---

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

              Tuesday, November 12, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 226

                            Headlines

3M CO: 130 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
3M CO: Bid to Remand PFAS-Related Class Suit in Delaware Pending
3M CO: Must Face Firefighter's Class Suit in Ohio
3M CO: Scotchgard-Related Class Suit Ongoing in Michigan
A&E REAL ESTATE: Court Narrows Claims in Stafford Renters Suit

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Can Compel Arbitration in Cooper Consumer Suit
ALLERGAN INC: Refuses to Pay for Implants' Removal, Russell Says
AMERICAN CREDIT: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
APPLE INC: Amended Ahern Suit Over Computers Filter Defect Tossed
APPLIED STAFF: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Thompson Suit

AQUA METALS: Page Limit of Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Extended
ARHAUS LLC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARIZONA: District Court Certifies Medicaid Subclass in Tinsley Suit
ARIZONA: Parties Ordered to Decide on Future Course of Parsons Suit
ATHLETA LLC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York

BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Court Enters Final OK on Busch Suit Settlement
BQ & ASSOCIATES: David Files FDCPA Suit in Nebraska
BROOKS BROTHERS: Delacruz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: McDonald Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas

CHAMPLAIN OIL: Gas Price Fixing Lawsuit Ends in $1.5M Deal
CHIME FINANCIAL: Faces Richards Suit Over Service Disruption
COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
COMCAST CABLE: Can Compel Arbitration in Azeveda FCRA Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Rogers Renews Bid to Certify Class of Prisoners

CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Ct. Appoints Ferraro Group as Lead Plaintiff
CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Seeks Docs in Takata Airbag Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Petersen Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
CREDIT SUISSE: Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Indicative Ruling Nixed
CROCS INC: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in New York

DETROIT, MI: Students Urge Court to Reinstate Civil Rights Case
DICK BLICK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Credit Checks
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Payne Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
EDDIE BAUER: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FILM STAGE: Warner Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Under TCPA
FIRST COLLECTION: Cash Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
FIRST INTERSTATE: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Banking Practices
FORSTER & GARBUS: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
GANNI INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

GARMENTORY INC: Violates ADA, Kiler Suit Asserts
GC SERVICES: Faces Stein Class Suit in S.D. California
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Daniels Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
GUAM: Wants to File Certiorari Petition in Davis Suit on Dec. 27
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Fowler Files FDCPA Suit in Florida

HARD ROCK CAFE: Faces Dominguez Class Suit Under ADA
HEALTH-ADE LLC: Deal in Bayol Fraud Suit Gets Final Approval
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Class Certified in Suit Over Lapsed Sanitation
HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
INTERO REAL ESTATE: Chinitz Files Class Suit in Puerto Rico

INTERSTATE CLEANING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
JAMBA JUICE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
KC LODGE: Settlement in Enegren FLSA Suit Gets Court Approval
LEGACY GROUP: Kedney Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Alabama
LEXINGTON INTERNATIONAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Class in Slaughter Case Conditionally Certified
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Ends 4-Decade Suit Over Inmate Care
MATTEL INC: Matzura Files ADA Class Action in New York
MDL 2672: Court Dismisses Santander From VW Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2915: Grimm Suit Over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated

MDL 2915: Imperatori Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Miller Class Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
MEDIOCOPY: Swetlic Chiropractic Files Consumer Credit Suit in Tenn.
MEISNER'S GOURMET: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Alvarado Suit Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

MIDLAND CREDIT: Reynolds Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MORGAN SERVICES: Williams Sues Collection of Biometric Data
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses Patterson ERISA Class Action
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Moves for Prelim. OK of $470K Accord in Rider
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeals Court Affirms Helmet Lawsuit Dismissal

NCAA: Fouts Sues Over Disregard for Health of Student-Athletes
NCAA: Howe Sues Over Disregard for Health and Safety of Athletes
NCAA: Sued by Johnson Under FLSA for Not Paying Student Athletes
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Certifies Class in Carlson ERISA Suit
OLD NAVY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PARETEUM CORP: Faces O'Brien Securities Suit Over False Statement
PETER THOMAS: Miller Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Purchasers
PHILADELPHIA CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Double-Billing
PIZZA HUT: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Insurance Cos. Reach Deal Over Terang Fire

PRESSLER FELT: Colon Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
RALPH LAUREN: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RCS CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
RHODE ISLAND: Class of Offenders Certified in Chapdelaine Suit
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Two Classes Certified in Pontones Suit

SECURITY BENEFIT: Rosen Sues over Fraudulent Sale of Annuities
SEMGROUP CORP.: Walpole Says Registration Statement Misleading
SEVEN FOR ALL: Matzura Suit Alleges ADA Violation
SLIDE FIRE: Deadline to Reply in Prescott Suit Deferred
SONY ELECTRONICS: Allison Sues over Creator Program's Gender Bias

STALLION OILFIELD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Felts Says
STATION CASINOS: Fails to Pay Faulstick Under WARN Act, Suit Says
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY:  Legette Action Consolidated With Butler Case
SUNCOR ENERGY: Bid to Stay Remand Order Pending Appeal Denied
SWEETGREEN INC: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Breach

TAXI TOURS: Bid to Dismiss Balderramo Suit Denied Without Prejudice
TEAM INTEGRITY: Perrong Files Suit in M.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: $85MM Deal in Ciapessoni Suit Gets Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Education Secretary Sued Over Student Loans
USA: Court Approves Settlement in Barlow Rails-to-Trails Suit

VILLA GROUP: Ray Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
WALT DISNEY: Faces Wu ADA Class Action in NY
WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Sues Over Unsettled Money Transfers
[*] Elko County Votes Not to Opt Out of National Opioid Lawsuit

                            *********

3M CO: 130 Class Suits Filed over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that 130 putative class action and
other lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other
defendants) in various state and federal courts related to Aqueous
Film Forming Foam (AFFF).

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2002.

As of September 30, 2019, 130 putative class action and other
lawsuits have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants)
in various state and federal courts where current or former
airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were
located.

As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state
or territory attorneys generals. In these cases, plaintiffs
typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the
soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for loss
of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values,
investigation costs, remediation costs, and in some cases, personal
injury and funds for medical monitoring. Several companies have
been sued along with 3M, including but not limited to Ansul Co.
(acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co.,
Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc., and United
Technologies Corp.


In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF
cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to
centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue to
be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to federal
court. As of September 30, 2019, there were 125 cases in the MDL,
119 of which name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are
currently in the process of conducting discovery.

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


3M CO: Bid to Remand PFAS-Related Class Suit in Delaware Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to remand a class
action suit related to PFAS contamination in Delaware is pending.

In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action brought by
individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply
resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.

Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities. DuPont/Chemours and the metal platers have also been
named as defendants.

3M removed the case from state court to federal court, and
plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand.

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


3M CO: Must Face Firefighter's Class Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss a class
action suit initiated by a firefighter has been denied.

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and
Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the
named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals
through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a
putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of
PFAS in their blood.

The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy
and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS.

3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February
2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion.

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


3M CO: Scotchgard-Related Class Suit Ongoing in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in Michigan related to
disposal of 3M's Scotchgard.

In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other
defendants.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege
Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that
chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and
drinking water sources after disposal.

In addition to the one consolidated federal court putative class
action, as of September 30, 2019, 3M has been named as a defendant
in 254 private individual actions in Michigan state court based on
similar allegations. Four of these cases have been selected for
bellwether trials beginning in 2020.

Wolverine also filed a third-party complaint against 3M in a suit
by the State of Michigan and intervenor townships that seeks to
compel Wolverine to investigate and address contamination
associated with its historic disposal activity. 3M filed an answer
and counterclaims to Wolverine's third-party complaint in June
2019. In September 2019, the parties (including 3M as third-party
defendant) engaged in mediation, but resolution of the case was not
reached. 3M and Wolverine have scheduled further mediation in late
October 2019.

3M is also a defendant, together with Georgia-Pacific as
co-defendant, in a putative class action in federal court in
Michigan brought by residents of Parchment, who allege that the
municipal drinking water is contaminated from waste generated by a
paper mill owned by Georgia-Pacific's corporate predecessor.
Defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims in the complaint,
and the parties have begun discovery on the remaining claims.

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


A&E REAL ESTATE: Court Narrows Claims in Stafford Renters Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Supreme Court granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned JOHN STAFFORD, TIMOTHY
HICKERNELL, JEFFREY NATT, DANIEL FEYKA, JULIAN JONES, DONALD HALL,
THOMAS HUNTER, SEUN OH, JANE KIM, DENISE STARAKIEWICZ, WOJTEK
STARAKIEWICZ, RYAN KORELL, EMAN ASIRI, MOHAMMAD HAQUE, RYAN HALEY,
MARISOL MARTINEZ, WINFIELD COOPER, MATTHEW SULLIVAN, ELISE
CZAJKOWSKI, JOHN PETRALITO, ROYA BASSAM, MOLLY CROOG, SAM TANABE,
JASON BAILEY, ALEXANDER RICHARDS, HAJERA DEHQANZADA, ALI ABIDI,
DERIC MIZOKAMI, JOHN RIVERA, ALVIN REALUYO, FABIENNE FERREIRA,
K.M.O. VERA, KRISTIN MYERS, JESSE NEIL, CRAIG NADEAU, ANNMARIE
COLUCCI, ROSHEN CARMAN, ALVIN FERNANDEZ, MARGARET PLESS, JOSE
CALVILLO, EMMANUELLA PAUL, JESUS RIOS, NINA CHIDICHIMO, NATALIE
HIRSH, CRAIG CONNOLE, ALEXANDRIA KIRCHER, EARL BARRETT-HOLLAWAY,
SANTA PENA, DONNA DEMPSEY, SERENA FORBES, SOPHIA GREER, RUXANDRA
STANCU, LEAH MCKUNE, RASUEL MCKUNE, DAVID WARTH, MOHAMMAD UDDIN,
ELI JAMES, RICHARD DURO, NICHOLAS NAVIGLIA, MONICA THORNE, VINCENT
WALLGREN, EILEEN WALLGREN, JEANNINE FRUMESS, EVAN JACOBS, WILLIAM
RIVERS, GRACE RIVERS, DANIEL REYES, OSCAR VALENCIA Plaintiffs, v.
A&E REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, A&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
JOHN ARRILLAGA, DOUGLAS EISENBERG, Defendants, Docket No.
655500/2016, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).

The case is a putative class action alleging that the Defendants,
who are owners and operators of numerous apartment buildings in New
York City, systematically inflated rents over and above the amounts
which the Rent Stabilization Law ("RSL") and Rent Stabilization
Code ("RSC") allow.

The Plaintiffs -- 68 individuals residing in 55 apartment units in
22 different apartment buildings throughout New York City -- allege
that the Defendants have pursued (and continue to pursue) a scheme
designed to inflate rents over and above the amounts which they are
legally permitted to charge under New York law.

The Defendants own and operate a portfolio of over 100 New York
City apartment buildings, which the Plaintiffs term "the A&E
Portfolio."  Defendant A&E Real Estate Holdings serves as the
holding company for the multiple corporate entities in the A&E
Portfolio, while Defendant A&E Real Estate Management acts as the
property management company for the buildings which comprise the
Portfolio.  The two individual Defendants -- John Arrillaga Jr. and
Douglas Eisenberg -- are each referred to as "a principal" of A&E
Real Estate Holdings.

