential Plaintiffs have alternative legal
options available besides opting-in to the collective action.
Finding the pre-certification communication otherwise appropriate,
Judge MOrrison declines to interfere with the rights of the opt-in
Plaintiffs or to order sanctions.  Accordingly, she denied the
Defendant's Motion to Strike.

At this initial stage, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
established that she is similarly situated enough to the putative
class members to proceed collectively through discovery.  As the
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan noted, the vast
majority of United States District Courts have routinely granted
conditional certification to call center employees alleging similar
'off-the-clock' FLSA violations.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification of the collective action
is granted.

Specifically, the Judge conditionally certified the following
class: All non-exempt employees who worked at one of Nationwide's
call centers or service centers anywhere in the United States
and/or worked from home and provided direct customer support and
assistance through phone or e-mail systems, at any time three years
prior to the date of the Court's Order through the final
disposition of the matter.

Having determined that conditional certification is warranted, the
Judge now turns to the form and manner of the Plaintiff's proposed
Notice.  The Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) approves the
Notice and Consent form; (2) allows the Plaintiff to disseminate
the Notice and Consent form via U.S. mail, e-mail, and text; (3)
allows the Notice and Consent form to be posted in plain view at
each of Nationwide's call centers, nationwide; (4) approves a
reminder e-mail to be sent to the putative class halfway through a
60-day notice period; and (5) orders the Defendant to produce an
electronic and importable roster of putative class members that
worked for Nationwide during the relevant time period, which
includes their full names, dates of employment, positions of
employment, locations of employment, last known mailing addresses,
last known telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and last four
digits of their social security numbers, within 14 days of the
Order.  The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff's proposed Notice on
several grounds.

To the extent it is being sought, the Judge rejects the Plaintiff's
claims for unpaid gap time or straight time under the FLSA.
Consequently, the Plaintiff will modify the Notice to make it clear
that the lawsuit alleges that Nationwide failed to pay overtime
wages as required by the FLSA and that the Plaintiff seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages only.

Moving onto the Consent form, the Judge finds it is straightforward
and easy to complete.  It states the signatory has read and
understands the Notice and agrees to opt in to the collective
action.  The Consent form indicates the signatory agrees to be
represented by the law firms of Anderson Alexander, PLLC, and
Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, and also
specifies that the signatory understands that they will be bound by
any settlement reached or judgment entered in the matter.  In sum,
with the noted revisions made, the Judge anticipates approving the
content of the Plaintiff's Notice and Consent form.

The Judge permits the Notice and Consent form to be sent via U.S.
mail and e-mail to all putative class members.  However, the
Plaintiff may not notify any potential opt-in Plaintiff of the
lawsuit by text message unless she can show that notice by postal
and electronic mail is insufficient--or in other words, such notice
by both methods has been returned as undeliverable for a particular
individual.  The Plaintiff may not send notice to any potential
class member by text message absent further permission from the
Court.

The Judge finds that three forms of notice is redundant and
unnecessary.  The Plaintiff will not post copies of the Notice or
Consent form in any of Nationwide's call centers.

Next, the Judge orders the Defendant to produce the full names,
dates of employment, positions of employment, locations of
employment, last known mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of
putative class members to the Plaintiff's counsel in an electronic
and importable format within 30 days of the Order.

The Judge is not particularly persuaded that it should cut the
Plaintiff's requested opt-in period short because the Plaintiff has
located 19 opt-in Plaintiffs at this stage in the proceedings.
Moreover, she does not find that an additional 15 days will
significantly delay the litigation.  Accordingly, the opt-in period
will be 60 days.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Court approves a reminder
e-mail to be sent to the putative class halfway through the notice
period.  The Defendant objects, arguing that such a reminder "would
only serve to stir up unwarranted litigation."  The Judge agrees
with the Defendant.  Accordingly, she finds that a reminder e-mail
is improper in this instance and denies the Plaintiff's request.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Morrison (i) denied the
Defendant's Motion to Strike, and (ii) granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification
and Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Class Members Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (ECF No. 25).

She conditionally certified the following FLSA class: All
non-exempt employees who worked at one of Nationwide's call centers
or service centers anywhere in the United States and/or worked from
home and provided direct customer support and assistance through
phone or e-mail systems, at any time three years prior to the date
of the Court's Order through the final disposition of the matter.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it seeks
approval of her proposed Notice and Consent form.  Within 14 days,
the counsel will confer and submit a joint draft of a revised
proposed notice to the potential Plaintiffs about the collective
action and a proposed opt-in consent form with the aforementioned
modifications to morrison_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov.  The Court
will resolve any new disputes noted in the draft in an order
granting final approval of the notice and opt-in consent form.

Within 30 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order, the
Defendant will identify all the putative class members by providing
a list in electronic and importable format of the full names, dates
of employment, positions of employment, locations of employment,
last known mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of all current
and former employees fitting the class description to the
Plaintiff's counsel.

After receiving the putative class members' contact information
from Defendant and upon final approval of a notice and consent form
by the Court, the Plaintiff will send the Notices and Consent forms
via U.S. mail and e-mail within 21 days.  The putative class
members will then have 60 days from the date that the Plaintiff
sends the Notices to join the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/1YdqXE from Leagle.com.

Myra Cowan, Plaintiff, represented by Robert E. DeRose, II --
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP, Austin Winters Anderson, ANDERSON2X, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Jessica R. Doogan -- jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan
Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, Lauren Elizabeth
Braddy, Anderson Alexander, PLLC, pro hac vice & William Clifton
Alexander -- clif@a2xlaw.com -- ANDERSON2X, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Tonya B. Braun -- tbraun@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Lindsay M.
Cogley -- lcogley@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


NCAA: Deptula Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DEPTULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04186-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 11,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries Plaintiff sustained as a
result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety
of generations of United States Coast Guard Academy
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other USCGA football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit, the complaint asserts.

As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to
vindicate players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff David Deptula is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Florida.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Dimmack Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER DIMMACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON COLLEGE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04188-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants
seeking to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of
Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of WJC student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other WJC football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, says the complaint. As a direct result of
Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former WJC
football players suffered and continue to suffer brain and other
neurocognitive injuries.

As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to
vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA and WJC
accountable.

Plaintiff Christopher Dimmack is a natural person and citizen of
the State of Pennsylvania.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Justice Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
and BROWN UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04192-JPH-DML
(S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial against Defendants seeking to obtain redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Brown
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Brown football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts
and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Brown football
players suffered and continue to suffer brain and other
neurocognitive injuries. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and
hold the NCAA and Brown accountable, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Melvin Justice is a natural person and citizen of the
State of California.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Kosminskas Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL KOSMINSKAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
and BELOIT COLLEGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04193-RLY-TAB
(S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial against Defendants seeking to obtain redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Beloit
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Beloit football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit, notes the complaint. As a direct result
of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former
Beloit football players suffered and continue to suffer brain and
other neurocognitive injuries. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and
hold the NCAA and Beloit accountable, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Paul Kosminskas is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Illinois.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEW YORK: Diederich's Fed. Claims Tossed; Case Returns to State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York (i) dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's federal claims, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in the case captioned MIKE
DIEDERICH, JR., individually and on behalf of the class of citizens
and taxpayer directly affected citizens of the State of New York;
JOSHUA DOE; and JANNA DOE, individually, and as representatives of
the class of all children similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LETITIA JAMES, N.Y.S. Attorney General; CHANCELLOR OF THE NYC
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF THE EAST
RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; SUPERINTENDENT OF THE KIRYAS JOEL
VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BILL de BLASIO, New York City Mayor;
MARYELLEN ELIA, New York State Commissioner of Education; BETTY
ROSA, Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents; and THOMAS
P. DiNAPOLI, N.Y.S. Comptroller, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00035
(BKS/CFH) (N.D. N.Y.).

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff Diederich, an attorney proceeding pro
se, filed a summons and putative class action complaint in New York
Supreme Court, Albany County, on behalf of himself and two
fictitious Plaintiffs, Joshua and Janna Doe, alleging claims under
New York law.  On Dec. 11, 2018, Plaintiff amended his complaint to
include federal claims.  

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges numerous federal and
state law claims against the following Defendants: (1) New York
State Attorney General Letitia James; (2) the Chancellor of the New
York City Department of Education; (3) the Superintendent of the
East Ramapo Central School District; (4) the Superintendent for the
Kiryas Joel Union Free School District;4 (5) New York City Mayor
Bill de Blasio; (6) New York State Commissioner of Education
MaryEllen Elia; (7) Chancellor of the New York State Board of
Regents Betty Rosa; (8) and New York State Comptroller Thomas P.
DiNapoli.  His claims are brought against each Defendant in his or
her official and individual capacities except for the claims
against Defendants James and DiNapoli, which are brought against
them only in their official capacities.

In broad terms, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which spans 105
pages, alleges that the Hasidic Jewish community prevents its
members' children from receiving an adequate secular education in
violation of state and federal law.  He requests, among other
remedies, that the state and local officials take legal action to
prevent such fraud and eliminate the State-condoned educational
neglect.

On Jan. 9, 2019, Defendant Attorney General Letitia James removed
the action to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, asserting
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.1.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  In addition, they
argue that the Plaintiff lacks capacity under Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(a), that granting the relief he seeks would violate the
Separation of Powers doctrine, that he failed to file a notice of
claim as required under the New York Education Law, that he lacks
standing under New York law, that his Amended Complaint violates
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and that he is not a member of the putative
class.

In response, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdraws his federal claims
and requests that the Court remands his state law claims.  The
Defendants do not oppose the withdrawal of the Plaintiff's federal
claims but argue that the Court should dismiss the state law
claims.

As no Defendant has answered the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or
moved for summary judgment, Judge Sannes holds that the Plaintiff
is entitled to voluntarily dismiss the action.  Accordingly, she
dismissed the Plaintiff's federal claims.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court declines to exercise
its supplemental jurisdiction and remands the case back to the New
York State Supreme Court.  Once remanded, he states that he also
intends to withdraw all the state law claims set forth in the
Amended Complaint, with the sole exception of his Thirteenth Cause
of Action seeking injunctive and other taxpayer relief against the
New York State Comptroller.  The Defendants argue that the Court
should dismiss, rather than remand, the state law claims.

Unlike with his federal claims, however, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has not withdrawn his state law claims, writing only that
he "intends" to do so.  Moreover, in their reply briefs, the
Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that the Court
should simply dismiss them rather than remand.  The Judge therefore
declines the Defendants' request and will accordingly remand the
Plaintiff's state law claims to New York Supreme Court, Albany
County, where the case originated.

For these reasons, Judge Sannes dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's federal claims, and denied as moot the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  She remanded the action to the New York
Supreme Court, Albany County for all further proceedings.  The
Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and
Order to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
Albany County for filing in Diederich v. James et al., Index No.
903772-18.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Memorandum-Decision
& Order is available at https://is.gd/MLygJW from Leagle.com.

Mike Diederich, Jr., Individually and on behalf of the class of
citizens and taxpayers directly affected citizens of the State of
New York, Plaintiff, pro se.

Joshua Doe, Individually, and as representative of the class of all
children similarly situated & Janna Doe, Individually, and as
representatives of the class of all children similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D. Diederich, Jr. --
mike@diederichlaw.com -- Diederich Law Office.