In recent years, the Plaintiffs allege, the A&E Portfolio has
"grown rapidly" in assets and value in conjunction with the
Defendants' improper and illegal rental increases.  Specifically,
the Defendants allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of: (a)
altering and misrepresenting the legal regulated rent records
provided to tenants to justify charging higher initial rents; (b)
inflating and/or misrepresenting the amount of Individual Apartment
Improvements ("IAIs") that were completed; and (c) using such false
information to increase rents and/or deregulate apartments that
should remain rent stabilized.

To vindicate their rights as well as those of other
similarly-situated tenants, the Plaintiffs propose to represent a
class consisting of current and former tenants of A&E Portfolio
buildings who, between October 18, 2012, and the present date,
resided in rent-stabilized or unlawfully-deregulated apartments,
and who paid rent in excess of the legal limit based on
misrepresentations by Defendants, or any predecessor in interest,
concerning legal regulated rents and improvements.  In addition,
the Plaintiffs propose a sub-class consisting of all current
tenants of A&E Portfolio building, who currently reside in a
rent-stabilized apartment or unlawfully deregulated apartment.

The Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint on October 18,
2016, alleging six causes of action: (1 and 2) violations of RSL
Section 26-512 on behalf of the Class and the Sub-Class,
respectively; (3) declaratory relief, on behalf of the Sub-Class,
adjudging and determining, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs and
members of the Sub-Class are each entitled to a rent-stabilized
lease in a lease form promulgated by DHCR; (4) violation of General
Business Law ("GBL") Section 349, on behalf of the Class; and (5
and 6) illegality and mistake of contract, on behalf of the Class
and the Sub-Class, respectively.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims on multiple
grounds, including the timeliness of the claims, the jurisdiction
of a state agency to adjudicate the claims, and the sufficiency of
the class action allegations underlying the claims.

Judge Cohen grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted
with respect to: (i) the Plaintiffs' fourth, fifth, and sixth
causes of action; and (ii) all claims as against the Individual
Defendants.  The Motion is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs'
first, second, and third causes of action as to Defendants A&E Real
Estate Holdings and A&E Real Estate Management.

Among other things, Judge Cohen finds that the GBL claim fails on
two grounds: (1) the claim does not allege "consumer-oriented"
conduct and, alternatively, (2) the claim does not allege an
independently deceptive act.  Even if GBL Section 349 did encompass
rent overcharge claims against landlords as a general matter, in
the case the Plaintiffs' claim still fails because the Complaint
fails to allege "[d]eceptive acts or practices" distinct from the
Defendants' purported violations of the rent control laws.

Judge Cohen finds that while the Plaintiffs cite to case law which
distinguishes between rent overcharge and contract claims, the
contract claims in those cases alleged breaches that were
independent of any RSL or RSC violation.  By contrast, Counts 5 and
6 of the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint are little more than
rent overcharge claims in contract guise.

Judge Cohen further holds that all claims as against individual
Defendants Arrillaga and Eisenberg are dismissed on the ground that
the Class Action Complaint fails to state any specific allegations
against them.  In any event, the undeveloped allegations against
Arrillaga and Eisenberg are not sufficient to permit a reasonable
inference of the alleged conduct.

The parties are to appear for a Preliminary Conference on Dec. 3,
2019 at 10 a.m.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Decision +
Order is available at https://is.gd/PbsZ6w from Leagle.com.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Can Compel Arbitration in Cooper Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case DAVID KEITH COOPER, Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06742-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Adobe's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Cooper, a commercial photographer, videographer, and video editor,
brings claims on behalf of himself and a putative class of others
similarly situated against Adobe for violations of various
California laws and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act arising from
Cooper's use of one of Adobe's video editing software programs.
Cooper alleges that Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 (Version 11.1.0)
malfunctioned and permanently deleted Cooper's files and data,
including those not associated with the PP2017.1.

Cooper brings the following claims against Adobe on behalf of
himself and similarly-situated individuals: (1) Negligence under
California Law; (2) Strict Products Liability for Defective Design
under California Law; (3) Violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Injunctive relief only); (4) Violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) Violation of
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act; and (6) Restitution/Unjust
Enrichment under California Law.

Before the Court is Adobe's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss
Class Claims, and Stay All Proceedings.  Cooper opposes the motion,
arguing that Adobe has not carried its burden of showing he agreed
to arbitrate his claims.  The Court heard oral arguments on Sept.
18, 2019.

According to Adobe (and not disputed by Cooper), "Creative Cloud"
is a suite of applications and services that offers a variety of
tools to perform creative work, such as image compositing, photo
and video editing, web design, and digital painting.  All Creative
Cloud users are required to view and affirmatively agree to Adobe's
General Terms of Use through a pop-up interface.  Without an
affirmative agreement to the General Terms of Use, users cannot
continue using any Creative Cloud program or service.  One of the
software applications Adobe makes available through its Creative
Cloud subscription plans is Premiere Pro -- the program at issue in
the case.  Lightroom CC, a photography software program, is another
application available through Adobe's Creative Cloud.

Adobe's General Terms of Use were updated on June 16, 2016.  On
June 18, 2016, Cooper was presented with Adobe's General Terms of
Use of through a pop-up interface in Lightroom.  Cooper was
presented with Adobe's General Terms of Use in connection with
Lightroom, and not Premier Pro CC, because Lightroom was the first
Creative Cloud program Cooper accessed after the Terms of Use were
updated.   Cooper clicked the box affirming "I have read and agree
to" the Terms of Use."  

Section 13 of Adobe's General Terms of Use, titled "Dispute
Resolution" provides, among other things, that JAMS will
administrate the arbitration in Santa Clara County, California
pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures if
one resides in the Americas.  Adobe did not change the Dispute
Resolution procedure in its General Terms of Use between June 18,
2016, when Cooper clicked and accepted those terms, and May 2017,
when Cooper used PP2017.1.

Judge Freeman holds that incorporation of arbitration rules, such
as the JAMS rules, constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that
contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.   Cooper's
arguments regarding the delegation of arbitrability to the
arbitrator also fails.  Cooper entered into an agreement with Adobe
when he accepted Adobe's General Terms of Use. The incorporation of
JAMS rules (and specifically Rule 11(b)), means that a dispute over
the scope -- or even formation, for that matter -- of the
arbitration agreement is to be decided by the arbitrator.

Cooper argues that even if the Court were to uphold the arbitration
provision (section 13.1), it should nevertheless invalidate the
class action waiver provision (section 13.3), allowing Cooper to
"roceed to class action arbitration.  But, as the Judge discussed,
Cooper and Adobe have agreed that all disputes over validity of the
arbitration agreement are to be resolved by the arbitrator.  Thus,
the arbitrator will decide whether the class action waiver
provision is enforceable.

In his opposition to Adobe's Motion, Cooper argued that the
"Dispute Resolution provision in Adobe's General Terms of Use is
also unenforceable because it is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.  The Court has no cause to address Cooper's
unconscionability arguments because they were withdrawn at the
Sept. 18, 2019 hearing.

Turning to Adobe's Motion to Dismiss Class Claims, the Judge finds
that it is up to the arbitrator to decide whether the class action
waiver provision in Adobe's General Terms of Use is valid.  If the
arbitrator finds that the class waiver provision is invalid per
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., Cooper's class claims can be adjudicated
in arbitration.  Accordingly, she denied without prejudice Adobe's
Motion to Dismiss Class Claims.

Finally, Adobe requests that the Court stays all proceedings in
this litigation pending arbitration.  Cooper opposes a stay.  The
Judge holds that Cooper claims that his use of PP2017.1 is not
covered by his agreement with Adobe (Adobe's General Terms of Use),
and therefore not subject to arbitration.  As discussed, the scope
of the agreement is to be determined by the arbitrator -- not the
Court.  Accordingly, the Judge has not determined that all of
Cooper's claims are subject to arbitration and therefore outright
dismissal is not appropriate.  She stays the action pending the
completion of arbitration.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted the Motion to
Compel Arbitration, and stayed the case pending the outcome of that
arbitration.  The Judge denied without prejudice Adobe's Motion to
Dismiss Class Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sI1cvD from Leagle.com.

David Keith Cooper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese --
mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP, David Deal -- david@daviddeal.com
-- The Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C. & George Volney Granade
-- ggranade@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP.

Adobe Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Berta -- michael.berta@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Robert J. Katerberg --
robert.katerberg@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP, pro hac vice, Sean Michael Callagy --
sean.callagy@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
Benjamin Thorman Halbig -- ben.halbig@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold
and Porter & Elisabeth Susan Theodore --
elisabeth.theodore@arnoldporter.com  -- Arnold and Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.


ALLERGAN INC: Refuses to Pay for Implants' Removal, Russell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLI RUSSELL and AMY FERRERA, individually, and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLERGAN INC., f/k/a INAMED
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation and ALLERGAN, USA INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-02016-GAP-DCI
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendants refuse to
pay for the surgical and attendant costs associated with removal of
their BIOCELL breast implants used by the Plaintiffs.

Allergan manufactures, distributes and sells BIOCELL (TM) saline
and silicone filled breast implants and tissue expanders ("BIOCELL
Implants" or "Implants") which it has marketed and sold since
2006.

The Plaintiffs contend that by refusing to pay for the surgical and
attendant costs associated with removal of their Implants, Allergan
has breached implied contracts it had with Plaintiffs and the
Class, been unjustly enriched, and violated the Florida Deceptive
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of its
BIOCELL implants after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") determined that "use of these devices may cause serious
injuries or death" ("Recall"). Specifically, the FDA requested that
Allergan recall all BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue
expanders marketed in the U.S. due to a related risk of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"), a
cancer of the immune system.

The Recall was based on scientific evidence which demonstrated not
only an increased risk of developing BIA-ACLA associated with use
of textured breast implants, but specifically the textured breast
implants manufactured and sold by Allergan.

The FDA found that "the risk of [developing] BIA-ALCL with Allergan
BIOCELL textured implants is approximately times the risk of
BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers and
continued distribution of Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast
implants would likely cause serious, adverse health consequences,
including death, from BIA-ALCL."

Indeed 481 of the 573 worldwide reported total cases of BIA-ALCL
(or 84%) involved Allergan breast implants. "[O]nce the evidence
indicated that a specific manufacturer's product appeared to be
directly linked to significant patient harm, including death, the
FDA took action to alert the firm to new evidence indicating a
recall is warranted to protect women's health." Worse yet, the
nature of BIA-ALCL is such that it may take years to manifest,
presenting an on-going concern and continuing health risk for woman
that retain the implant in their bodies.

BIOCELL has been available in U.S. markets from 2006 through its
recall in July 2019 during which time Allergan has sold tens of
thousands of implants and made millions of dollars in profit.
Indeed, even while it "suspended sales of textured breast implants
in Europe" in the fourth quarter of 2018, it continued to
unabashedly sell them in the United States for the next half year.

Allergan has now acknowledged the safety risk of its Implants
present and has taken them off the market.

Subsequent to the Recall, Allergan announced the creation of the
BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all patients who currently have
BIOCELL Implants. "For patients in the U.S. who, as a result of the
recall announcement on July 24, 2019, choose to replace their
BIOCELL (TM) textured devices with smooth devices in consultation
with their plastic surgeon, Allergan will provide Allergan smooth
device replacements for free. The program will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply to revision surgeries on or
after the date of the recall announcement, July 24, 2019."

Allergan will also reimburse up to $1,000 in diagnostic fees and up
to $7,500 in surgical fees associated with diagnosis and treatment
of BIA-ALCL.

Shockingly, the Replacement Warranty does not cover surgical fees,
attendant costs, or costs of replacement with a non-Allergan
implant leaving women with a horrible choice: remove the Implant
and pay surgical and associated costs out of their own pocket or
live in fear knowing that their Implants have increased their risk
of developing cancer.

Allergan has marketed a product which it has acknowledged increases
a patient's risk of developing cancer and has offered to provide
patients new implants, but the offer is hollow as Allegan refuses
to pay the majority of the costs associated with the needed removal
of the Implants, lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-223-5505
          Facsimile: 813-223-5402
          E-mail: rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
                  jeanmartin@forthepeople.com


AMERICAN CREDIT: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Credit
Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Cecile M. Bryan individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
American Credit Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00586-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

American Credit Financial is a debt collection agency that offers
professional services that meets the recovery needs of clients who
have been unsuccessful with collecting payments from delinquent
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
          Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
          631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
          Mooresville, NC 28117
          Phone: (704) 997-9529
          Fax: (704) 230-0413
          Email: arthur@lawahp.com


APPLE INC: Amended Ahern Suit Over Computers Filter Defect Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case KIM AHERN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-07196-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted in part with prejudice and in part with
leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint ("ACAC").

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against
Defendant Apple, alleging  common law fraud claims and violations
of various state consumer fraud statutes.  Apple is the
manufacturer of state-of-the-art technology products, including
iMac desktops and Macbook laptops.

According to the Plaintiffs, Apple's computers contain a critical
defect that had led to at least two deficiencies in the computers.
They allege that the Apple computers utilize fans and vents to cool
them down," but that "Apple did not install any filters for the
vents.  This "critical defect" -- named the "Filter Defect" --
allows fans to suck in dirt and debris.  This results in dirt and
debris getting stuck behind the screen, causing permanent dark
smudging to appear in the corners of the screens.  The second
deficiency caused by the Filter Defect is the harmful effect of
dust on the 'motherboard' of the computer, which causes it to
overheat, slows down the processing speed of the computer, and
ultimately causes it to crash.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin who
bought Apple computers between March 2011 and April 2018.   The
Plaintiffs plead that Apple promotes and advertises its products
based on their reliability, durability, and longevity.  They allege
that they relied on those advertisements when purchasing Apple
computers.

The Plaintiffs also claim that Apple knew about the Filter Defect
and the resulting screen smudges.  Furthermore, according to them,
Apple has acknowledged the Filter Defect exists and included a
limited disclosure of the Filter Defect in user manuals..

On Nov. 28, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahern, Nikolas Frenzel, and Justin
Evans filed a putative class action complaint against Apple that
alleged causes of action under (1) California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"); (2) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (3)
California's False Advertisement Law; (4) breach of contract; (5)
fraudulent concealment; and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

On Feb. 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the ACAC.  The ACAC adds
several named Plaintiffs and causes of action under the laws of
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Utah.  In total, the FAC alleges 46 causes of action, one
nationwide class, and 14 state subclasses.

On March 15, 2019, Apple filed a motion to dismiss all 46 causes of
action.  The Court determined that addressing all issues at once
was unwieldy and denied Apple's motion to dismiss without
prejudice.  It ordered each party to select five causes of action
to litigate for purposes of the instant motion to dismiss and
through trial.

The parties selected the following 10 causes of action: (1)
California UCL; (2) California fraudulent concealment; (3) Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act ; (4) Florida fraudulent concealment; (5)
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("Illinois CFA"); (6) New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act ("New
Hampshire CPA").; (7) New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act ("New
Mexico UTPA"); (8) North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices
Acts ("North Carolina UDPA"); (9) Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices
Act ("Oregon UTPA"); and (10) Pennsylvania fraudulent concealment.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their causes of
action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and all state breach of
contract claims.

On Aug. 2, 2019, Apple filed the instant motion to dismiss.  The
Motion to Dismiss  challenges the Plaintiffs' 10 causes of action.
On August 23, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

At the outset, Judge Koh notes that the "Plaintiffs concede that
the Pennsylvania economic loss doctrine bars Plaintiff Kresnevic's
common law fraud claims.  Accordingly, the Judge granted with
prejudice Apple's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania fraudulent
concealment claim.

For the remaining nine claims, the Plaintiffs allege that Apple
made both affirmative misrepresentations as well as material
omissions and thereby violated various state laws.  Regarding their
affirmative misrepresentation theory, they assert that Apple made
false statements regarding the quality, clarity, and brilliance of
its computer screens.  As for the omission theory, the Plaintiffs
contend that Apple failed to disclose the existence of the Filter
Defect to consumers.

The Court begins its analysis with the Plaintiffs' affirmative
misrepresentation theory and then turns to the Plaintiffs' omission
theory.  Because she finds that all the alleged affirmative
misrepresentations are either non-actionable puffery or not
adequately pled as false, she need not reach Apple's reliance
argument.  

Nonetheless, the Judge finds that granting the Plaintiffs leave to
amend these claims would not be futile, cause undue delay, or
unduly prejudice Apple, and that they have not acted in bad faith.
She therefore granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their claims
based on allegations that Apple affirmatively misrepresented that
its products underwent rigorous testing methods that simulated
customers' experiences.

Next, the parties devote the lion's share of their briefing on the
omission theory to the California UCL and fraudulent concealment
claim.  As a result, the Judge begins with the California state law
claims and addresses each of the Plaintiffs' partial and pure
omission theories before turning to the seven other state law
claims.  She notes that the parties focus mainly on California law
even when asking the Court to construe the non-California causes of
action.  The parties are advised that in future briefing, to the
extent they ask the Court to decide matters on the basis of several
states' laws, they must squarely address whether there are material
variations in state law.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not specified which
statements any of them saw or relied on in deciding to buy the
Apple computers.  She therefore granted Apple's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' California fraudulent concealment claim and UCL
fraudulent prong claim to the extent they are based on the
user-guide disclosures.  Because she dismissed the Plaintiffs' UCL
fraudulent prong claim,she also granted Apple's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' UCL unfair prong claim.  She granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend because doing so would not be futile, cause undue
delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and the Plaintiffs have not acted
in bad faith.

In regards to Plaintiffs' Arizona CFA, Florida fraudulent
concealment, Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA, New Mexico UTPA,
North Carolina UDPA, and Oregon UTPA claims, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs offer no new arguments and relies on its arguments
as to their two California causes of action.  Their arguments fail
for the same reason as previously noted -- namely, that they have
not adequately pleaded knowledge of motherboard-related issues.
Therefore, the Judge granted Apple's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Arizona CFA, Florida fraudulent concealment, Illinois
CFA, New Hampshire CPA, New Mexico UTPA, North Carolina UDPA, and
Oregon UTPA claims to the extent that these claims are based on
Apple's alleged omission of information related to motherboard
issues.  She granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend because doing so
would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple,
and they have not acted in bad faith.

Judge Koh holds that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that
the Filter Defect either impairs the central function of their
computers or implicates consumer safety and that as a result, Apple
did not have a duty to disclose the alleged Filter Defect under the
facts alleged.  She therefore granted Apple's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' California fraudulent concealment claim and UCL
fraudulent prong claim to the extent that these claims are based on
Apple's alleged omission of the Filter Defect.  Because the Judge
dismissed the Plaintiffs' UCL fraudulent prong claim, she also
granted Apple's motion to dismiss hthe Plaintiffs' UCL unfair prong
claim.  She also granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend these claims
because doing so would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly
prejudice Apple, and the Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith.

Judge Koh turns to the Plaintiffs' omission theory of liability as
to the remaining state law causes of action: (1) the Arizona CFA;
(2) Florida's fraudulent concealment law; (3) the Illinois CFA; (4)
the New Hampshire CPA; (5) the New Mexico UTPA; (6) the North
Carolina UDPA; and (7) the Oregon UTPA.  The Judge granted Apple's
motion to dismiss the Arizona CFA claim on statute of limitations
grounds.  However, she also granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
When amending the complaint, the Plaintiffs should plead facts
alleging that their claims are timely.  Failure to do so may result
in dismissal of untimely claims with prejudice.

Given that the parties briefing focuses on California law, the same
conclusion follows for the Plaintiffs' Arizona CFA, Florida
fraudulent concealment, Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA, New Mexico
UTPA, North Carolina UDPA, and Oregon UTPA claims.  Judge Koh
granted Apple's motion to dismiss these state law claims to the
extent they are premised on partial omissions related to statements
of puffery or statements that Plaintiffs did not adequately plead
as false.  However, the Judge finds that granting the Plaintiffs
leave to amend would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly
prejudice Apple.  The Judge therefore granted the Plaintiffs leave
to amend these claims.

The Plaintiffs' second partial omission argument again relies on
its allegation that Apple's "limited disclosure of the Filter
Defect" in its user-guide manual "works to disguise" the problem of
screen smudging.  As with the two California claims, Apple contends
that all of the Plaintiffs' non-California state law claims
predicated on the user-guide disclosures fail because the
Plaintiffs do not allege reliance.

Judge Koh agrees.  Accordingly, the Judge granted with leave to
amend Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Arizona CFA,
Florida fraudulent concealment, North Carolina UDPA, and Oregon
UTPA claims to the extent they are based on Apple's alleged partial
omission related to its user-guide disclosures.  The Judge also
granted Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' New Hampshire CPA
claim to the extent it is based on Apple's alleged partial omission
related to its user-guide disclosures.  She granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend.

Next, Judge Koh rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that Florida
fraudulent concealment law requires Apple to disclose all material
information regardless of whether Apple had a duty to disclose that
information.  Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiffs' Florida fraudulent concealment claim must allege that
Apple owed a duty to disclose.

The Plaintiffs argue that Apple had a duty to disclose the Filter
Defect because Apple had exclusive knowledge of the material
information.  Judge Koh granted Apple's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' California fraudulent concealment, California UCL,
Florida fraudulent concealment, New Mexico UTPA, and North Carolina
UDPA claims to the extent that these claims are premised on
allegations that Apple owed a duty to disclose based on its
exclusive knowledge of the Filter Defect.  Additionally, because
the Plaintiffs do not even contend that Plaintiffs' Arizona CFA,
Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA, and Oregon UTPA claims impose a
duty to disclose based on exclusive knowledge, the Judge also
granted Apple's motion to dismiss these claims to the extent that
these claims are premised on allegations that Apple owed a duty to
disclose based on its exclusive knowledge of the Filter Defect.
Nonetheless, she granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.