Letitia James, N.Y.S. Attorney General, MaryEllen Elia, New York
State Commissioner of Education, Betty Rosa, Chancellor of the New
York State Board of Regents & Thomas P. DiNapoli, N.Y.S.
Comptroller, Defendants, represented by Ryan L. Abel, New York
State Attorney General.

Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education & Bill deBlasio, New
York City Mayor, Defendants, represented by David Sumner Thayer,
New York City Law Department & Ryan L. Abel, New York State
Attorney General.

Superintendent of Schools of the East Ramapo Central School
District, Defendant, represented by Elliot A. Hallak --
ehallak@harrisbeach.com -- Harris, Beach Law Firm, Nicholas Roberts
-- nroberts@harrisbeach.com -- Harris Beach PLLC, Ryan L. Abel, New
York State Attorney General & Victoria A. Graffeo --
vgraffeo@harrisbeach.com -- Harris, Beach Law Firm.

Superintendent of the Kiryas Joel Village School District,
Defendant, represented by Frederick J. Berman --
fberman@shebitzlaw.com -- Shebitz Berman & Delforte, P.C. & Ryan L.
Abel, New York State Attorney General.

NEW ZEALAND: Dairy Farmers Mull Class Suit Over Bovis Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that a lawyer representing a couple taking the
government to court over Mycoplasma bovis compensation says a class
action could be next.

South Canterbury dairy farmers Aad and Wilma van Leeuwen are taking
legal action against the Ministry for Primary Industries for its
compensation system which has left them $3 million dollars out of
pocket.

On Oct. 1 they filed a judicial review at the High Court in
Wellington to determine if professional fees and increased banking
charges they had incurred as part of the Mycoplasma bovis
eradication programme should come under the compensation scheme.

Their lawyer, Grant Cameron said depending on the ruling from the
High Court, a class action with other impacted farmers would be
considered.

"I've had approaches from other farmers, I've probably got
somewhere north of 30 names sitting on my desk at the moment and
there will be discussions as to how joint action might progress
from here.

"We'd like to have a ruling from the High Court first as to whether
or not these particular charges fall within the scheme."

Cameron said he expected many more farmers to come forward if the
court case was successful.

He said farmers should not be left out of pocket from a biosecurity
response.

"Following an outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis there is a compensatory
regime so farmers can be compensated for loss of milk income and
loss of the value of cows that had to be culled.

"They should be put in the same position they were prior to the
outbreak of the virus."

He said MPI had decided they were not permitted to pay out
professional fees and charges.

"But the reality is that in preparing very complicated claims and
then progressing with them and arguing with MPI about them, farmers
are well and truly out of pocket for these sorts of charges."

Cameron said the High Court would determine if that money could be
recovered under the compensation scheme.

In a statement, the Ministry for Primary Industries said it could
not comment on any matters before the courts.

But it said the family that Cameron was representing had received
over $6 million in compensation to date as a result of Mycoplasma
bovis on their farm.

It said overall, MPI had paid, or partially paid, more than 1000
compensation claims. [GN]


OVATION CREDIT: Class in Diggs FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VERNON DIGGS, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES,
INC., TERRY D. CORDELL, and AMY MYERS, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-367-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, granted the Plaintiff's expedited Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to
Potential Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

Diggs initiated the putative collective action on March 16, 2018,
by filing a two-count Complaint and Demand for Jury Tria against
Defendants Ovation Credit Services, Inc., Terry D. Cordell
(Ovation's president), and Amy Myers (Ovation's vice president).
In the Complaint, Diggs alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to compensate him and
other similarly situated employees for their overtime hours (Count
One) and by failing to pay him and other similarly situated
employees a minimum wage (Count Two).

Specifically, Diggs alleges that from at least Aug. 9, 2016, and
continuing through April 2017, the Defendants failed to compensate
[him] at rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week.  Diggs
further alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him at least
federal minimum wage for all hours worked.

Between March 26, 2018 and July 3, 2018, five other Ovation
employees--Kimberly Gosse, Gabor Szabo, Daniel Wessels, Michael
Robinson, and Ernest Jackson--opted into the litigation by filing
notices of their consent to become party Plaintiffs.  The instant
Motion for conditional certification followed on Sept. 26, 2018.  

In support of the Motion, Diggs has submitted his own declaration
and declarations from the five opt-in Plaintiffs.  The declarations
of the opt-in Plaintiffs are substantively identical to Diggs'
declaration, except that the opt-in Plaintiffs do not reference any
other potential employees that might wish to opt-in and their dates
of employment are different.

In support of their Response, the Defendants have submitted
declarations from Defendant Cordell and from three Ovation
employees: Alex Poulot, Tazwell Stuart, and Timothy Scott.  Cordell
has been the President of Ovation since 2004.  In his declaration,
Cordell states that Ovation sells credit repair, credit monitoring,
and credit education services to the general public by telephone
and the internet. Although Diggs and the opt-in Plaintiffs called
themselves inside sales representatives, Cordell states that
Ovation does not have such a position.  Instead, Cordell states,
and Diggs does not dispute, that Ovation employed Diggs and the
opt-in Plaintiffs as credit analysts.  According to Cordell,
Ovation has never had a policy or practice of requiring or
knowingly allowing Credit Analysts to work off the clock or to not
record all hours worked.  In fact, Ovation's policy is the
opposite--one is not supposed to work off the clock.  Similarly,
Cordell states that Ovation has a written overtime policy.

Alex Poulot has worked as a credit analyst for Ovation on and off
since June 2015, and Tazwell Stuart has worked as a credit analyst
since September 2016.  Contrary to Diggs' assertion that Poulot and
Stuart expressed their interest in joining the action, Poulot and
Stuart state in their declarations that they have no desire to be
involved in the lawsuit, and they do not know any credit analysts
who want to be involved.  Timothy Scott has worked at Ovation since
February 2017, first as a credit analyst and later as a sales
manager.  He also states that he has no desire to join the lawsuit
and knows of no credit analyst at Ovation who would want to do so.
Poulot, Stuart, and Scott all state that they have never: (1)
worked off the clock; (2) been asked to work off the clock; (3)
asked anyone else to work off the clock; or (4) witnessed anyone at
Ovation working off the clock; and that Ovation does not have a
policy of requiring credit analysts to work off the clock.

In the instant Motion, Diggs requests conditional class
certification and authorization to notify the potential class
members of the opportunity to opt into the case pursuant to the
FLSA.  In particular, Diggs seeks an order conditionally certifying
a class of current and former inside sales representatives or
Credit Analysts who worked for the Defendants for the three year
period prior to the filing of the Complaint in the case to the
present.

In response, the Defendants assert that the Motion should be denied
because: (1) Diggs has failed to establish that the putative class
members are similarly situated; (2) Diggs has failed to present
sufficient evidence that other potential members desire to opt in;
and (3) Ovation maintained written overtime policies.

Judge Howard finds that Diggs provides specific facts to support
his belief that other employees are interested in opting into the
litigation.  Indeed, it is not the type of case where the plaintiff
attempts to conditionally certify a broad group based only on the
conclusory and unsupported allegations of a few employees.  To the
contrary, in his declaration, Diggs identifies nine other employees
he believes are interested in joining the action based on his
discussions with credit analysts while he worked for Ovation.

The Judge acknowledges that two of those employees (Poulot and
Stuart) have submitted declarations stating that they have no
desire to join the action.  However, two others (Jackson and
Robinson) have since submitted notices of consent to join, which
supports Diggs' statement that there are other employees who desire
to join the action.  And three other employees, not identified by
Diggs, have also filed notices of consent to join between the
filing of the Complaint and the instant Motion.  Although Diggs is
vague about the size of the putative collective class or the number
of (former and current) employees affected by the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay overtime, there is no magic number
requirement for the notice stage.  Thus, the Judge finds that Diggs
has established a reasonable basis to support his assertion that at
least five more employees desire to join the action.

Next, the Judge must determine whether Diggs has shown that he is
similarly situated to the potential class of plaintiffs for which
he seeks certification.  The Judge is satisfied that Diggs and the
opt-in Plaintiffs have the same job duties and pay provisions as
all of Ovation's credit analysts.  Indeed, despite its objections
to the lack of detail in the declarations, the Defendants do not
assert that Ovation's credit analysts have different job
responsibilities or pay provisions than those described by Diggs
and the opt-in Plaintiffs.  In short, the Judge is satisfied that
the members of the proposed class have the same job title, basic
job duties, and pay provisions and seek to assert the same FLSA
violation against the Defendants.

In sum, at this stage of the proceeding, Diggs has satisfied his
burden of demonstrating that there are similarly situated employees
warranting conditional certification of a collective action in the
case.

Diggs also asks the Court to approve his proposed notice form.  In
response, the Defendants assert numerous objections to the Proposed
Notice and proposed means of dissemination.  Given the number of
objections and the amount of time having passed since the parties
last conferred on these issues, the Judge finds it appropriate to
direct the parties to meaningfully confer, either in person or by
extensive telephone conference, to try to resolve Defendants'
objections to the Proposed Notice.  

After doing so, the parties will file a joint proposed class notice
form for distribution to putative class members.  If the parties
are not able to resolve all of the Defendants' objections, then the
parties will file a joint brief to the court that states each
side's position regarding the remaining objections still in
dispute.  The Judge expects the parties to make every effort to
resolve their disputes without further Court intervention.

Accordingly, Judge Howard granted the Plaintiff's expedited Motion
to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to
Potential Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law to the
extent Diggs seeks conditional certification of the putative class
identified in the Motion.

On Oct. 25, 2019, the parties will meaningfully confer, either in
person or by extensive telephone conference, as directed, and file
a joint proposed class notice form for distribution to putative
class members.  By that same date, if the parties are not able to
resolve all of the Defendants' objections, then the parties will
file a joint brief to the court stating each side's positions
regarding any remaining objections still in dispute.

The Judge deferred ruling on Diggs' request for Court approval of
the Proposed Notice until after the parties have meaningfully
conferred on the issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fQzMsw from Leagle.com.

Vernon Diggs, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Chanelle Ventura,
Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Ovation Credit Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Terry
D. Cordell, Individually & Amy Myers, Individually, Defendants,
represented by Eric James Holshouser -- eholshouser@rtlaw.com --
Rogers Towers, P.A. & Michael J. Lufkin -- MLufkin@rtlaw.com --
Rogers Towers, P.A.

Gerald Thomas Harper, Mediator, pro se.


PATHWAY SENIOR: Thomas Sues over Collection of Biometeric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PATHWAY SENIOR LIVING, LLC and PATHWAY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH11305 (Ill. Cir.,
Sept. 30, 2019), seeks to put a stop to Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class
members' sensitive biometric data.

When employees work for Defendants, they are required to scan their
fingerprint in a biometric time tracking system as a means of
authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards.  While there are tremendous benefits to using
biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious
risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the
employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber,
Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information, the
lawsuit says.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Despite this law, the Defendants disregard their employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants are for-profit limited liability companies
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

PICORE BERISTAIN: Viloria Seeks Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE VILORIA, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, vs. PICORE
BERISTAIN INITIATIVE, INC., a California corporation; DANA PICORE,
a natural person; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 19STCV34621 (Cal. Super., Sept. 30, 2019), alleges that
the Defendants failed to provide all rest and meal periods; failed
to accurate written wage statements; failed to indemnify for
necessary work-related expenditures; and failed to timely pay wages
upon termination of employment to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved current and former employees who worked in
California as hourly employees, including security guards and other
employees of the Defendants in comparable positions, at any time
during the period of April 9, 2018 to the present, in violation of
the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an hourly security
guard on or about November 24, 2017. The Plaintiff continuously
worked for Defendants from that date until approximately August 1,
2019, when her employment ended.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff are:

          Jaimee K. Wellerstein, Esq.
          BRADLEY & GMELICH LLP
          700 N. Brand Boulevard, 10th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          E-mail: jwellerstein@bglawyers.com

               - and -

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Carl Kaplan, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile (818)582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  carl@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

PORTABLES UNLIMITED: Jones Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE JONES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PORTABLES UNLIMITED RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-09157
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2019), seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law.

Mr. Jones asserts that he, like other salaried store managers,
regularly worked over 40 hours per week.  He alleges that he often
worked over 60 per week and sometimes worked over 70 hours; but
unlike other salaried store managers, he did not receive any
overtime premium compensation for hours worked over 40 per week.

The Defendant is a corporate entity maintaining a headquarters and
principal place of business at 136 First Street, in Nanuet, New
York (Rockland County).  The Defendant operates at least 40 retail
stores that, inter alia, sell cellular phones, plans, accessories,
and services to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Pipkin Sues over Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PIPKIN, the PLAINTIFF, vs. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN
INSURANCE COMPANY, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:19-cv-00097-BSM (Ark.
Cir., Sept. 30, 2019), seeks to recover the difference between the
actual cash value of his vehicle and what he was paid, punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  Pipkin also asks the Court to
declare that the use of the Mitchell Valuation Report to adjust
first-party insurance claims violates Arkansas law and to
permanently enjoin its use.

Mr. Pipkin insured his 2014 Kia Forte vehicle with Progressive
Northwestern Insurance Company. Pipkin was involved in a vehicle
collision, and Progressive declared his vehicle a total loss. As it
does with all its total loss claims, Progressive used a Mitchell
Valuation Report to determine what it would pay on Pipkin's claim.


Based on the report, Progressive placed the actual cash value of
Pipkin's vehicle at $14,812.  This is less than the actual cash
value of the vehicle and less than what was required to replace his
vehicle with another of like kind and quality.

The lawsuit contends that Progressive's use of the Mitchell Report
to value total loss claims violates its contracts with its insureds
and Arkansas law. Progressive is required to calculate actual cash
value through either: (a) the cost of a specific, comparable
replacement automobile, or (b) using one of two or more quotations
obtained from two or more qualified dealers or appraisal services
located within the local market area. Instead of following Arkansas
law, Progressive uses the Mitchell Report to cheat its
policyholders and increase its profits. The Mitchell Report
systematically undervalues the insureds' vehicles, resulting in a
payment of less than the actual cash value for all total loss
claims, saving Progressive millions of dollars each year at the
expense of its insureds.

Pipkin brings this as a class action under Rule 23 of the Arkansas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Members of the putative class are so
numerous that joinder of all such members is impracticable. The
exact size of the putative class is unknown but may be easily
determined from records maintained by Progressive.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975 5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

               - and -

          Lloyd "Tre" Kitchens, Esq.
          THE BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
          500 C Pleasant Valley Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72227
          Telephone (501) 221-0444
          E-mail: tkitchens@bradhendricks.com

ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Thrasher EFTA Suit Dismissed; Default Entry Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICKEY THRASHER and KIMBERLY CYR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKY
MOUNTAIN AUTO BROKERS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
18-cv-02342-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendant's
Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

On Sept. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
asserting one claim under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
("EFTA").  They allege that, on separate dates in 2017, they
purchased vehicles on credit from defendant's automobile
dealership.  The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant conditioned
the extension of credit on their consent to automatic electronic
fund transfer ("EFT") payments, which violated the EFTA.

The affidavit of service states that Rocky Rodriguez was served
with the complaint and summons on Sept. 27, 2018.  The affidavit
lists Rodriguez as the owner of the Defendant.  The Defendant did
not file an answer by the applicable deadline.  On Oct. 26, 2018,
the Plaintiffs moved for a clerk's entry of default under Rule 55.
The clerk entered default on Oct. 29, 2018.

The Defendant received a copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for entry
of default on Oct. 31, 2018, and filed the instant motion on Nov.
2, 2018.  

Judge Brimmer finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence
to demonstrate Rodriguez is a proper recipient of process under
Fed. R. Civ P. 4.  Therefore, he is unable to tell from the record
whether the Defendant was properly served and whether the Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

Although proper service of process is lacking, the Defendant did
not request dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim for insufficient
service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).  The Judge finds service
was insufficient but curable.  Although Rodriguez, as the
Defendant's general manager, was not authorized to accept service
for the Defendant, the attempt of service on him nevertheless gave
the Defendant notice of the lawsuit.  Further, the Defendant has
not alleged any prejudice resulting from ineffective service.  The
Judge is confident the Plaintiffs can, if given additional time,
effectuate proper service.  For these reasons, Judge Brimmer finds
it appropriate to allow the Plaintiffs one more opportunity to
effectuate proper service of process so that the litigation may
proceed.

The Defendant also argues, however, that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim because the
Plaintiffs' lack standing under the EFTA.  For this reason, the
Judge elects to address the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the litigation
should go forward and whether it will be futile to afford
plaintiffs another opportunity to effect service.

The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint entirely for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the
basis that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit.  The
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury suffered
as a result of the Defendant's conduct beyond its alleged violation
of the EFTA.  Not only is such an allegation absent from the
Plaintiffs' complaint, but it fails to articulate some concrete
harm to the Plaintiffs or any indication that the alleged injury
affects them in a personal and individual way.  Because a violation
of the EFTA could readily result in no harm, the mere allegation
that the Defendant violated the EFTA does not entail a degree of
risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement.  Thus, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit
and will dismiss their claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer vacated the Clerk's Entry
of Default against the Defendant.  The Defendant's Motion to Set
Aside is granted.  Within 14 days of the entry of the Order, the
Defendant may have its costs by filing a Bill of Costs with the
Clerk of Court.  The case is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PAEz6G from Leagle.com.

Mickey Thrasher, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Kimberly Cyr, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jose Francisco Gill
-- jgill@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group,
PLLC & Russell S. Thompson, IV -- rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
-- Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC.

Rocky Mountain Auto Brokers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Edward Swan, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn
Swan PC & Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC.

S & W SUPERMARKET: Clemente Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO CLEMENTE individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. S & W SUPERMARKET, INC. (DBA S & W
SUPERMARKET) And ABDUL ALFALAHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09426
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019) is a Class and Collective Action
Complaint seeking to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit
damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who have
been employed by Defendants as Supermarket Deli Workers for some or
all the time period relevant to this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by
the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12
of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Plaintiffs regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any
of the hours that they worked. In addition, the Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which they had to work over 10 hours a day; and failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants, primarily employed in
performing the duties of preparing food in the Deli of the
Supermarket.

Defendants operate a Supermarket where the Plaintiff worked with a
principal place of business in Bronx New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lina Stillman, Esq.
     Stillman Legal, PC
     42 Broadway, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 203-2417
     Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Denial of Indemnification in Class Action Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzette Parmley, writing for Law.com, reports that an appeals court
upheld the Department of Law and Public Safety's denial of a
request to defend and indemnify Salem County in a class action by
county jail inmates who claim jail policies violated their rights.

In Stevenson v. Department of Law and Public Safety, the Appellate
Division on Oct. 1 concluded that the New Jersey Supreme Court's
decision in Wright v. State in 2001 did not apply to Salem County's
claims for defense and indemnification.

"We have reviewed the County's contentions in light of the record
and applicable law, and conclude they are without sufficient merit
to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion," wrote Judges
Jose Fuentes and Michael Haas in the per curiam opinion.

The judges said neither the Tort Claims Act nor Wright "provides
support for the County's contentions."

The Tort Claims Act states that "the Attorney General shall, upon a
request of an employee or former employee of the State, provide for
the defense of any action brought against such State employee or
former State employee on account of an act or omission in the scope
of his [or her] employment."

Fuentes and Haas said only the county was named as a defendant in
the complaint.

"Because the Act plainly states that only an employee may seek
defense and indemnification, the County was not entitled to do so
under the Act, and the County was unable to offer any alternate
statutory support for its claim," wrote the panel. "Under these
circumstances, the Court's decision in Wright is simply
inapplicable."

Lee Moore, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, had no
comment.

Michael Mulligan of Carneys Point, representing Salem County,
couldn't be reached for comment.

The case was on appeal from the Department of Law and Public
Safety's decision denying indemnification.

According to the Oct. 1 decision, on May 17, 2017, four inmates in
the Salem County Jail filed a complaint against the county in the
Law Division, alleging the county violated their federal and state
civil rights by requiring them to be "classified as suicidal for no
apparent reason, made to wear garments which exposed [their]
private parts, and . . . routinely strip searched" several times a
day.

The inmates sought compensatory damages and a judgment declaring
the county's "policies, practices and customs to be
unconstitutional and/or violations of their rights," the decision
said.

On June 19, 2017, the county filed an answer to the complaint, and
two months later, sent a letter to the attorney general and the
commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections demanding
that the attorney general defend and provide indemnification to the
county based on the TCA provision, and referencing Wright.

In the Wright case, the state's highest court had to decide whether
employees of a county prosecutor's office should be treated as
"state employees" eligible for defense and indemnification in a
case where they were sued as individuals for alleged improper
actions taken during their law enforcement activities. The Supreme
Court concluded that county prosecutors held a "hybrid status" due
to their "unique role" in performing a "function that has
traditionally been the responsibility of the State and for which
the Attorney General is ultimately answerable."

The attorney general rendered a written decision denying the
county's demand on Sept. 21, 2017, explaining that Wright did not
apply in the Salem County case because the county jail's
strip-search policy was an administrative function, rather than a
law enforcement action.

Salem County appealed, arguing, among other points, that the county
sheriff and corrections officers were state agents hired for law
enforcement purposes, and a county sheriff is subject to state
government regulations administered by the attorney general and
Department of Corrections.

The panel disagreed.

"In the present case, however, no county employees were parties to
the underlying class action lawsuit, and no employees sought
defense and indemnification from the State," according to the
Appellate Court decision. "Therefore, and contrary to the County's
assertions, there is no need to perform a Wright analysis in this
matter." [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bail System Ruling Fails to Deliver Change
-------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reports that seven months after a
federal judge ruled that San Francisco's bail system is
unconstitutional, nothing has changed.

Police can still jail arrestees for up to 48 hours before they
reach arraignment, the hearings where judges either set bail or
release them without it.

While jailed pretrial, those arrestees who can afford to pay an
amount preset by the county bail schedule are still allowed to do
so, while those who can't afford to pay are forced to wait for a
hearing.