Judge also granted Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Arizona CFA, Florida fraudulent concealment, Illinois CFA, North
Carolina UDPA, and Oregon UTPA claims to the extent that these
claims are premised on allegations that Apple owed a duty to
disclose based on active and intentional concealment.
Additionally, because the Plaintiffs do not even contend that their
California fraudulent concealment, California UCL, New Hampshire
CPA, and New Mexico UTPA claims impose a duty to disclose based on
active and intentional concealment, the Judge also granted Apple's
motion to dismiss these claims to the extent that these claims are
premised on allegations that Apple owed a duty to disclosed based
on active and intentional concealment.  Nonetheless, she granted
the Plaintiffs leave to amend.  She holds that the Plaintiffs'
opposition to the motion to dismiss does not argue that Apple took
affirmative steps to conceal and does not point to any allegations
in the ACAC that Apple took affirmative steps to conceal.

Judge Koh further granted Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Arizona CFA, Florida fraudulent concealment, Illinois CFA, New
Hampshire CPA, New Mexico UTPA, North Carolina UDPA, and Oregon
UTPA claims premised on allegations that Apple made incomplete
representations while purposefully withholding material facts and
that Apple therefore had a duty to disclose.  Nonetheless, she
granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.  She holds that Apple did
not have a duty to disclose any information related to the Filter
Defect because it did not make incomplete representations while
purposefully withholding material facts.

The Plaintiffs' only remaining claims are the Illinois CFA, New
Hampshire CPA, and North Carolina UDPA claims.  Judge Koh granted
Apple's motion to dismiss with leave to amend the Plaintiffs'
Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA, and North Carolina UDPA unfair
claims.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs only plead that Apple
misrepresented or omitted material information and allege no other
facts supporting unfair conduct claims.  Therefore, their unfair
claims under the Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA, and North
Carolina UDPA law must also fail.

For the reasons stated, Judge Koh granted with prejudice Apple's
motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania fraudulent concealment claim.
The Judge granted with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss the
California UCL, California fraudulent concealment, Arizona CFA,
Florida fraudulent concealment, Illinois CFA, New Hampshire CPA,
New Mexico UTPA, North Carolina UDPA, and Oregon UTPA claims.

The Plaintiffs will file any amended complaint within 30 days of
the Order.  Failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days of
this Order or failure to cure deficiencies identified herein or in
Apple's motion to dismiss will result in dismissal of the deficient
claims with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of
action or new parties without a stipulation or leave of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/xniI0q from Leagle.com.

Kim Ahern, Nikolas Frenzel & Justin Evans, Plaintiffs, represented
by Shana E. Scarlett , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jerrod C.
Patterson --  -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, pro hac vice, Steve
W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D.
Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Charles Kresnevich, Robert Trepper, Justin Brown, Garry Porter,
Omar Gonzalez, Jared Goff, Jason Reed, Jamie Bridge, Joseph
Sammarco, Timothy Parks, Garrick Vance, Phil Mazza & James Mayo,
Plaintiffs, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


APPLIED STAFF: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Thompson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frank D. Whitney denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice filed in the
lawsuit captioned JACK THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLIED STAFF AUGMENTATION PARTNERS,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00127-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

In light of the Court's ruling regarding conditional certification
and the Court's modification of deadlines, the Court denies the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to be
refiled at the close of discovery.

In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") of a collective defined as:

     All current and former employees of ASAP who were, at any
     point in the last 3 years, paid the same hourly rate for all
     hours worked, including those over 40 hours in a workweek.

Defendant ASAP opposes conditional certification on several
grounds, arguing individual employment agreements, some of which
contain guaranteed weekly salary minimums, mandatory arbitration
agreements, and/or a class action waiver, indicate the proposed
collective is not sufficiently similarly situated and subjected to
a common unlawful policy.

Judge Whitney notes that certification is unnecessary for actions
to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), citing Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903
F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2018). Judge Whitney also notes that in
Haskett v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 19-1116, 2019 WL 3208437, at *1
(4th Cir. July 16, 2019), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order and judgment that approved a settlement agreement
without providing notice to members of the collective.

Bearing these principles in mind, Judge Whitney denies the
Plaintiff's motion seeking "conditional certification" and declines
to express an opinion at this juncture on the notice or notice
process proposed by the Plaintiff and objected to by the
Defendant.

The Court notes that the denial of "conditional certification" does
not mean this action cannot proceed as an FLSA collective action.
Additional plaintiffs may join the action even if conditional
certification never occurs.  Indeed, the Court notes several
plaintiffs have now consented to join in this action.

Although the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
denied, the Court finds good cause to sua sponte extend the
opportunity for parties to opt-in to this action. The deadlines in
the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan are amended as
follows:

   * Motion to Amend Pleadings to add additional parties:
     December 13, 2019;
   * Discovery Completion: February 12, 2020;
   * ADR: February 21, 2020;
   * Dispositive Motions (filed): March 4, 2020;
   * Dispositive Motions (hearing): April 6-17 (unchanged);
   * Pretrial Submissions: 7 calendar days before FPC;
   * Final Pretrial Conference (FPC): To be determined; and
   * Trial Setting: May 4, 2020 (unchanged).[CC]


AQUA METALS: Page Limit of Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:17-CV-07142-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood
S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, entered an order
extending the page limits for the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of Securities Laws.  The Amended Complaint,
excluding exhibits, is 205 pages long and contained 550 paragraphs
of allegations.

On Sept. 27, 2019, the counsel for the Defendants contacted the
counsel for the Plaintiffs to discuss a stipulation as to briefing
schedule as to the Defendants' anticipated Motion as well as
setting appropriate page limits for briefing given the size and
nature of the Amended Complaint and the fact that Defendant Stephen
R. Clarke had separate counsel from the other Defendants.

Pursuant to those discussions, the parties reached an agreement and
submitted a motion for administrative relief on Oct. 7, 2019.  On
Oct. 8, 2019, the Court denied the motion, but entered an order on
Oct. 9, 2019 setting a separate briefing schedule.

In light of the Court's order, on Oct. 9, 2019, the counsel for all
parties further conferred on page limits and agreed that the
Defendants would be permitted 40 total pages for their briefs in
support of the anticipated Motions to Dismiss, to be divided
amongst the Defendants in their discretion, and that the Plaintiffs
would be similarly permitted 40 pages for their brief in response.
The Defendants proposed these page limits in the interests of
judicial economy, recognizing that they would otherwise be entitled
to two 25-page motions to dismiss due to being represented by
separate counsel.

The Parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Gilliam approved,
that: (i) the page limit imposed by Local Rule 7-4(b) with respect
to the Defendants' anticipated Motions is extended to 40 total
pages, to be divided between the Defendants at their discretion;
and (ii) the page limit imposed by Local Rule 7-4(b) with respect
to the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendants' anticipated Motions
is extended to 40 pages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yz4LJt from Leagle.com.

Arlis Hampton, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Henry Linehan --
CLINEHAN@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lesley F.
Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

1103371 Ontario Ltd. & Denis Taillefer, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kristin J. Moody -- kmoody@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco.

Aqua Metals, Inc., Thomas Murphy & Mark Weinswig, Defendants,
represented by Michael Ross Hogue -- hoguem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig & Robert Allen Horowitz -- horowitzr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP, pro hac vice.

Stephen R. Clarke, Defendant, represented by Steven M. Schatz --
SSchatz@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Selwyn Mould, Defendant, represented by Michael Ross Hogue,
Greenberg Traurig.

Ronald Ordway, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Andrew Singer, Movant, represented by Benjamin Heikali, Faruqi and
Faruqi LLP.

Jesse L. Peterson, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Paul Jordan, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

Plymouth County Group, Movant, represented by Aidan Chowning
Poppler, Berman Tabacco, Kristin J. Moody, Berman Tabacco, Leslie
R. Stern, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt, pro hac vice, Nicole
Catherine Lavallee, Berman Tabacco, Gregory M. Potrepka, Levi
Korsinsky LLP, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rosemary M.
Rivas, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP & Stephanie A. Bartone, Levi and Korsinsky, LLP.


ARHAUS LLC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arhaus, LLC. The case
is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arhaus, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10135 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Arhaus is a United States retail chain that designs and sells home
furnishings online and through its retail stores and catalogs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIZONA: District Court Certifies Medicaid Subclass in Tinsley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Medicaid
Subclass in the case captioned Margaret Tinsley, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Michael Faust, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-15-00185-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz.).

In 2016, Named Plaintiff B.K., a minor in the custody of the
Arizona foster care system, sought certification of the matter as a
class action with subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiff filed the civil rights class action on behalf of
children in the custody of the Arizona foster care system, claiming
the Arizona foster care system violates the U.S. Constitution and
the Medicaid Act.  She alleges Arizona's uniform, state-wide
policies and practices in the foster care system exposed her and
all other foster children to harm or unreasonable risk of harm
while in the state's care, in violation of federal rights.  Of
particular relevance, she alleges the policies and practices of the
Arizona Department of Child Safety ("DCS") and the Arizona Health
Care Cost Containment System ("AHCCCS") subject foster children to
a significant risk of denial of medically necessary health care.

In 2017, the Court originally granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and certified three groups of children: (1) all
children who are or will be in the legal custody of DCS due to a
report or suspicion of abuse or neglect ("General Class"); (2) all
members in the General Class who are not placed in the care of an
adult relative or person who has a significant relationship with
the child ("Non-Kinship Subclass"); and (3) all members of the
General Class who are entitled to early and periodic screening,
diagnostic, and treatment services under the federal Medicaid
statute ("Medicaid Subclass").

The Plaintiff asserted constitutional due process claims for the
General Class and the Non-Kinship Subclass.  Specifically,
Plaintiff claimed that DCS violated substantive due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to care adequately for
the General Class, and by placing the Non-Kinship Subclass at
substantial risk of harm.  For the Medicaid Subclass, the Plaintiff
asserted only a Medicaid Act claim.

The Defendants appealed the class certification to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On April 26, 2019, the Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion affirming the certification of the
General Class and the Non-Kinship Subclass.  The Ninth Circuit
reversed the certification of the Medicaid Subclass because
certification of the Medicaid Subclass was based on an apparent
misconception of the legal framework for such a claim.

Certification of the Medicaid Subclass was remanded to the Court
for further proceedings based on the Ninth Circuit's proposed
commonality standard, specifically on the question of whether every
subclass member was subject to an identical 'significant risk' of a
future Medicaid violation that would support injunctive relief.
Judge Adelman dissented from the vacatur of the Medicaid Subclass
certification order, finding the Court did not err in applying Rule
23 standards, and noting that, at the class certification stage,
Plaintiff did not have to prove that the Defendants' policies are
in fact deficient, but simply that the question of whether the
policies are deficient can be resolved on a class-wide basis.

On remand, the Plaintiff sought leave to seek certification of the
Medicaid Subclass not because the Defendants violated the Medicaid
Act but because each class member is subject to a significant risk
that the Defendants will violate the Medicaid Act.  The Court
granted the Plaintiff's request to file the motion.