A new system, tentatively agreed to by civil rights litigators and
the local sheriff's office, would put everyone on an equal playing
field, according to Equal Justice Under Law executive director Phil
Telfeyan.

Blocking its implementation, however, is a lack of approval from
the board of supervisors, the elected local legislature of San
Francisco City and County.

"The board of supervisors can meet and approve this at any time,"
Mr. Telfeyan said. "Reform is long overdue."

Mr. Telfeyan would know, having filed the underlying class action
nearly four years ago on behalf of two women named Riana Buffin and
Crystal Patterson.

Charged with grand theft and conspiracy at 19, Ms. Buffin was
offered a $30,000 preset bail bond she could not afford and
detained for 46 hours before being released after prosecutors
dropped the chargers. The needless stint in jail led to her losing
a job at a nearby airport.

Ms. Patterson, then 29, received a preset $150,000 bail on assault
charges and managed to get out with the help of a bail bond agent.
Like Ms. Buffin, charges were dropped within two days of arrest,
but Ms. Patterson spent months paying off a $15,000 debt, plus
interest.

The class action sought a permanent block on wealth-based detention
and was bound for trial until, in August 2018, then-California Gov.
Jerry Brown signed a bill eliminating cash bail.

All parties agreed the new law made a bench trial unnecessary, and
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ultimately ruled that
the schedules are unconstitutional in March. Her ruling stated
she'd block their use pending a hearing on how to word her order.

Determining the wording, however, is where things got sticky. Mr.
Telfeyan's team argued for an injunction requiring a new process
that would allow those who have the money to pay bail and leave,
while those who don't could get a waiver and also leave.

But Sheriff Vicki Hennessy's office maintained that the case was
about bail schedules, not a complete pretrial processing overhaul.
As a result, the sheriff said the injunction should only block the
use of bail schedules, not grant "a mass release of arrestees."

Meanwhile the California Bail Agents Association, which had
intervened in the case in 2015 after Hennessy declined to defend
the schedules, argued against both proposals. The bail group, which
successfully lobbied for a 2020 referendum on the state's bail ban,
said eliminating schedules entirely would exceed the scope of the
class action by also affecting those who could've paid.

The dispute went to mediation, and by mid-July the parties said an
agreement "in principle" had been reached.

But before that deal could be revealed, the San Francisco Superior
Court told the sheriff's office not to agree until the state
decided whether to provide $13.8 million for the 24-hour, 7-days-a
week-staff and resources that it believed a new pretrial bail
system would require.

The request was denied a few weeks later in a move that Telfeyan
said surprised him. He noted that the state Judicial Council
granted funding to several other large counties, such as Los
Angeles and Sacramento, for changes required by the new state bail
law.

"I don't have any insight into their judicial council
decision-making," he added, "but they were aware of this lawsuit."

In the wake of the state's decision, the sheriff's office ended up
sticking with its original plan: no bail schedules, no new system
for dealing with the expected increase in pretrial detainees. The
plaintiffs, on the other hand, called for a plan in which the bail
schedules were still used but all those who couldn't pay could be
released without bail within 12 hours.

Overcoming their differences, the parties pitched a compromise
proposal Aug. 30. Instead of bail schedules, jails would use a risk
assessment tool and several other factors to determine if arrestees
should be released without bail or see a judge.

If 18 hours -- or up to 30 hours, for those police fear will
threaten society or flee -- pass without a hearing before a judge,
the arrestees would be released without bail.

On Sept. 3, Judge Rogers granted the proposed injunction with one
key condition: It cannot take effect until the local legislature
says it will pay for the associated costs.

An attorney for the city declined to comment on whether the board
of supervisors would sign off. But American Bail Coalition
executive director Jeff Clayton said it's unlikely, considering
they could be held liable for paying attorney fees on a case that's
dragged on for four years.

"They have to fund the use of the algorithm on all these cases,
they actually have to spend money," he said. "And why should they
be liable for their state judges following the law? They could say,
'No, we're not paying.'"

He added that, under the proposal, people who used to be able to
pay for release within a few hours could be stuck waiting to find
out the bail amount for up to 30 hours, much longer than the
12.6-hour average pretrial incarceration under the old schedules.

"It could triple or quadruple the amount of time that people, who
would've gotten the same bail under the schedule, would get out,"
he said. "And it has the potential to increase how those who can't
afford to post bond are going to have to sit there and wait. It
just makes no sense."

But Telfeyan said that, if the deal is implemented, advocates will
be able to monitor how the system affects people and whether
sheriffs routinely push for 30 hour-detentions. He also maintained
that it would allow the "vast majority" of arrestees to get out
much sooner than before.

The board has until Thanksgiving Day to make its decision. If it
won't pay, it's up to Judge Rogers to decide how bail works in San
Francisco going forward. [GN]


SECURE HOME: Kingara Seeks Overtime Pay for Health Staff
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES KINGARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECURE HOME HEALTH CARE INCORPORATED,
SIDDHARTH PARMAR, and ANKUR RUSTGI, the Defendants, Case No.
19-1359E (Mass Super., Sept. 30, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay employees for intra-day travel time between client
locations; reimburse employees for transportation expenses; and pay
employees overtime wages, all in violation of Massachusetts wage
and hour laws. In addition, Mr. Kingara brings an individual claim
against the Defendants for failure to pay his earned sick time
wages in violation Massachusetts law.

Secure Health employs various employees, including licensed
practical nurses (LPN), registered nurses, and home health care
aides (collectively, health staff), whose job responsibilities
include providing clients with in-home health care and assistance
to patients. Secure Health employed Mr. Kingara as a licensed
practical nurse from on or around October 15, 2016 through on or
around May 4, 2019.

Mr. Kingara's job responsibilities included traveling to Secure
Health clients' homes to provide healthcare services. During his
employment, Secure Health agreed to pay Mr. Kingara between around
$27.00 and $28.00 per client visit.

Secure Health also agreed to pay other LPNs and health care staff
per client visit. Each week, Secure Health assigns each LPN and
other health staff a list of clients they must see each day and
specifies whether each client must be seen during the morning
(before 12:00pm) or during the evening (after 12:00pm but before
8:00pm).

Like other health staff, Secure Health required Mr. Kingara to work
at multiple clients' homes each workday, which required him to have
to travel between clients' homes to fulfill their job duties.

Secure Health does not pay its health staff for any time in between
client appointments, including wait time or travel time between
appointments. It only pays health staff for each assigned client
visit.

Secure Health does not reimburse its health staff for the
transportation expenses they incur in order to perform their
required job duties. Mr. Kingara and other health staff worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek for Secure Health.

In fact, Mr. Kingara many times worked in excess of 60 hours in a
workweek for Secure Health. However, Secure Health failed to pay
Mr. Kingara one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Secure Health also fails to pay other health staff one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek, the lawsuit says.

Secure Health is a company offering in-home health care to elderly
individuals throughout the Greater Boston area.[BN]

Counsel to the Plaintiff are:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

SIXT RENT: Faces Calderon Suit in Southern District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sixt Rent A Car, LLC.
The case is captioned as Philippe Calderon and Ancizar Marin, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC and Sixt Franchise USA, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62408-KMW (S.D. Fla., Sept 26,
2019). The suit alleges of violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

Sixt Rent A Car LLC provides car rental services. The company
offers new and used cars, hire, leasing, and mobility online
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Janet Robards Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A.
          P. O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Brian William Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Docs over 2019 IPO Misleading, Vang Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Vang, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., JORDAN KATZMAN,
ALEXANDER FENKELL, DAVID KATZMAN, KYLE WAILES, STEVEN KATZMAN,
RICHARD SCHNALL, SUSAN GREENSPON RAMMELT, CAMELOT VENTURE GROUP,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES  LLC, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS
& COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C. and LOOP
CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 19C2316 (Tenn. 20th
Jud'l Cir., Sept. 30, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf
of all purchasers of the Class A common stock of SmileDirectClub
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with SmileDirectClub's September 12, 2019 initial public
stock offering (the IPO).

On May 3, 2019, SmileDirectClub filed with the SEC a Registration
Statement on Form S-1, which, after several amendments would later
be utilized for the IPO. The SEC declared the Registration
Statement effective on September 11, 2019, and on that same day,
SmileDirectClub and the Underwriter Defendants priced and commenced
the IPO. On September 13, 2019, SmileDirectClub and the Underwriter
Defendants filed the final prospectus for the IPO with the SEC,
which forms part of the Registration Statement.

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, the lawsuit says.

The IPO was successful for the Company and the Underwriter
Defendants, who sold over 58.5 million shares of SmileDirectClub
Class A common stock to the public at $23 per share, raising more
than $1.3 billion in gross proceeds for the Company.

At the time of the filing of this complaint, SmileDirectClub stock
was trading for only about $13 per share, 43% below the IPO price,
the lawsuit says.

SmileDirectClub describes itself as a tele-dentistry company
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615 244-2202
          Facsimile: 615 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Brian Cochran, Esq.
          mary k. blasy, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/231-1058
          Facsimile: 619/231-7424
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/525-3990
          Facsimile: 619/525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

SS&S TECHNOLOGIES: Siyam Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
----------------------------------------------------------
DINA SIYAM, and all other similarly situated employees of SS&S, the
Plaintiff, vs. SS&S TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-18535 (N.J. Sup., Sept. 30, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime wages under the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff as well as all other
similarly situated employees of SS&S were not paid and one half
hours over 40 worked in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant full time as a
non-exempt Associate from January 2018.

SS&S is an international investment software company that offers
investment services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
          301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: Jjaffe@JaffeeGlenn.com

SURF STYLE: Erdman Seeks Copy of Background Check Report
--------------------------------------------------------
James H. Erdman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Surf Style, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-006404, filed in Florida State, Pinellas County, Sixth
Circuit Court on September 24, 2019), seeks damages for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Surf Style is one of the largest surf—style clothing and souvenir
retail companies in the United States, with more than forty-nine
locations across three states. In April 2019, Erdman applied for a
job at Surf Style. He was not accepted due to an unfavorable
background check. He requested a copy of his background results for
him to dispute said report. Surf Style refused to provide a copy of
the report or a written summary. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 337-7992, 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

             - and -

      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: craig@clalegal.com


TACO'S PUEBLA: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ESTELA B CORTES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A TACO'S PUEBLA
RESTAURANT), TACO REY CORP. (D/B/A TACO REY), CENTENARIO BAR
RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A CENTENARIO BAR RESTAURANT), FRANCISCO H.
MEDINA CASTELAN , and CLAUDIA GARCIA , Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09434 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019) is an action on behalf of
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, seeking unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread
of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked. Defendants also failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed
to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Defendants likewise failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a
day, and failed to pay Plaintiff's wages on a timely basis, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a waitress and an administratrix at the
Defendants' restaurants.

Defendants own, operate, or control three mexican restaurants,
located at 2181 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10453 under the name
"Taco's Puebla Restaurant"; at 2319 Hughes Avenue, Bronx, New York
10458 under the name "Taco Rey"; and at 1538-40 Webster Avenue,
Bronx, New York 10457 under the name "Centenario Bar
Restaurant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lea Securities Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss an
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) and Section 101(b) of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") in the case EDWARD LEA
and DIOS ASSET MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAL EDUCATION GROUP,
BANGXIN ZHANG, YUNFENG BAI, and RONG LUO, Defendants, Case No. 18
Civ. 5480 (LAP) (S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Lea and Dios Asset bring the instant securities class
action complaint against TAL Education Group ("Company"), Bangxin
Zhang, Yunfeng Bai, and Rong Luo.  The Plaintiffs assert claims of
securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  They also allege violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their purchase of Ohr common
stock.  The Company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and
provides education services in China.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Company and its executives committed securities fraud based on
two grounds--what they call the GZ 1-1 fraud and the Shunshun
fraud.  They allege that as a result of the alleged sham
transaction, the Company improperly increased net income by $37.5
million.  When these alleged frauds were exposed by the
short-selling research firm Muddy Waters, the stock price
precipitously declined.

The Plaintiffs say that the various materially false or misleading
statements demonstrate that the fraud was either made knowingly or
severely recklessly.  They say that because the individual
Defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme and had knowledge
of the untrue facts, they participated in the alleged fraudulent
schemes.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint for, inter
alia, failure to plead with the specified particularity and failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Preska finds that the Plaintiffs on both alleged frauds are
unable to establish falsity or material misrepresentation.  In both
instances, at most, the Plaintiffs are able to point to a few stars
in the night sky, not draw a constellation of control.  This is
primarily because each star has an alternative explanation so
obvious that they render the Plaintiff's inferences unreasonable.


The Plaintiffs rely on the alleged sham transactions themselves as
evidence of scienter saying, the transactions do not fake
themselves.  Their argumentation boils down to the following
syllogism: 1) the two transactions were fraudulent, 2) senior
management knew or should have known, as a matter of law, that
certain transactions take place, therefore 3) the Defendants had
the requisite scienter.  As stated above, the Judge disputes the
first premise of the syllogism--there is no material
misrepresentation so there can be no scienter.  He does not reach
the Defendants' other arguments.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Preska concludes that the
Plaintiffs fail to plead either a material misrepresentation or
omission or scienter.  They therefore have not plead either a
Section 10(b) or a Section 20(a) violation.  Accordingly, he
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion to strike various documents.  The Clerk of the
Court will mark the action closed and deny all pending motions as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/fTx8nA from Leagle.com.

Edward Lea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Dios Asset Management PTE. LTD., Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh -- GLINKH@GLANCYLAW.COM --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Stan Karas -- SKARAS@GLANCYLAW.COM --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley Frank Portnoy --
LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Jack Extract, Plaintiff, pro se.

TAL Education Group, Defendant, represented by Scott D. Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Michael Charles Griffin -- michael.griffin@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Robert Alexander
Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP.

TEAM LUBRICATION: Wilhite et al Seek Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
KIRK WILHITE, MATTHEW COLLINS, RAYMOND CHENAULT, AND WILLIE
SPINNER, the Plaintiffs, v. TEAM LUBRICATION, INC., the  Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-04343-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 30, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay employees overtime wages and wages
for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938  the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant pays Plaintiffs an hourly
rate but failed to compensate them for all hours they worked each
week. This failure to pay for all hours worked not only constitutes
an underpayment of wages; it creates a miscalculation of Plaintiffs
regular rates of pay for the purpose of overtime compensation.

Team Lubrication has been part of the Jiffy Lube system for 23
years and has serviced over 2.5 million vehicles in the Columbus
area. The Defendant offers state of the art automotive services
that meet or exceed customer expectations that include the Jiffy
Lube Signature Service (TM) Oil Change. The Jiffy Lube Signature
Service (TM) Oil Change includes free fluid top offs (up to 2
quarts) for the next 3 months or 3,000 miles whichever comes
first.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

THERANOS: Former CEO Unable to Pay Lawyers' Fees
------------------------------------------------
James Hall, writing for news.com.au, reports that former Theranos
chief executive Elizabeth Holmes was once listed by Forbes as the
world's youngest self-made billionaires but her fall from grace has
been so spectacular she reportedly can't afford to pay legal fees.

Three lawyers from the Cooley LLP firm said they haven't been paid
for more than a year while defending the former businesswoman's
fraud charges.

"Further, given Ms. Holmes's current financial situation, Cooley
has no expectation that Ms. Holmes will ever pay it for its
services as her counsel," lawyers Stephen Neal, John Dwyer and
Jeffrey Lombard said in a filing, according to The Mercury News.

The law team is seeking approval from the court to ditch the former
high-flyer in her class-action battle in which plaintiffs accuse
her, her former blood-testing company Theranos and Walgreen of
fraud in Arizona and Palo Alto.

"It is unfair and unreasonable to require Cooley to continue
representing Ms. Holmes in this action," the lawyers said.

WHO IS ELIZABETH HOLMES?

The former billionaire shot to fame after founding her
revolutionary blood testing company Theranos in 2003 at just 19
years of age.

It claimed to have invented blood tests that only required very
small amounts of blood from a fingerprick instead of a needle.

Theranos raised more than $US700 million (A$997.5 million) from
venture capitalists and private investors, resulting in a $US10
billion (A$14 billion) valuation at its peak in 2013 and 2014.

In 2015, Ms Holmes was celebrated as the youngest and wealthiest
self-made female billionaire in the US with an estimated net worth
of $US4.5 billion (A$6.4 billion).

But in 2016, everything started to fall apart.

That multibillion-dollar estimated fortune was slashed to $0 by
Forbes as Ms. Holmes was faced with mounting allegations of
potential fraud, which allegedly duped investors out of millions.

She and former Theranos chief operating officer and president
Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani were charged with nine counts of wire fraud
and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, with both
pleading not guilty.

In September 2018, Theranos was shut down for good. The trial was
due to start in August 2020.

NEW LEGAL WIN

Although Ms. Holmes has been hit with setback after setback, she
enjoyed a rare legal win in July.

She appeared in a San Jose courtroom, ditching her trademark black
turtleneck -- modelled on her hero Steve Jobs -- for a stylish,
sleeveless black dress and blazer.

She seemed relaxed and even smiled for cameras upon arrival, but
ignored questions from waiting reporters including CNBC's Yasmin
Khorram, who asked if she would ever make a public statement on the
scandal.

Ms. Holmes has remained notoriously tight-lipped regarding her
downfall.

According to Bloomberg, her lawyers had demanded "millions of
documents" from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which
they argued would be crucial to her defence.

The FDA had claimed they would take up to six months to hand over
-- a time frame her lawyers had slammed as hurting her case.

In June, lawyer Lance A. Wade said prosecutors who had access to
those documents enjoyed an unfair advantage, but that when Ms.
Holmes' team tried to access them "suddenly the regulatory haze
appears in front of all of these requests", Bloomberg reported him
as saying.

At a sentencing hearing in July, US District Judge Edward Davila
agreed six months was "too long".

Ms. Holmes is also after records from the Centres for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, and the judge ordered the agencies to produce
them within 75 days.

Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwani claim those documents could help them
prove they were unaware that Theranos' tests were inaccurate and
that they had therefore not knowingly misrepresented the company's
achievements.

However, the FDA is concerned the documents in question could
effectively out an anonymous whistleblower.

The trial is due to commence in August 2020 but if the FDA fails to
provide the documents, it is feared it could cause a delay. [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Stay or Transfer Cardenas RICO Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay
or Transfer to the Central District of California  the action
captioned JAVIER CARDENAS and KURT KIRTON, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA
MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING, INC., and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-22798-CIV-MORENO (S.D.
Fla.).

The class action lawsuit is about whether certain Toyota entities
defrauded consumers and engaged in unfair trade practices by
concealing a defect in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems installed in 2012-2017 Toyota Camrys and Camry
Hybrids.  The Plaintiffs allege the Toyota entities' fraudulent
conduct violates the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act; and breaches the implied warranty of
merchantability, and constitutes common law fraud or fraudulent
concealment.

The Defendants believe the lawsuit is a "copycat class action"
involving claims substantially similar to those being litigated in
three other ongoing class actions against Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc. that are currently pending in the Central District of
California.  For this reason, they ask the Court to transfer the
action to California pursuant to the "first-to-file" rule or the
federal transfer statute.

The Plaintiffs strongly disagree and insist the lawsuit belongs in
Florida because there is a named Florida plaintiff, and because
there are Florida statutory and common law claims asserted against
(among others) one Florida defendant, concerning conduct that
occurred in Florida.  They further attest the proposed classes in
the lawsuit do not overlap with the certified class or proposed
classes in the pending California class actions.

Judge Moreno finds that the Plaintiffs have carried their burden of
proving "compelling circumstances" necessary to justify an
exception to the first-to-file rule.  Consequently, in exercising
its discretion, the Judge declines to transfer the lawsuit across
the country to California.  The Defendants' Motion to Transfer on
this ground is accordingly denied.

Next, the Judge finds that the Defendants have failed to meet their
burden of establishing that California is the more convenient forum
under Section 1404(a).  The case raises several issues that are of
far greater interest to Florida than California.  Consequently,
their Motion to Transfer under Section 1404(a) is denied.

Alternatively, the Defendants ask the Court to stay the lawsuit
pending a result in the upcoming class action trial in Salas.  The
Judge holds that the lawsuit is quite dissimilar, and
chronologically trails far behind Salas.  For these reasons, he
declines to stay the case pending resolution of the California-only
class trial in Salas.  Therefore, the Defendants' Motion to Stay is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fcps9G from Leagle.com.

Javier Cardenas, Plaintiff, represented by Alissa Del Riego --
adelriego@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck P.A., Jeffrey A. Koncius
, Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice, John Gravante, III --
jgravante@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Matthew Weinshall
-- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, Natalie Lesser,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Ramirez,
Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Boucher Larson
LLP, pro hac vice, Peter A. Muhic, LeVan Law Group, LLC, Tyler S.
Graden , Kessler Topza Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Peter
Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

Kurt Kirton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Koncius, Kiesel Law
LLP, pro hac vice, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Ramirez, Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice,
Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP, pro hac vice, Peter A.
Muhic, LeVan Law Group, LLC, Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topza Meltzer
& Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. & Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian Michael Ercole -- brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis, Bockius & Melissa Marie Coates --
melissa.coates@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis.

Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Michael Ercole, Morgan Lewis, Bockius, David J. DePiano, Shapiro,
Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A. & Robert Eric Sacks, Shapiro,
Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A.

TRUMAN ROAD: Smith Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ZACHARY SMITH and BRIAN
KAGARICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMAN ROAD DEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a NO
OTHER PUB, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-670-NKL (W.D.
Mo.), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   a. granting his motion for class certification of:

      "all individuals who provided their phone number to No Other
      Pub on a sign-in sheet and who received a text message from
      No Other Pub."

   b. certifying Class identified above pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
      P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   c. appointing Plaintiff Smith as representative of the Class;

   d. appointing Plaintiff Smith's counsel as class counsel
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and

   e. awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems
      reasonable and just.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are:

          Bill Kenney, Esq.
          William C. Kenney, Esq.
          BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 842-2455
          Facsimile: (816) 474-8899
          E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  erapp@edelson.com

TWITTER, INC: Doshier Case Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter removed the case captioned as WILLIAM F. DOSHIER and
dotStrategy, Co., the PLAINTIFFS, vs. TWITTER, INC., the DEFENDANT,
Case No. 23CV-18-1102 (Filed July 25, 2018), from the Arkansas
Circuit Court, Faulkner County to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on Sept. 21, 2019. The Eastern
District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-06176-JCS to the proceeding.