The Defendants opposed the Plaintiff's motion for alleged failure
to adequately demonstrate imminent Medicaid violations, and failure
to meet the commonality, typicality, and Rule 23(b)(2)
requirements.

The parties disagree on what the Medicaid Act requires regarding
early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services
("EPSDT"), and what would establish a violation.  This fundamental
question underlies resolution of all other issues in the class
certification motion.

Judge Silver finds that the Defendants must provide EPSDT services,
as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396d(r), to all
children in the custody of the Arizona foster care system who are
eligible.  To be clear, every eligible child must receive a
well-child physical examination each year, a dental examination
every six months, and immunizations, visual, and hearing screening
based on their age.  Evidence that any eligible child did not
receive EPSDT services is evidence of a Medicaid violation.
Consistent with 42 C.F.R. Section 441.56(e), a child must begin
treatment no later than six months after the screening that
established the need for the treatment.

The question remaining for the purpose of class certification is
whether there is a common question of law or fact such that every
member of the Medicaid Subclass is subject to an identical
significant risk of an imminent future Medicaid violation that
would support injunctive relief; and if so, if the typicality and
Rule 23(b)(2) requirements have also been met.

Judge Silver holds for purposes of class certification that there
is a common question whether every member of the Medicaid Subclass
is subject to an identical significant risk of a future Medicaid
violation that would support injunctive relief.  Because there is
no dispute as to numerosity or adequacy, and the Judge  holds that
B.K. is typical, class certification is appropriate.

Accordingly, Judge Silver granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify
the Medicaid Subclass.  The Judge certified the Medicaid Subclass
as all members of the General Class who are entitled to early and
periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services under the
federal Medicaid statute.

B.K., by her next friend Margaret Tinsley, is appointed as the
Class Representative for the Medicaid Subclass.  Perkins Coie LLP,
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, and Children's
Rights, Inc. are appointed as the Class Counsel for the Medicaid
Subclass.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/RkgJ7l from Leagle.com.

Margaret Tinsley, on behalf of minors: & Jennifer Kupiszewski, on
behalf of minors: C.P., B.T., Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
Finch, Children's Rights, pro hac vice, Anne C. Ronan --
aronan@aclpi.org -- Arizona Center for Law In The Public Interest,
Daniel Jay Adelman, Adelman German PLC, Erin Geloff McGuinness,
Childrens Rights, pro hac vice, Harry Frischer, Childrens Rights,
pro hac vice, Ira Lustbader, Childrens Rights, pro hac vice, Joseph
E. Mais -- JMais@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Shane R.
Swindle -- SSwindle@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Stephanie
Persson, Childrens Rights, pro hac vice, Stephen Dixon, Childrens
Rights, pro hac vice & Daniele Gerard, Childrens Rights, pro hac
vice.

Jami Snyder, in her official capacity as Director of the Arizona
Health Care Costs Containment System, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Patrick Struck -- dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Logan T. Johnston, Johnston Law Offices
PLC, Nicholas Daniel Acedo -- nacedo@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Timothy James Bojanowski --
tbojanowski@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC &
Dana M. Keene -- dkeene@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo PLC.

Michael Faust, in official capacity as Director of the Arizona
Department of Child Safety, Defendant, represented by Cynthia
Christine Albracht-Crogan -- ccrogan@CDQLaw.com -- Cohen Dowd
Quigley PC, Daniel P. Quigley -- dquigley@CDQLaw.com -- Cohen Dowd
Quigley PC, Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Ellman Law Group LLC, Lauren
Marie LaPrade, Cohen Dowd Quigley PC, Robert Lawrence Ellman,
Ellman Law Group LLC & Stacey Faith Gottlieb --
sgottlieb@CDQLaw.com -- Cohen Do wd Quigley PC.

Thomas Betlach, Director of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System (AHCCCS), Intervenor Defendant, represented by Logan T.
Johnston, Johnston Law Offices PLC, Timothy James Bojanowski,
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC & Catherine Dodd Plumb, Law
Offices of Catherine Dodd Plumb PLC.

Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care/Desert Vista Hospital, Attorneys for
Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care, Movant, represented by Camilla June
Porter, Slattery Petersen PC & Jill M. Covington, Slattery Petersen
PLLC.


ARIZONA: Parties Ordered to Decide on Future Course of Parsons Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Victor Antonio Parsons, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-12-00601-PHX-ROS
(D. Ariz.), Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona ordered the parties to select from the
following three options regarding the future course of case: (i)
enforcement of stipulation, (ii) new settlement, and (iii) trial.

In October 2014, the parties, apparently in good faith, entered
into a stipulation to settle the litigation.  That stipulation
required the Defendants to "comply with the health care performance
measures" the parties agreed upon. The stipulation did not
contemplate perfect compliance with each performance measure but it
did require that, as of two years after the stipulation's effective
date, the Defendants would comply with every performance measure at
least 85% of the time.

Now, approaching the five-year anniversary of the stipulation's
acceptance, the Defendants are in violation of that agreement
because they are not complying with every performance measure 85%
of the time.  And crucially, the failing performance measures
relate to the core aspects of health care delivery: provision of
medication, access to specialty care, and ensuring adherence to
outside providers' recommendations.

Based on the Defendants' continued non-compliance with the
stipulation and questions regarding the accuracy of the compliance
numbers themselves, the Court appointed Dr. Marc Stern to assess
the manner in which the Defendants were monitoring their compliance
and to assess Defendants' "substantial noncompliance with critical
aspects of health care delivery."  On Oct. 2, 2019, Dr. Stern
provided his report.

Dr. Stern's report confirms the Court's long-held belief that
pervasive issues have precluded accurate monitoring of certain
performance measures and that even the low compliance levels
reported in some instances may be worse.  The report sets forth
recommendations to ensure accurate monitoring of performance
measures as well as recommendations that certain performance
measures be retired and others be altered to more realistically
capture whether required health care is being provided to
prisoners.  The report also describes in detail how the Defendants'
behavior creates a significant risk of serious harm to prisoners'
health and concluded that additional funding would be necessary to
provide required healthcare.  

Before delving into the specifics of Dr. Stern's report, it is
imperative that Judge Silver determines whether to continue down
the path of trying to bring the Defendants into compliance or, with
the parties' agreement, switch to an alternate path.

Dr. Stern's report raises serious questions whether it is realistic
or appropriate to expect that the Defendants will perform the
obligations they accepted years ago.  And given that their
continued failure to comply with crucial performance measures
appears to pose a significant risk of serious harm to the
Plaintiffs, the Court cannot delay any longer.  The Judge sees
three possible options.

The first is for the Defendants to reaffirm that they wish to
comply in good faith with the stipulation such that the Court
should pursue enforcement efforts to bring Defendants into
compliance.  This option would require the Court go through Dr.
Stern's recommendations with immense care and decide which of those
recommendations should be adopted and which rejected.  This option
would also require the Court become much more active in ensuring
Defendants perform their obligations.  In particular, the Court
would have to determine what to do when the Defendants do not
perform their obligations.

In considering whether to select the first option, the Judge holds
that the parties should carefully review Dr. Stern's observations
that the performance measures poorly reflect the adequacy of care
being provided.  In other words, Dr. Stern believes that even if
Defendants were complying with all the performance measures,
prisoners would still not be receiving the required level of care.
If compliance with the performance measures would not, in fact,
provide the level of care Defendants are obligated to provide under
the Constitution, the Defendants would be susceptible to massive
lawsuits based on the actual provision of care.

The second option is for the parties to negotiate a new settlement,
perhaps with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Fine who is
involved in the case and will soon have under consideration the
parties' maximum custody disputes.  As noted, Dr. Stern identified
numerous performance measures that should be eliminated and
proposed revisions to other performance measures.  His
recommendations appear to be a solid basis on which the parties
could craft a supplemental settlement agreement.  Such an agreement
would result in a much more focused effort aimed at ensuring the
delivery of required health care.  Importantly, a supplemental
agreement could include automatic enforcement mechanisms in the
event of noncompliance.  It is noteworthy that the option offers
the immense benefit of possibly resolving the entire controversy,
including all matters before this Court and the Ninth Circuit.
Significantly, the window for resolving this matter by settlement
will not be extensive.

The third and final option is for the Court to hold that the
Defendants' inability or refusal to come into compliance with all
their obligations under the stipulation merits setting aside the
stipulation and proceeding to a trial on the merits.  Previously,
the Court was hesitant to pursue this time consuming, highly
expensive, and potentially harsh course.  But at a recent oral
argument before the Ninth Circuit, the Defendants' counsel
specifically identified setting aside the stipulation as a
plausible path forward.  The counsel's remark was made in response
to Judge Callahan questioning Defendants' position that the Court
lacked the authority to enforce the stipulation through its
contempt powers.

The Defendants apparently believe the Court should consider setting
aside the stipulation.  And if they continue to argue the Court
lacks meaningful authority to coerce them into complying with the
stipulation, setting aside the stipulation likely is the only
solution.  If this is the preferred course for the Defendants, and
the Plaintiffs do not object, the Judge is willing to schedule a
trial in the immediate future, which will be costly to the
taxpayers of Arizona.

Judge Silver does not have a preference between the three options
outlined.  The Judge however notes that Dr. Stern concluded the
severe level of underfunding of health care services is the single
most significant barrier to compliance with the performance
measures in the case.  Whether or not that is accurate, as
mentioned in a prior Order, the Defendants have spent millions of
dollars on the present litigation and they appear determined to
spend millions more in the future.  The Defendants are free, of
course, to spend their funds as they wish and believe necessary to
protect their interests.  But it makes very little sense for them
to expend public funds paying attorneys to defend their undisputed
breaches of the agreed upon stipulation.

Finally, Judge Silver reiterates that the Defendants' past behavior
of not providing required health care will not be allowed to
continue.  The Court has spent substantial time and effort trying
to get them to do what they agreed to do years ago.  Once the Court
receives the parties' positions, it will take immediate steps to
enforce their compliance with the stipulation, send the parties for
settlement negotiations, or set the case for trial.

Judge Silver ordered the parties to confer and inform the opposing
side which of the three options they plan to purse by Oct. 16,
2019. Each side was directed to file a statement outlining how that
side wishes to proceed by Oct. 23.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/SD6Im0 from Leagle.com.

Shawn Jensen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Stephen Oliver Swartz, named as: Stephen Swartz/ on
behalf of himself an all others similarly situated, Sonia
Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Christina Verduzco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Jackie Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Jeremy Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., named as:
Robert Gamez/ on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Maryanne Chisholm, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Desiree Licci, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Joseph Hefner, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Joshua Polson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated & Charlotte Wells, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Alison Hardy -- ahardy@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office,
Amelia Morrow Gerlicher -- agerlicher@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP, Amy B. Fettig -- afettig@npp-aclu.org -- ACLU, Corene T.
Kendrick -- ckendrick@prisonlaw.co -- Prison Law Office, Daniel
Clayton Barr -- dbarr@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, David
Cyrus Fathi -- dfathi@aclu.org -- ACLU, Donald Specter --
dspecter@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office, John Howard Gray --
jhgray@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Sara Norman --
snorman@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office, Martin Lieberman, ACLU,
Molly Patricia Brizgys, Attorney at Law & Rita Katherine Lomio --
rlomio@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office.