The case involves advertising placed on the Twitter platform by
persons or entities who entered into "Self-Service Advertising
agreements with Twitter.  The Plaintiffs allege that Twitter
improperly charges serve-serve advertisers for "fake Engagements",
such as for 'Website clicks or conversions' (Ad Clicks) generated
through fake TWITTER accounts, for 'clicks on Promoted Tweets' (Ad
Clicks) generated through fake Twitter accounts, and for Follows
generated through fake TWITTER accounts." The Plaintiffs bring the
claims under Arkansas law.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David A. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES LAW
          Centre Place
          212 Center Street, Fifth Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2429
          Email: david@hodgeslaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Jennifer H. Doan, Esq.
          J. Randy Roeser, Esq.
          HALTOM & DOAN
          6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: 903.255.1000
          Facsimile: 903.255.0800
          E-mail: jdoan@haltomdoan.com
                  rroeser@haltomdoan.com

U.S. SOCCER: Files Motion Against Gender Bias Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Valenzuela, writing for NY Daily News, reports that the U.S.
Soccer Federation filed in late Sept. a court motion in opposition
to the women's national team's request that class action status be
given to its gender discrimination lawsuit.

The USWNT filed their class action certification request on Sept.
11, but has actually been seeking class action status since it
filed its lawsuit in March. The gender discrimination suit accuses
the federation of inequitable pay, among other claims.

The USSF has continued to claim no such discrimination exists and
pointed out that the women's team has made more money over an
eight-year period than the men's national team. In August, USSF
released a controversial "fact sheet" that supposedly broke down
the numbers to prove its point. But the spokesperson for the USWNT
players in their equal pay lawsuit, Molly Levinson, said the
numbers didn't reveal the full truth: The women's national team
players only earn $4,950 per game (for 20 wins in friendlies)
versus the men's team who earns $13,166 (for 20 wins in
friendlies).

The men's team can also earn higher bonuses than the women, but has
not been able to capitalize on collecting those bonuses out of lack
of success in big tournaments--like failing to qualify for the 2018
World Cup in Russia.

The latest nugget of information the federation has added to its
motion: Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd, Becky Sauerbrunn and Alex
Morgan, who are championing the lawsuit, have all earned more than
the highest paid players on the men's team between 2014-2019. U.S.
Soccer argues that the four lack the standing to represent a
class.

By seeking class action status, the U.S. players are looking to
include in the lawsuits all players called up to the national
team.

"Pay should be based on performance, not gender. USSF tries to spin
the undeniable fact that if the men players won their games, they
would be paid considerably more than the women are now," Levinson
said. "This is a tired argument from USSF that women players must
work twice as hard and win every time men lose in order to be paid
and have the same working conditions as the men.

"It runs counter to every American principle of equality, won't
stop this case from going forward, and doesn't stand a chance in a
trial."

The USSF motion comes a month after mediation talks between the two
sides fell flat and a trial date, set in a Los Angeles U.S.
District Court, was scheduled for May 5, 2020.

"It is clear that USSF, including its Board of Directors and
President Carlos Cordeiro, fully intend to continue to compensate
women players less than men. They will not succeed," Levinson said
after the failed talks. "We want all of our fans, sponsors, peers
around the world, and women everywhere to know we are undaunted and
will eagerly look forward to a jury trial."

In March, all twenty-eight members of the women's team filed a
lawsuit against the federation, claiming "institutionalized gender
discrimination" affected USWNT player's paychecks, training,
travel, coaching, playing and medical treatment.

Support for the USWNT has continued to build, even moreso after the
team won its fourth World Cup in July. Even Cordeiro's
congratulatory speech at the City Hall rally following the team's
ticker tape parade down Manhattan's Canyon of Heroes was
interrupted by the crowd's "Equal Pay! Equal Pay!" chants.[GN]

UNITED STATES: $5.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Kane County Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KANE COUNTY, UTAH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case Nos. 17-739C; 17-1991C (Consolidated)
(Fed. Cl.), Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney fees
and non-taxable expenses.

These consolidated cases arise out of suits that Kane County, Utah,
brought alleging that the federal government owed it and other
similarly-situated units of local government additional payments
under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act ("PILT") for fiscal years
2015, 2016, and 2017.  The Court granted summary judgment in the
Plaintiffs' favor in both cases, finding that eligible units of
local government were entitled by law to receive the full amount of
the payments they were due under PILT, irrespective of a shortfall
in the appropriations for those payments in fiscal years 2015,
2016, and 2017.

On Oct. 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report
stipulating to the amounts due to each class member in accordance
with the Court's decision.  On Oct. 22, 2018, the Court, finding no
just reason for delay under RCFC 54(b), directed the Clerk to enter
final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases
in the total amount of $17,221,821, allocated to each class member
as provided in the stipulation.  On Nov. 13, 2018, the government
filed a motion requesting that the Court amend the judgment by
entering separate judgments in each case.  The Court granted that
motion on Nov. 15, 2018, and on Nov. 16, 2018, the Clerk entered
judgments for $16,322,574 in No. 17-739C, and for $899,247 in No.
17-1991C.

In the meantime, on Sept. 27, 2018, and prior to the first entry of
judgment in the case, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of
attorney fees and non-taxable expenses and an accompanying brief,
requesting an award of one-third of the total amount recovered on
behalf of all the Class Members that timely opted into the lawsuit
($5,740,607), and reasonable and necessary non-taxable,
out-of-pocket litigation and class administration expenses incurred
($26,936.96).  The government has represented that it takes no
position regarding the Plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 13, 2018, in light of the government's representation that
it anticipated filing a notice of appeal of the Court's decision,
the Court stayed consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney fees pending a final decision from the court of appeals.  
The government noted an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 11, 2019.

On May 15, 2019, the parties filed an agreement pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 42(b) that the appeal be dismissed.  On May 15, 2019, the
court of appeals dismissed the appeals.  In light of that action,
the Court has lifted its stay of the motion for attorney fees and
non-taxable expenses.

Judge Kaplan finds that only the Lead Plaintiff, Kane County, has
entered a fee agreement with the class counsel.  Therefore, it is
appropriate to direct an award of attorney fees and expenses based
on the common fund doctrine so that the other Plaintiffs pay their
fair share of the costs of the class counsel's advocacy on their
behalf.

Next, she finds that the lodestar cross-check yields an award
consistent with the one derived from the application of the
percentage fee the Plaintiffs have requested.  For that reason, the
Judge concludes that the percentage-based fees sought by the
Plaintiffs' counsel are reasonable.

The Class counsel seeks reimbursement of $2,639.45 in litigation
expenses and $24,297.51 in class notice and administrative expenses
(a total of $26,936.96) from the common fund.  The Judge has
reviewed these expenses and finds them to be reasonable.  She
therefore grants the Plaintiffs' request for an award of
non-taxable costs and expenses.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kaplan lifted the Court's stays of
the motion for attorney fees and applications for bill of costs.
She granted the motion for attorney fees and non-taxable expenses.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in the amount of
$5,767,543.96, which will be paid to Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP
from the class fund.  The applications for bill of costs in Case
Nos. 17-739C and 17-1991C will remain pending for the Clerk.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/xxXBca from Leagle.com.

KANE COUNTY, UTAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan I. Saltman --
aisaltman@smithcurrie.com -- Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Mollie Lenore Finnan --
mollie.l.finnan@usdoj.gov -- United States Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Court Decertifies Subclass in Abdi Detainees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York has decertified the subclass in the
case captioned HANAD ABDI and JOHAN BARRIOS RAMOS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. KEVIN
McALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; THOMAS BROPHY, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; JEFFREY SEARLS, in his official Capacity
as Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility;
and WILLIAM BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States, Respondents, Case No. 1:17-CV-00721 EAW (W.D.
N.Y.).

The class suit involves a certified subclass of asylum-seekers who
have demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture in
their respective homelands.  Each has been taken into custody and
detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New
York, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).  Each has
been imprisoned in a maximum-security facility for more than six
months without a bond hearing while actively seeking admission into
the United States.  Petitioners Abdi and Ramos brought the action
seeking relief on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf
of a proposed class of similarly situated asylum-seekers held at
the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York.

The District Court previously certified the subclass and granted a
preliminary injunction requiring that bond hearings be provided to
the subclass.  Specifically, the District Court defined the
certified subclass as follows: All arriving asylum-seekers who are
or will be detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, have
passed a credible fear interview, and have been detained for more
than six months without a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.

At that time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the majority of district courts in the Second Circuit had imposed a
temporal limitation on Section 1225(b) through the canon of
constitutional avoidance.  However, the Supreme Court subsequently
held in Jennings v. Rodriguez that Section 1225(b) cannot
reasonably be interpreted to require a bond hearing after six
months of detention.  The Supreme Court's decision in the Jennings
case did not address the constitutional arguments raised in that
case, and the Supreme Court remanded those issues for the Ninth
Circuit to consider in the first instance.

Pending before the District Court are the Respondents' motion to
vacate the Court's preliminary injunction order and motion to
decertify the subclass, and the Petitioners' motion to enforce the
preliminary injunction order.  These motions directly confront
several questions left open in the Jennings case, including whether
asylum-seekers detained pursuant to Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) are
entitled to due process protections and, if so, whether the class
action device is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the
Petitioners' due process challenges.  The Respondents also contend
that the Court is without jurisdiction to issue class-wide
injunctive or declaratory relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(f)(1).

Assuming arguendo that the subclass enjoys constitutional
protections, Judge Wolford concludes that the subclass no longer
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  As a result, the subclass must be decertified and
the preliminary injunction vacated.  The Judge need not, and does
not, decide whether these asylum-seekers have Fifth Amendment due
process rights.  Furthermore, in light of her decision to decertify
the subclass, the Respondents' position that the Court does not
have jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive or declaratory
relief pursuant to Section 1252(f)(1) is a moot point and is not
addressed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Wolford (i) granted the Respondents'
motion to decertify the subclass; (ii) vacated the Court's
preliminary injunction order granting class-wide relief in favor of
the now decertified subclass; and (iii) denied as moot the
Respondents' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and the
Petitioners' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Decision &
Order is available at https://is.gd/8fwFOE from Leagle.com.

Hanad Abdi, Petitioner, represented by Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Victoria Marie Roeck, New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Antony Philip Falconer
Gemmell, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Christopher T.
Dunn, NY Civil Liberties Union, Deepa Alagesan, International
Refugee Assistance Project, Heidi Lynne Levine --
HLEVINE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Mariko Hirose,
International Refugee Assistance Project, Michael D. Mann --
MDMANN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Robert Andrew Hodgson,
New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Johan Barrios Ramos, Petitioner, represented by Victoria Marie
Roeck, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Antony Philip
Falconer Gemmell, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Deepa
Alagesan, International Refugee Assistance Project, Heidi Lynne
Levine, Sidley Austin LLP, Mariko Hirose, International Refugee
Assistance Project, Michael D. Mann, Sidley Austin LLP, Robert
Andrew Hodgson, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation &
Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Thomas Brophy, Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jeffrey Searls, Acting
Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Jefferson
Sessions, Attorney General of the United States & Elaine C Duke,
Acting, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Defendants, represented by Kevin Charles Hirst, U. S. Department
of
Justice - Civil Division, Stacey Ilene Young, U.S. Department of
Justice, J. Max Weintraub, U. S. Department of Justice - Civil
Division, Nicole N. Murley, U.S. Department of Justice & Tashiba
Monique Peoples, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Imigration
Litigation-District Court Section.


UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Probe on Detainees Healthcare Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken, writing for CNN, report that when
64-year-old Kamyar Samimi died in the custody of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency issued a routine press
release saying the preliminary cause of his death was cardiac
arrest. It boasted about the nearly $200 million it had been
spending annually on health care services for detainees, saying
that "comprehensive medical care is provided from the moment
detainees arrive and throughout the entirety of their stay."

What the press release didn't say was that Samimi's death followed
a series of lapses in his medical care -- the sort of breakdowns
that have been repeatedly identified in government investigations
into the care provided at immigrant detention centers in recent
years.

Samimi, an Iranian man who was being held by ICE in Aurora,
Colorado, had been complaining of vomiting and pain for weeks
leading up to his death in 2017, according to ICE's investigation
into his treatment. He had told medical staff upon his arrival that
he had been taking methadone, a painkiller commonly used to treat
opioid addiction, since hurting his back in a car accident. He said
he was starting to feel symptoms of withdrawal, yet nurses told
investigators they didn't have training in opioid withdrawal.

ICE's report, which involved an outside analysis of his treatment
and like other death reviews did not directly connect the medical
failures to the death, also found that the facility had been
without a director of nursing and another medical provider for more
than six months. Around a week before Samimi died, he was found
unconscious on the floor of his cell but wasn't sent to the
hospital. And on the day he died, a nurse tried calling the doctor
multiple times for help after the inmate appeared to have suffered
a seizure, but the doctor didn't answer or return any of those
calls.

Investigations into deaths including Samimi's, as well as critical
government audits, have raised troubling questions about the
quality of medical care at facilities used to hold immigrants. One
of the main private contractors providing health care in these
facilities, which employed the doctor in the detention center where
Samimi was held, is a massive company known as Wellpath, formerly
Correct Care Solutions.

This company was the focus of a recent CNN investigation that
exposed how it has provided substandard care that has led to deaths
and other serious outcomes that could have been avoided. Through
records and interviews with current and former employees, CNN
showed how the company has relied on inexperienced workers, offered
minimal training and understaffed facilities -- and how its
employees have failed to get inmates the emergency care they
needed.

Wellpath also works in some of the country's largest detention
facilities, where ICE locks up thousands of immigrants -- many of
whom have been apprehended for entering the country illegally.

In addition to at least five death reviews conducted by ICE that
specifically cite issues with the contractor's treatment of
immigrant detainees, a recent class action lawsuit spotlighted the
company's problematic record -- calling the decision to hire
medical contractors such as Wellpath "disturbing." In the suit,
more than a dozen current detainees at a variety of detention
centers accuse ICE of violating the US Constitution by denying them
adequate medical care and failing to provide stronger oversight.

ICE did not comment on Wellpath, but in response to the lawsuit an
official said that "all ICE detainees, regardless of location, can
expect timely and appropriate responses to emergent medical
requests, and timely medical care appropriate to the anticipated
length of detention."

Wellpath did not comment on the lawsuit or government findings
about specific detainees and facilities, but said in a statement
that it is confident its "team made the best possible care
decisions with the information that was available to them."

"Our compassionate team of doctors, nurses and health care
providers work with our partners to deliver high quality health
care in a clinical environment where security is the highest
priority," the company said.

Private contractor GEO Group operates a number of the immigrant
detention centers where Wellpath provides medical care, and it
employed the nurses and other medical staff at the facility where
Samimi died. The company declined to comment.

Opinion: Policymakers, provide adequate health care in prisons and
detention centers

One of the class-action plaintiffs, Martin Munoz, has Type 2
diabetes and has been detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing
Center in California -- where Wellpath is the medical provider --
for more than two years. He alleges in the suit he was given more
than triple his regular dose of insulin, resulting in an overdose.
He says he wasn't seen by a doctor after the overdose, and that
there have been multiple occasions where he hasn't been given his
insulin or blood pressure medication.

The lawsuit states he went without insulin for six days in February
and 10 days this summer, without blood pressure medication for two
weeks in the spring and without cholesterol medication for a week
in July. Munoz, who has lived in the United States for more than 40
years, most recently worked as a handyman and has four children who
are US citizens.

Another current detainee at the Adelanto facility alleges he lost
vision in one eye when a recommended surgery wasn't provided, while
a man held at California's Mesa Verde immigrant detention center --
where Wellpath is also the medical provider -- claims in the
lawsuit that he has received no treatment for a severe parasite in
his brain.

At least 27 people have died while being held in ICE custody since
2017, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of several
advocacy organizations involved with the suit. An ICE official said
in a statement that "statistically, fatalities in ICE custody occur
approximately 100 times less often (than) they do in both federal
and state custody nationwide."

Related: 19 years old, in jail and begging to go to the hospital

Lawmakers who have previously criticized the conditions and medical
care at ICE facilities have also expressed serious concerns to CNN
about Wellpath.

"The reports of widespread and sometimes deadly deficiencies in the
medical care provided by Correct Care Solutions . . . are deeply
troubling," said Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California, in a statement
provided to CNN. "The United States government has a moral
obligation to respect the dignity of every individual in its care,
and that mission is severely compromised when government agencies
transfer responsibility to private corporations incentivized to cut
costs and turn profits."

In December 2018, Harris and a group of other California lawmakers
wrote a letter to ICE, condemning the agency for the "egregious
violations" identified during an inspection of the Adelanto
detention center.

In its 2018 report, a Department of Homeland Security watchdog said
it had found that detainees did not "have timely access to proper
medical care" and that doctors were indicating they had seen
patients they didn't actually visit. ICE said at the time that it
takes the findings seriously and would be conducting a review to
ensure standards are now being met.

"We must ensure that migrants in our custody are treated with the
care and respect they deserve," Rep. Scott Peters, D-California,
told CNN. "Wellpath must be appropriately investigated, and should
not be awarded any contracts until such an investigation has been
completed."

Colorado Rep. Jason Crow said he has similar concerns about the
medical care at the immigrant detention center in his district, the
Aurora facility where Samimi died.

The ACLU of Colorado recently released a report condemning Samimi's
medical care, saying that the doctor "made the medically
unjustifiable decision to cut him off from his prescribed
methadone." Samimi had even called a friend and told him he was
"sicker than hell" and "dying here," according to the death review
obtained by the organization and Rocky Mountain PBS.

The ACLU is currently suing ICE in an attempt to get more records
about what happened.

"ICE arrested a man who had lived in the US for over four decades,
and 15 days later he died in ICE's care," the ACLU said in a
statement about Samimi's death. "The public deserves to know more."
[GN]


US BANK: Maryland Dist. Ct. Dismisses Suazo Suit with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REYNALDO SUAZO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK
TRUST, NA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-18-1451 (D.
Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint; and (ii) dismissed the case with
prejudice.

Named Plaintiffs Reynaldo and Eva Suazo, Ronald Lewis, and
Catherine Martinson, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated mortgage borrowers, allege that Defendants Caliber Home
Loans, Inc. and U.S. Bank Trust, solely in its capacity as Trustee
for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, have unjustly enriched
themselves by engaging in unlawful debt collection practices.
Caliber is alleged to have acted as the debt collector for LSF9, a
special purpose vehicle holding title to high-risk mortgages.
Through Caliber, LSF9 allegedly pursued outstanding mortgage
obligations without the appropriate license under Maryland law.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully
charged inspection fees as part of these collection efforts.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland on April 12, 2018.
On May 18, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court,
citing 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441, 1446, 1453 and
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").

In their Original Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged
that LSF9 had unlawfully extracted profits from mortgage borrowers
without obtaining a license to pursue debt collection activities as
required under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act
("MCALA").

On June 6, 2018, the Court stayed the case pending the resolution
of a consolidated appeal of four Maryland Circuit Court cases
before the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Blackstone, et al. v.
Sharma, et al.; Shanahan, et al. v. Marvastian, et al., Case No.
40, Sept. Term, 2017; O'Sullivan, et al. v. Altenburg, et al., Case
No. 45, Sept. Term, 2017; Goldberg, et al. v. Neviaser, et al.,
Case No. 47, Sept. Term, 2017.

On Aug. 2, 2018, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its ruling in
the consolidated appeal and held that a foreign statutory trust,
such as LSF9, is not required to obtain a license as a collection
agency under MCALA.  Following the Blackstone decision, the Court
lifted the Stay; dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
declaratory judgment claim (Count I); dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims (Counts II and III); clarified
that the Plaintiffs' inspection fee claim under Md. Com. Law
Section 12-121(a)(1)(ii) (Count IV) remained pending; permitted the
Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;
and dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against a third
Defendant, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

On Nov. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint.  The proposed Amended Complaint makes sweeping
changes to the Original Complaint.  In light of the Blackstone
decision, the Plaintiffs withdraw their allegation that the
Defendants violated MCALA, and now asserts that Defendant LSF9
violated the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law ("MMLL") by operating as
an unlicensed mortgage lender.  The Amended Complaint also adds new
factual allegations to support its inspection fee claim, and
introduces a new claim pursuant to the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act, and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.  The Amended
Complaint now seeks to certify two classes (as opposed to three
classes sought in the Original Complaint) comprised of consumers
who allegedly suffered harm because of Defendants' practices: the
"Caliber Class" and the "Inspection Fee Class."

In sum, the Amended Complaint asserts the following three counts:
an unjust enrichment claim on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and
the Caliber Class against LSF9 and Caliber (Count I); a claim
arising from alleged violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Act ("MCDCA") and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
("MCPA"), brought by the Named Plaintiffs and the Caliber Class
against all Defendants (Count II); and an inspection fee claim
based on violations of Md. Code, on behalf of Ms. Martinson and the
Inspection Class against LSF9 and Caliber (Count III).  

In a single filing, the Defendants oppose the Amendment and seeks
dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Judge Bennett finds that LSF9 is not required to obtain a license
under the MMLL because it is not a mortgage lender, as that term is
defined by the statute.  The Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim under Counts I and II because these Counts are premised on
their faulty legal theory that LSF9 violated the MMLL by failing to
acquire the proper licensing.

In Count III of the proposed Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
claim that Caliber and LSF9 unlawfully collected inspection fees.
The Judge holds that the Court never addressed whether the
inspection fee statute applied to foreign statutory trusts like
LSF9 or assignees.  No authority holds that LSF9 is subject to
Maryland law's prohibition against inspection fees.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against LSF9 under
Count III.