Arizona Center for Disability Law, Plaintiff, represented by David
Cyrus Fathi, ACLU, Rose Ann Daly-Rooney --
rdalyrooney@azdisabilitylaw.org -- Arizona Center for Disability
Law, Asim Dietrich, Arizona Center for Disability Law, Jamelia
Natasha Morgan, ACLU, Jose De Jesus Rico --
jrico@azdisabilitylaw.org -- Arizona Center for Disability Law,
Maya Stock Abela -- mabela@azdisabilitylaw.org -- Arizona Center
for Disability Law & Rita Katherine Lomio, Prison Law Office.

Charles L Ryan, named as: Charles Ryan/ Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections (in his official capacity) & Richard
Pratt, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services,
Arizona Department of Corrections (in his official capacity),
Defendants, represented by Ashlee B. Hesman, Struck Love Bojanowski
& Acedo PLC, Daniel Patrick Struck, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo
PLC, Jacob Brady Lee, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Lucy
Marie Rand, Office of the Attorney General, Michael Evan Gottfried,
Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas Daniel Acedo, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Timothy James Bojanowski, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Timothy Michael Ray, Struck Love Bojanowski
& Acedo PLC, Rachel Love, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC &
Richard Michael Valenti, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC.

Michael J. Cohn, Movant, pro se.

Tonatihu Aguilar, Movant, pro se.

Berry Williams, Movant, pro se.

Charles Bradley Rienhardt, named as: Charles B Rienhardt, Movant,
pro se.

Larry Donnell Dunlap, named as: Larry D Dunlap, Movant, pro se.

Tyerel Darnel Luke, Movant, pro se.

Ethics Bureau at Yale, Amicus, represented by Milton Alan Wagner,
Wagner Law LLC.


ATHLETA LLC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Athleta LLC. The case
is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Athleta LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10168 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Athleta is a brand of women's activewear that designs clothing that
integrates performance and technical features for active women and
girls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banana Republic, LLC.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Banana Republic, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10171 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Banana Republic is an American premium clothing and accessories
company owned by the American multinational corporation Gap
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Court Enters Final OK on Busch Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Elizabeth Busch, on behalf of herself and
Case all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bluestem Brands,
Inc., d/b/a Fingerhut, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-0644 (WMW/HB) (D.
Minn.), Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota granted Busch's unopposed motions for (i)
approval of requested attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award,
and (ii) final approval of the Parties' class action settlement.

On Oct. 8, 2019, Judge Wright held a Final Approval Hearing to
determine whether the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The
Judge has considered all the submissions and arguments of the
Parties.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, she finds
good cause to grant the Plaintiff's motions and issue final
judgment in the case.

Judge Wright accordingly finally certified the Settlement Class,
for settlement purposes, defined as all persons in the United
States who were sent a text message to a cellular telephone from or
on behalf of Bluestem and where the number was coded by Bluestem as
a wrong party on an outbound call, during the Class Period (i.e.,
March 14, 2012, through Oct. 15, 2018).

The Court appointed the following attorneys as the Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class:  Ronald A. Marron Thomas J. Lyons, Jr.
(#0249646) Alexis M. Wood Consumer Justice Center, P.A. Kas L.
Gallucci 367 Commerce Court Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron Vadnais
Heights, Minnesota 55127 651 Arroyo Drive Telephone: (651) 770-9707
San Diego, CA 92103 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 Telephone: (619)
696-9006 tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com, kas@consumersadvocates.com

Plaintiff Elizabeth Busch is confirmed and designated as Class
Representative.

Judge Wright finally approved the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.   There were no objections to the
Settlement Agreement.

The Judge approved the plan of distribution for the Settlement Fund
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement
Administrator is ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement with respect to distribution of Settlement Awards,
including a second payment, if feasible.  In the event that any
money remains in the Settlement Fund following the distribution of
funds pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Settlement Agreement, the
remaining funds will be distributed to the cy pres recipient.  The
Judge approved of both the Minnesota Federal Court Pro Se Project
and the Minnesota Volunteer Lawyers Network as cy pres recipients
of those funds.

The Class Counsel are awarded $1.75 million in attorneys' fees and
$11,174.79 in litigation costs from the Settlement Fund.  These
amounts will be paid to the Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The
Class Counsel will be responsible for allocating the award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses among and between the Class
Counsel.

The Class Representative is also granted an Incentive Award in the
amount of $7,500 for her effort in the case on behalf of and for
the benefit of the Settlement Class.

Judge Wright dismissed all Released Claims, with prejudice, without
costs to any Party, except as expressly provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.  

A full-text copy of the District ourt's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/oNkA5p from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Busch, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald Marron, pro
hac vice, Kas Gallucci -- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Ronald A. Marron, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Thomas J. Lyons, Jr.,
Consumer Justice Center P.A.

Bluestem Brands, Inc., doing business as Fingerhut, Defendant,
represented by Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Erin L. Hoffman --
erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com --  Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Larry E.
LaTarte -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Nathan A. Brennaman -- nate.brennaman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels.


BQ & ASSOCIATES: David Files FDCPA Suit in Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BQ & Associates,
P.C., L.L.O. The case is styled as Tyreece David individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BQ &
Associates, P.C., L.L.O, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00478-SMB (D. Neb., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

BQ & Associates P.C. L.L.O. is a dynamic firm with lawyers in the
prime of their careers, dedicated to solving problems and achieving
optimal outcomes for clients. The firm initially developed its
reputation through its litigation expertise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          Stein Saks, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


BROOKS BROTHERS: Delacruz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooks Brothers
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10197
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Brooks Brothers is the original authority on American style,
offering stylish modern clothing and fresh takes on heritage
designs for men, women, and kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: McDonald Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts, LLC
et al. The case is styled as Amber McDonald, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Accounts, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00511
(E.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Capital Accounts specializes in the collection of overdue
balances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          Stein Saks, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



CHAMPLAIN OIL: Gas Price Fixing Lawsuit Ends in $1.5M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gribkoff, writing for VT Digger, reports that
Northwestern Vermont gas distributors have reached a $1.5 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit over alleged price gouging.

The settlement, filed in Chittenden County Superior Court, was a
fraction of the $100 million in illegal profits six northwestern
Vermont residents say gas companies earned by using their
collective market power to keep gas prices artificially high.

Jacob Kent, of Fairfax, and five other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit
in 2015, claiming that the distributors--R.L. Vallee Inc., S.B.
Collins Inc., Wesco Inc. and Champlain Oil Co.--had "highly
effective, long-lasting and concealed agreements" on prices in
Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle counties.

The gas distributors, who owned a collective 124 of the area's 185
gas stations in 2015, have maintained that they operate
independently and set prices based on the local market.

If the settlement is approved, a court-appointed administrator will
open the claims process to eligible customers--residents in the
three northwestern Vermont counties who owned a vehicle and bought
gas between April 22, 2012 to June 22, 2015.

High costs at the pumps in northwestern Vermont have long drawn
scrutiny from elected officials. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has
called for a federal investigation into discrepancies in gas prices
across the state, and he held a congressional field hearing on the
issue in 2012.

Skip Vallee, a long-time Republican donor and owner of R.L. Vallee
Inc., said in an emailed statement that the class action had
"political origins," referring to communications between Sanders
and the Vermont attorney general's office about price fixing.

Vallee and the other plaintiffs sought to obtain a broad swath of
documents from Sanders and his staff--a move that was ultimately
denied by a federal judge during an appeal. Vallee said that while
the defendants were confident they could win in court, the cost of
continuing litigation would have exceeded the $1.5 million
settlement.

"As we have said all along, we steadfastly, adamantly and
completely deny the allegations," wrote Vallee.

Attorneys from West Virginia firm Bailey and Glasser, who
represented the plaintiffs in the case, did not immediately respond
to requests for comment October 18 afternoon. [GN]

CHIME FINANCIAL: Faces Richards Suit Over Service Disruption
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN RICHARDS, RUBA AYOUB, BRANDY TERBAY AND TRACY CUMMINGS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CHIME FINANCIAL, INC., GALILEO FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
THE BANCORP INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06864 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 22, 2019), arises from a service disruption on the
Defendants' system resulting to the Plaintiffs and Class Members'
inability to access and use funds in their accounts.

The action is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated customers of Chime, arising from a
service disruption that occurred on October 16, 2019.

As a result of the Defendants' negligence and other violations of
law, the Plaintiffs and Class members were prevented from accessing
their Chime accounts for several days--denying access to the only
source of money for many. During the Service Disruption, the
Plaintiffs and Class members were unable to spend or withdraw their
funds from their accounts needed for the basic necessities of life,
such as food, clothing, shelter, and medicine.

One of Chime's biggest selling points to cost sensitive customers
has been its "no hidden fees" approach to creating a transaction
account--meaning no overdraft fees, no monthly maintenance or
service fees, no minimum balance, and no charges on foreign
transactions. Another innovative feature of Chime's offering is its
"get paid early" tool, which enables people to receive their
regular salary up to two days earlier than normal, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Florida, Texas, and
Illinois and Chime customers.

Chime is an online-only bank started in 2013, which offers no fee
alternative to traditional brick and mortar banks. It has more than
5 million customers, the majority of whom are millennials and those
living paycheck to paycheck.

Galileo Financial makes the Application Programming Interfaces
(API) which Chime uses to offer credit cards, debit cards, banking
and money transfer services.

Bancorp Inc. is a financial holding company which, through its
wholly owned subsidiary The Bancorp Bank, provides licensed banking
services for Chime including the Chime Visa (TM) Debit Card.
Bancorp is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 409 Silverside
Road, in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com


COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The
case is styled as Alexia Hatcher individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc.
doing business as: EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02079-UNA
(D. Del., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Pazuniak, Esq.
          O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC
          901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 478-4230
          Email: GP@del-iplaw.com


COMCAST CABLE: Can Compel Arbitration in Azeveda FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIO AZEVEDA, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01225-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, (i) denied
the Plaintiff's motion to remanded, and (ii) granted the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

On Jan. 30, 2019, Azeveda filed the putative class action in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California
asserting that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC violated federal and state laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in California from February
2005 through May 2016.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), which occurred when the Defendants obtained background
checks for the Plaintiff's employment.  He asserts analogous
California state law claims under Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act, Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and unfair
competition law.  The Plaintiff also included claims that the
Defendants failed to provide meal periods, rest periods, pay hourly
and overtime wages, accurate written wage statements, and timely
pay all final wages.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants routinely acquired
consumer, investigative, and credit reports (i.e., credit and
background reports) to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff
and other prospective, current, and former employees.  The
Defendants then used information from the reports in their hiring
process without providing or obtaining proper
disclosures/authorizations in compliance with federal and state
law.

The Plaintiff alleges two FCRA claims.  First, that the Defendants
disclosures did not meet the "clear and conspicuous" and "stand
alone" writing requirement.  Second, that the Defendants failed to
give proper "summary of rights" as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1681d(a)(1) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(c).  These violations
caused the Plaintiff to have his privacy and statutory rights
invaded in violation of the FCRA.  Plaintiff seeks "all available
remedies" including statutory damages and/or actual damages.  The
Plaintiff then alleges analogous violations of California privacy
law and other labor laws, and contends he lost "money or property"
as a result of the Defendants' misconduct.