In addition, the proposed Second Amended Complaint merely alleges
that Ms. Martinson was charged inspection fees before LSF9 acquired
the loans, and that Caliber folded these outstanding fee amounts
into the amounts it claimed were due and owing.  The mere fact that
these fees were charged and subsequently sought to be collected
does not suggest that any violation of law has occurred.  For this
reason, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Count III
of the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

The Defendants petition the Court to both deny the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and dismiss the case
with prejudice.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed
Amended Complaint is futile and may not be filed.  Accordingly, the
Original Complaint governs the case.

The only remaining claim in the Original Complaint is the
Plaintiffs' inspection fee claim (Count IV).  This claim fails for
the same reasons that the Plaintiffs' amended inspection fee claim
(Count III of the proposed Amended Complaint) fails.  No claims
remain.  Therefore, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Bennett denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim under both the Original and Amended
Complaints.  Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the case with
prejudice.  A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/YCslNj from Leagle.com.

Reynaldo Suazo, Eva Suazo, Catherine Martinson & Ronald Lewis,
Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip R. Robinson --
info@marylandconsumer.com -- Consumer Law Center LLC, Peter A.
Holland -- pat@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm PC &
Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm LLP.

U.S. Bank Trust, NA, Solely in its capacity as trustee for LSF9
Master Participation Trust & Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Ava E. Lias Booker -- alias-booker@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP, Emily Michele Patterson --
epatterson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Brian E. Pumphrey
-- bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.

VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
JASON CRUMRINE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, and DANA
RUSSELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05777 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 11,
2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities between March 5,
2019 and September 26, 2019, inclusive. Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits specifically allege Vivint
forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or
deception." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.14 per
share, or over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on September 27,
2019, on unusually high trading volume.

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. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in fraudulent practices,
including forging customer contracts; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated;
(3) that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny: (4) that, as a result, the Company's earnings
would be materially and adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Jason Crumrine purchased Vivint securities during the
Class Period.

Vivint offers solar energy systems to residential customers through
a direct-to-home sales model.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN: Emissions Class Action Proceeding Commences in Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Elkin, writing for Digital Trends, reports that a case has
been brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organizations
against Volkswagen in which 470,000 owners of the 2.0-liter TDI
EA189 engine are seeking compensation due to the company's diesel
emissions scandal. The scandal was uncovered in 2015 via a tip from
European researchers to the Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Air Resources Board.

The scandal centered around Volkswagen's emission computer. which
was programmed with different parameters depending on whether the
vehicle was driving normally or under an emissions test cycle. In
an emissions cycle, the emission system would react normally
allowing Volkswagen to claim it had "Clean Diesel" engines to
combat electric and hybrid competitors. In normal driving
conditions, the emissions system would shut down, allowing for
better power and mileage, while also creating emissions up to 40
times the legal limit.

This suit is aimed at Volkswagen as a parent company--the scandal
also included Audi, Seat, and Skoda brands. Volkswagen controlled
70 percent of the United States diesel passenger-car market at the
time; current market share statistics are not available at this
time, but its clear that the company's share has plunged.

The Braunschweig state court declared the suit admissible as
proceedings opened. It also suggested that plaintiffs will have a
difficult time proving their case. Although the two sides could
consider a settlement, Volkswagen has suggested that it would be
hard to imagine that happening. The current proceedings in
Braunschweig are only to determine whether the company acted
illegally. If the court finds that is the case, then plaintiffs
would have to proceed with separate actions to garner a
settlement.

In yet another case stemming from the scandal, prosecutors
announced charges of market manipulation against Volkswagen CEO
Herbert Diess and also board chairman Hans Dieter Potsch, as well
as former CEO Martin Winterkorn, alleging they deliberately
informed markets too late about the huge costs to the company that
would result from the scandal. Volkswagen continues to reject these
charges.

Other proceedings against Volkswagen stem from the same issue with
the 3.0 liter V-6 diesel models. Those cases are being handled
separately from those concerning the four-cylinder engine. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Hamilton Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Chelsea Hamilton and Alyssa Hernandez filed an appeal
from a Court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Chelsea
Hamilton, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case Nos.
5:17-cv-01415-AB-KK and 5:17-cv-01485-AB-KK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of "all current and former non-exempt employees
employed by Defendants in the State of California who worked in a
Walmart Fulfillment Center at any time during the period from June
8, 2013 to the present."

The appellate case is captioned as Chelsea Hamilton, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56161, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 1, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on December 2, 2019;

   -- Appellants Chelsea Hamilton and Alyssa Hernandez's opening
      brief is due on January 10, 2020;

   -- Appellees Does, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart
      Stores, Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 10, 2020;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHELSEA HAMILTON and ALYSSA HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320-1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320-1445
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com
                  kyoon@yoonlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees WAL-MART STORES, INC., a corporation, and
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation, are represented by:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          Matthew Ryan Gershman, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
                  kemplem@gtlaw.com
                  herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Aislinn Dooley, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8342
          E-mail: edooley@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7726
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com


WHOLE FOODS: Pinkston Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Pinkston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09362 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 9, 2019) seeks damages
under that State's Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's
misleading representations on their products' packaging.

Over the past ten years, the number of dairy milk substitutes has
proliferated to include "milks" (milk-like beverages) made from
various agricultural commodities. Reasons for consuming non-dairy
milks include avoidance of animal products due to health,
environmental or ethical reasons, dietary goals or food allergies.
Two of the most popular milk alternatives are made from soybeans
and almonds.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be
characterized by vanilla under the 365 Organic brand. The Products
are sold in sizes including 32 and 64 ounces in Vanilla and
Unsweetened Vanilla and represented as vanilla on the labels, in
point-of-sale marketing, store display ads, print circulars,
promotions, websites, television and/or radio ads. The Products'
front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with
respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by
the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette.

According to the complaint, the front label representations of
"Vanilla" are misleading because the Products (1) contain an
insufficient amount of vanilla to independently characterize the
Products and (2) the "natural flavor" does not simulate or resemble
vanilla. A non-misleading front label description could be "Natural
Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk" or "Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk".

Had Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it, asserts the complaint. As a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no
less than $5.99 per 64 OZ (across the Products), excluding
tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products identified herein
for personal use, consumption or application based on the above
representations, for no less than the price indicated.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

            - and -

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
     Email: mreese@reesellp.com


WYNN RESORTS: Schrader Sues over Sexual Abuse Cover-Up
------------------------------------------------------
BRENNA SCHRADER, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STEPHEN ALAN WYNN; an
individual; MAURICE WOODEN, an individual, WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC dba
WYNN LAS VEGAS a Nevada Limited Liability; WYNN RESORTS, LTD, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, and ROE
CORPORATIONS 1-20, inclusive,  the Defendants, Case No.
A-19-802598-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Mr.
Wynn engaged in over a decade of sexual abuse, harassment and
misconduct while serving as Chief Executive Officer of Wynn Resorts
and Wynn Las Vegas. The Defendants collectively engaged in over a
decade of cover-up to prevent the discovery and remedy Defendant
Wynn's sexual abuse, harassment and misconduct.

Defendants' decades-long cover-up of sexual abuse allegations
created a culture where employees were afraid to pursue complaints,
believed that speaking up would be pointless and result in their
inability to work anywhere in Nevada again.  These efforts at
secrecy made it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for
gaming regulators, government officials, Defendants supervisors,
managers and human resources personnel to detect sexual misconduct
and to prevent said misconduct.  These efforts at secrecy also
created an environment sexually hostile to females that made them
feel powerless, without a voice, and incapable of complaining to
management, administrative bodies or seeking employment elsewhere
in Nevada.  The cover-up actions instilled an environment of fear
and intimidation that prevented Plaintiff and others similarly
situated from filing formal complaints.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Richard Harris, Esq.
          Benjamin Cloward, Esq.
          Burke Huber, Esq.
          RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
          801 South Fourth St.
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 444-4444
          Facsimile: (702) 444-4455
          E-mail:burke@richardharrislaw.com

XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesinger Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transferred the case titled BRIAN
SCHLESINGER, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA COLLINS, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-03483-EMC (N.D. Cal.), to the Middle District of Florida
where Mr. Collins resides.

Mr. Schlesinger has filed suit against Mr. Collins, doing business
as xpresscapitalgroup.com, asserting a violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and similar California
law.  According to Mr. Schlesinger, Mr. Collins violated these
statutes because he, or another person acting on his behalf, called
Mr. Schlesinger using an artificial or prerecorded voice without
Mr. Schlesinger's prior express consent.  Mr. Schlesinger seeks
relief not only for himself but also for a nationwide class (for
the TCPA claim) and a California class (for the California claim).


Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Collins's motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer.  According to Mr.
Collins, the instant case against him must be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  In support of his claim that there is no
personal jurisdiction, Mr. Collins has submitted a declaration
directed to his assertion that the Court lacks general jurisdiction
over him.

In response, Mr. Schlesinger does not make any claim that the Court
has general jurisdiction over Mr. Collins.  Rather, he argues only
that there is specific jurisdiction.

Judge Chen applies a purposeful direction analysis.  Purposeful
direction is evaluated under the three-part effects test traceable
to the Supreme Court's decision in Calder v. Jones.  Under this
test, a defendant must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2)
expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the
defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.

The Judge holds that there is specific jurisdiction because Mr.
Collins, or someone acting on his behalf, made a phone call to
California.  The TCPA cases finding jurisdiction are consistent
with Walden v. Fiore, because the defendant, as in the instants
case, targeted California telephone numbers (and presumably
residents of California), inflicting harm within the state.

Mr. Collins protests still that, even if there is purposeful
direction, specific jurisdiction obtains only where the exercise of
such would be reasonable, and here it would be unreasonable and it
would be more efficient to litigate in Florida where the bulk of
the witnesses and evidence are likely to be located.  Although Mr.
Collins' position is not entirely lacking in merit, the Judge is
not persuaded.  Mr. Collins shoulders the burden of proving that
the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, and, under
Ninth Circuit law, must "present a compelling case" of
unreasonableness.  Given Mr. Collins knew he was making a call into
California, Mr. Collins has not met that high standard.

Accordingly, the Judge denies the motion to dismiss based on lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Mr. Collins also moves to dismiss based on improper venue.  He
argues that virtually all the actions taken in this matter occurred
in Florida, where he resides.   But even accepting that as true,
that does not mean that a substantial part of the events did not
also take place in California where the phone call was directed and
where the harm was inflicted.  The Judge therefore denies the
motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

Finally, Mr. Collins argues that, even if the Court does not
dismiss the instant case based on lack of personal jurisdiction or
improper venue, it should, at the very least, transfer the case to
the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.
The Judge concludes that a transfer to the Middle District of
Florida is warranted.  He finds that (i) the bulk of the
documentary evidence will likely be in Florida, where Mr. Collins
resides; and (ii) Mr. Collins resides in Florida, he runs his
business out of Florida, and the critical issue in the case will be
how he runs his business.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen denied Mr. Collins's motion
to dismiss but granted his motion to transfer.  The Clerk of the
Court is instructed to transfer the case to the Middle District of
Florida in accordance with the Opinion and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tX2xzV from Leagle.com.

Brian Schlesinger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Louis Javitch --
mark@javitchlawoffice.com -- Javitch Law Office.

Joshua Collins, an individual, Defendant, pro se.



                            *********

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 ***