In September 2013, the Defendants "rolled out" an alternative
dispute resolution program called "Comcast Solutions" to California
region employees, including the Plaintiff.  Comcast Solutions is
designed to make it easier for employees to resolve legal claims.
It specifies a three-step procedure for resolving disputes between
Comcast and its employees.  First, an internal "Comcast Solutions
Lead" reviews the claim to determine if it is a covered legal
claim.  Covered legal claims include most claims that assert a
violation of law relating to employment.

Second, if an employee is unsatisfied with the proposed solution,
they may seek non-binding mediation through an outside,
professional dispute resolution organization, such as the Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Services organization ("JAMS") or the
American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  The employee does not
have to pay any fees in connection with mediation and both sides
have input into selecting the mediator.

Finally, if the employee is still not satisfied, they may request a
binding, two-day arbitration hearing through JAMS or the AAA before
a mutually selected arbitrator.  The employee is required to pay
(at most) a $150 arbitration initiation fee, which is refunded if
they prevail on any portion of their claim.

The Plaintiff did not opt out of the program; thus, he agreed to
participate in it.

In late 2015, Comcast revised certain aspects of the program. These
changes were published on the internal employee website, which all
employees can access. Employees were advised that if they wished to
remain under the 2013 Program Terms, they should contact Comcast
Solutions by phone or email.  The Plaintiff did neither.

In January 2016, Comcast issued a revised Employee Handbook.  The
Plaintiff acknowledged reading and understanding the 2016 Employee
Handbook and 2015 Program changes.

Before filing the Motion to Compel, the Defendants' counsel sent an
arbitration demand letter to the Plaintiff's counsel describing
Comcast Solutions and requesting he honor his commitment to
arbitrate the dispute.  The parties met and conferred by phone,
during which the Plaintiff's counsel expressed that the Plaintiff
was not willing to arbitrate his claims because: (1) Comcast
Solution's three-step dispute resolution process is substantively
unconscionable; (2) Comcast Solutions does not encompass the FCRA
and related state law claims; and (3) Comcast Solutions' provision
that waives an employee's right to bring a representative action
includes claims under the California Private Attorneys General
("PAGA")2, rendering the agreement substantively unconscionable.

The Defendants moved on June 6, 2019, to compel arbitration on an
individual basis and to dismiss the putative class claims, pursuant
to its arbitration agreement with the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff
filed an opposition to the motion on June 27, 2019.  He argues that
the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because the 2013
agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  He
further argues that the 2015 Program cannot apply retroactively and
eradicate the alleged unconscionability of the 2013 agreement.

The Plaintiff moves for the case to be remanded claiming the Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because he failed to sufficiently
allege Article III standing.  The Plaintiff contends he has only
asserted a "bare procedural violation," and thus has not asserted
any concrete injury as to his FCRA (or other) claims.

Judge Davila holds that because the Plaintiff has pled Article III
standing as to the FCRA claims, the District Court has
federal-question jurisdiction.  Further, because the economic
injury alleged relates to all causes of action asserted, the
Plaintiff has pled standing as to the other related state-law
claims.  Because these claims arise out of the same case or
controversy as the FCRA claim, the District Court also has
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims.
Accordingly, Judge Davila denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Turning to the Motion to Compel, Judge Davila finds that (i) by its
plain terms, the 2015 Program applies to claims accrued prior to
its enactment and covers the claims asserted; (ii) the Plaintiff is
bound by the 2015 Program; and (iii) because the Plaintiff had an
opt-out option, the class action wavier is enforceable.

For reasons stated, Judge Davila (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand, and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.  The Plaintiff will arbitrate his claims on an
individual basis, rather than on a class, collective, or
representative basis. The case is stayed pending resolution of the
arbitration proceedings.  The Clerk will administratively close the
file.  The Parties will notify the Court without delawithin seven
days of an arbitration ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/mxMXlC from Leagle.com.

Mario Azeveda, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
info@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao --
william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Comcast Cable Communications LLC & Comcast Cable Communications
Management LLC, Defendants, represented by Daryl Steven Landy --
daryl.landy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Aleksandr Markelov -- aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Andrew Paul Frederick --
andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Rogers Renews Bid to Certify Class of Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Keith Rogers, et al. v.
Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County, Illinois, Case No.
1:15-cv-11632 (N.D. Ill.), renew their motion asking the Court to
order that their case proceed as a class action for:

     All persons who (a) entered the Cook County Jail on and
     after December 23, 2013 or (b) opted out of, or are
     otherwise excluded from, participation in Parish v. Sheriff,
     07-cv-4369, and were, at the time of entry into the Jail,
     lawfully taking an opioid antagonist, as defined in 42
     C.F.R. 8.12(h)(2), who were not then on parole or held on a
     warrant from another jurisdiction, and who were not
     pregnant.

Plaintiff Keith Rogers filed this case on December 23, 2015,
complaining about injuries he had incurred at the Cook County Jail
after informing intake personnel that he was enrolled in a
methadone program.  He complained about the delay in continuing his
medication and about the Jail's written tapering policy that
requires daily reduction in the dosage of methadone in "a linear
taper to zero."

Pursuant to leave of Court, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding James Hill and Wanda Hollins as plaintiffs.  The
second amended complaint states claims under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132,
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
794(a).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
          KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C.
          200 S Michigan Ave., Suite 201
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 427-3930
          E-mail: knf@kenlaw.com
                  jaf@kenlaw.com


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Ct. Appoints Ferraro Group as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an Order appointing Ferraro
Group as the Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel in
the case captioned NICHOLAS MELUCCI, Plaintiff, v. CORCEPT
THERAPEUTICS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-01372-LHK, (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court are four outstanding Motions for Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel.

Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, Corcept's
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis, in light of the following: (1) that the Company had
improperly paid doctors to promote its drug Korlym (2) that the
Company aggressively promoted Korlym for off-label uses (3) that
the Company's sole specialty pharmacy was a related party (4) that
the Company artificially inflated its revenue and sales using
illicit sales practices through a related party (5) that such
practices are reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), governs the
selection of a lead plaintiff in private securities class actions.
In the PSLRA's own words, this plaintiff is to be the most capable
of adequately representing the interests of class members. Under
the PSLRA, a three-step process determines the lead plaintiff.  

First, the first plaintiff to file an action governed by the PSLRA
must publicize the pendency of the action, the claims made, and the
purported class period in a widely circulated national
business-oriented publication or wire service.

Second, the court must select the presumptive lead plaintiff. In
order to determine the presumptive lead plaintiff, the district
court must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs
and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.

Third, those plaintiffs not selected as the presumptive lead
plaintiff may rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that
it satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements. This
is done by showing that the presumptive lead plaintiff either will
not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is
subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of
adequately representing the class.

The Court determines that the Ferraro Group is the presumptive lead
plaintiff.

The Ferraro Group has the largest financial interest in the relief

The Ferraro Group posits that it has the largest financial stake in
the suit. By contrast, NSHEPP argues that it has the largest
financial interest when assessed in terms of shares retained at the
end of the Class Period. The two remaining movants, BCERF and
Melucci, do not argue that their financial interests in the
litigation exceed those of the Ferraro Group and NSHEPP.  

The Court will first discuss the methodology it will use to assess
which plaintiff has the largest financial interest in the relief
and then apply that methodology.

Methodology

Given this discretion, courts have used different methods, but have
mostly equated financial interest with either approximate economic
losses suffered or potential recovery. Here, the movants evaluate
financial interest in the litigation using approximate economic
losses, and, for reasons further explained below, the Court will do
so as well.

To evaluate approximate economic losses, courts frequently weigh
four factors that were first introduced in Lax v. First Merchants
Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11 1997),
and In re Olsten Corporation Securities Litigation, 3 F.Supp.2d
286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).  

Under the Lax-Olsten test, courts consider: (1) the number of
shares purchased during the class period; (2) the number of net
shares purchased during the class period (3) the total net funds
expended during the class period and (4) the approximate losses
suffered during the class period.

NSHEPP argues that the Court should apply this test but should
place determinative weight on the second factor net shares
purchased.  But none of the cases cited by NSHEPP apply Lax-Olsten
in this way.

Here, for example, the Ferraro Group purchased more than four times
the amount of shares that NSHEPP purchased during the class period.
Moreover, the Ferraro Group only sold 5,690 shares during the class
period prior to any corrective disclosures, and sold 275,000 shares
only after the January 25, 2019 publication of the Southern
Investigative Reporting Foundation report that caused the largest
drop in Corcept stock prices, which led the Ferraro Group to suffer
losses higher than any other movant. Id. Thus, a measure of loss
based solely on shares retained at the end of the class period
could easily undervalue a plaintiff's potential recovery in cases
like this one.

In light of these deficiencies with the net shares purchased
metric, the Court rejects NSHEPP's proposed modification of the
Lax-Olsten test that would emphasize that factor.

The Ferraro Group also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a).

In addition to having the largest financial stake in this
litigation, the Court finds that the Ferraro Group has also
established that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a),
particularly typicality and adequacy.  

The test for typicality asks whether other members have the same or
similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not
unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members
have been injured by the same course of conduct.

In this case, like all other purported class members, the Ferraro
Group purchased Corcept
securities during the Class Period, at prices artificially inflated
by the alleged misstatements, and suffered damages as a result. The
Ferraro Group's claims appear to be identical to the claims of
other members of the putative class, thus satisfying the typicality
requirement for purposes of lead plaintiff appointment.  

The test for adequacy asks whether the class representative and
counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and
whether the class representative and his counsel will prosecute the
action vigorously on behalf of the class. Here, there is no
indication of conflicts between the Ferraro Group and other class
members, nor is there evidence that the Ferraro Group is subject to
any unique defenses.  

The Court finds that, for purposes of lead plaintiff appointment,
the Ferraro Group has made a showing satisfying the adequacy
requirements of Rule 23(a).

No other purported class member has rebutted the presumption.

Having established that the Ferraro Group has the greatest
financial stake and satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), the
Ferraro Group is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff to
represent the class. This presumption may be rebutted only upon
proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the Ferraro
Group either (1) will not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class or (2) is subject to unique defenses that
render it incapable of adequately representing the class. The Court
finds that no purported class member has come forward with such
evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of the Ferraro Group.

The Court concludes that the presumption that the Ferraro Group is
the most adequate lead plaintiff has not been rebutted. The Court
therefore need not proceed to consider the motion of the movant
with the next largest financial stake.  

The Ferraro Group's choice of Lead Counsel is reasonable

The PSLRA provides that the most adequate plaintiff shall, subject
to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to
represent the class. The decision of lead counsel belongs to the
lead plaintiff. The Ferraro Group has chosen the law firm of Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP (Levi & Korsinsky). The Court has reviewed the
firm's resume and is satisfied that the lead plaintiff has made a
reasonable choice of counsel.  The Court defers to the Ferraro
Group's choice in counsel.

The Court appoints the Ferraro Group as the lead plaintiff in this
action and approves the Ferraro Group's selection of Levi &
Korsinsky as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s October 7, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5h7kxqq from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Melucci, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy -
LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Charles Henry
Linehan - clinehan@glancylaw.com - Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Lionel Zevi Glancy - LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Pavithra Rajesh - PRAJESH@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -
rprongay@glancylaw.com  - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, Joseph K. Belanoff & Charles
Robb, Defendants, represented by Richard Corey Worcester -
coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Jesse A. Bernstein -
jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel, pro hac vice,
Renita Nath Sharma - renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, pro hac vice & Ryan A. Fleisher -
ryanfleisher@quinnemanuel.com -  

Robert Baffa, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Ferraro Family Foundation, Inc. & James L. Ferraro, Movants,
represented by Adam Christopher McCall - amcall@zlk.com - Levi
Korsinsky, LLP & Gregory Mark Nespole - gnespole@zlk.com - Levi
Korsinsky, pro hac vice.

CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Seeks Docs in Takata Airbag Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID WHITAKER, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CORNERSTONE RESEARCH, and ARNOLD I. BARNETT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-mc-91454-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order requiring Arnold I. Barnett and
Cornerstone Research to produce these documents to Plaintiffs:

     1. All communications with attorneys (whether outside counsel
or GM counsel) that: "(i) relate to compensation for the expert's
study or testimony; (ii) identify facts or data that the party's
attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the
opinions to be expressed; or (iii) identify assumptions that the
party's attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming
the opinions to be expressed."

     2. All of Dr. Barnett and Cornerstone's communications with
non-attorneys, including communications with other experts and GM
employees, regarding their analysis of Takata airbags.

     3. All personal notes by Dr. Barnett and Cornerstone regarding
their analysis of Takata airbags.

     4. All other documents (except draft reports) underlying Dr.
Barnett and Cornerstone analysis of Takata airbags, including but
not limited to the withheld agendas, talking points, questions,
comments, and work plans.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          26 South Main Street
          Hanover, NH 03755
          Telephone: 603-643-9090
          Facsimile: 603-643-9010
          E-mail: jvoegele@bsfllp.com

Counsel for Dr. Arnold Barnett & Cornerstone Research are:

          Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          515 S. Flower St., 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          213-443-5552
          E-mail: jromano@crowell.com

               - and -

          Renee D. Smith, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          300 North LaSalle, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-862-2000
          Facsimile: 312-862-2200
          E-mail: renee.smith@kirkland.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Petersen Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered final approval on the class settlement in the
case captioned Jacob Petersen, et al., individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Costco Wholesale
Co., Inc. a Washington corporation doing business in California,
Townsend Farms, Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business in
California, Co., Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business in
California, and a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California, Defendants. Case No. 8:13-cv-01292 DOC (JCGx), (C.D.
Cal.).

The matter came before the Court for hearing, on the application of
Lead Plaintiff Jacob Petersen and Costco Wholesale Corp., Townsend
Farms, Inc., and Fallon Trading Co., to consider the terms and
conditions of their settlement with Costco Wholesale Co, Inc., et
al.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members,
including Lead Plaintiff.

The Claims of the Settlement Class Members are dismissed with
prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except
for the payments expressly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxd5w2zv from Leagle.com

Jacob Petersen, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam T. Kent , Daymark Realty Advisors Inc.,608 2nd
Ave S Ste 725, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Frederic L. Gordon , Gordon
and Holmes, 223 W.Date StreetSan Diego, CA 92101- 3571, Mary M.
Best , Kenney Waite and Stevens, Richard Ramsey Waite , Keeney
Waite and Stevens, 402 West Broadway, Suite 1820, San Diego, CA
92101, Denis Stearns , Marler Clark LLP PS, 1012 First Avenue,
Fifth Floor, Seattle, WA 98104-1008,  pro hac vice & William D.
Marler , Marler Clark LLP PS, First Avenue, Fifth Floor, Seattle,
WA 98104-1008,  pro hac vice.

Gayle Prather, individually, and others similarly situated,
Christopher Mason, individually, and others similarly situated,
Suzanne Faber, individually, and others similarly situated, Jenabe
Caldwell, individually, and others similarly situated, Motoko
Caldwell, individually, and others similarly situated, Leslie Lee,
individually, and others similarly situated, Anthony McConaghy,
individually, and others similarly situated, Thomas Fiore,
individually, and others similarly situated, Leslie Straka,
individually, and others similarly situated, Jay Sewards,
individually, and others similarly situated, Frances Seward,
individually, and others similarly situated, Amy Paden, David
Troutman & Andrea Medrano, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam T. Kent
, Daymark Realty Advisors Inc., Frederic L. Gordon , Gordon and
Holmes, Richard Ramsey Waite , Keeney Waite and Stevens, Denis
Stearns , Marler Clark LLP PS, pro hac vice & William D. Marler ,
Marler Clark LLP PS, pro hac vice.

Costco Wholesale Co., Inc., a Washington corporation doing business
in California, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Kuwana
- ekuwana@cooley.com - Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Gina E. Och
-goch@murchisonlaw.com - Murchison and Cumming LLP, Austin T.
Beardsley -austin.beardsley@kattenlaw.com -, Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP, Caitlin B. Munley -cmunley@cooley.com - Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, David A. Ernst , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
8 Tower Bridge, 161 Washington Street, Suite 1325 Conshohocken, PA
19428, Eric P. Weiss - eweiss@murchisonlaw.com - Murchison and
Cumming LLP, Guy R. Gruppie - ggruppie@murchisonlaw.com - Murchison
and Cumming LLP & Nicholas A. Kampars – nicholas.kampars@dwt.com
- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice.


CREDIT SUISSE: Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Indicative Ruling Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the the parties' joint motion
for indicative ruling that the Court approves their settlement
agreement in In re FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.).

The Class Counsel, Objector-Appellant Keith Kornell and objector
Keith Kornell, doing business as Crown and Kornell Corp., seek an
indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(e)(5)(B)(i), 23(h) and 62.1, that the Court would approve their
agreement of settlement if the Second Circuit remanded for that
purpose.  Pursuant to the Agreement, the Objector would dismiss
with prejudice his appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, Case No. 18-3673cv, which is scheduled for imminent
oral argument.  In exchange for the dismissal, the Class Counsel
would pay the Objector's counsel $300,000 for his time objecting to
the attorneys' fee award.  The payment would be made from the Class
Counsel's fees and not from the Net Settlement Fund, and $5,000 of
the payment would go to Keith Kornell as an incentive award.

Judge Schofield finds that the Agreement does little more than
benefit the Objector's counsel and perpetuate a system that can
encourage objections advanced for improper purposes.  

The Objector has appealed the settlement on the basis that the
Class Counsel fee award was too great.  However, the Objector is
willing to withdraw his appeal and voluntarily dismiss it with
prejudice, so long as the Objector's counsel shares in the
supposedly excessive funds awarded to the Class Counsel.  The only
benefit to the class members is to avoid further delay in the
distribution of the settlement fund that the Objector already has
caused by filing the appeal.  This type of agreement is precisely
what the court-approval provision in Rule 23(e)(5)(B) is meant to
address, Judge Schofield states.

Judge Schofield holds that granting the indicative ruling motion
and approving the Agreement would make the Court complicit in a
practice that undermines the integrity of class action procedure,
and needlessly provide putative objectors with potentially dubious
claims precedential support for a practice of fee extraction.

For the reasons stated, Judge Schofield denies the parties' joint
motion.  The Counsel is directed to inform the Court of Appeals of
the Order at oral argument or otherwise.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/7th0k4 from Leagle.com.

Haverhill Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke
-- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
Donald A. Broggi, Scott Scott, L.L.P., Joseph Peter Guglielmo,
Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Kristen M. Anderson --
kanderson@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
Michael E. Klenov -- mklenov@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery,
LLC, Robert E. Litan -- rlitan@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery
LLC, Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- Scott+ Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP, pro hac vice, William P. Butterfield,
Hausfeld LLP, Aaron M. Zigler -- azigler@koreintillery.com --
Korein Tillery, Alexander Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, C. Moze Cowper, Cowper Law,
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel Cohen, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., George A.
Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, Gregory
Bradley Linkh, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Hilary Kathleen
Scherrer, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, Jennifer Janine
Scott, ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP, Julie A. Kearns --
tkearns@hausfeldllp.com -- Scott+ Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, pro
hac vice, Kate Lv -- klv@scott-scott.com -- Scott and Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP, Katie Beran, Hausfeld LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle
Elizabeth Conston, Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Peter
Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP, Randall P. Ewing, Jr. --
rewing@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, Reena Gambhir --
rgambhir@hausfeldllp.com --, Hausfeld, LLP, pro hac vice, Renae
Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Richard M. Elias, Elias
Gutzler Spicer LLC, pro hac vice, Robert L. King --
rking@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery LLC, Sarah Rebecca
Lafreniere, Hausfeld, LLP, Stephanie Ann Hackett, Scott+Scott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven Michael Berezney --
sberezney@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, pro hac vice,
Steven M. Nathan, Hausfeld LLP, Sylvia Sokol --
ssokol@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Thomas Kay
Boardman -- tboardman@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P. &
William Curtis Fredericks, Scott + Scott, L.L.P.

Value Recovery Fund LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J.
Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld,
LLP, Robert N. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Thomas Kay
Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Vincent Roger Cappucci, Entwistle
& Cappucci LLP & Christopher M. Burke, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
LLP.

Augustus International Master Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Robert N. Cappucci,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Vincent Roger Cappucci, Entwistle &
Cappucci LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System & Tiberius OC Fund, Ltd.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP,
Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke,
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

The City of Philadelphia, Board of Pensions and Retirement,
Plaintiff, represented by Angela L. Baglanzis, Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell & Hippel LLP, John Elliott Sindoni, Boni, Zack & Snyder
LLC, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Snyder, BONI & ZACK LLC, Michael J.
Boni, Boni & Zack LLC, pro hac vice, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld,
LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., William Leonard,
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP & Christopher M. Burke,
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

Citigroup, N.A., Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman,
Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew D. Lazerow,
Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice & Andrew Arthur Ruffino,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC & Credit
Suisse AG, Defendants, represented by Charles Matthew Miller,
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon
& Reindel LLP, Elai E. Katz -- ekatz@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com -- Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall -- jhall@cahill.com --
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Richard Carl Schoenstein, Tarter
Krinsky & Drogin LLP & Sheila Chithran Ramesh, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert Alexander
Lawner -- rlawner@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP.

BNP Paribas North America, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Camille Latoya Fletcher, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP,
Joshua Aaron Goldberg, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP & Laura
Rose Hall, Allen & Overy, LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Bradley Reid Wilson, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Jonathan M.
Moses, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Keia Denise Cole, Wachtell
Lipton Rosen & Katz, John David Tortorella, Marino Tortorella &
Boyle, P.C. & Kevin H. Marino, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.


CROCS INC: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crocs, Inc. The case
is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Crocs, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10199 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Crocs, Inc. is an American company, based in Niwot, Colorado, that
distributes and once manufactured a foam clog shoe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com



DETROIT, MI: Students Urge Court to Reinstate Civil Rights Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class of current and former students of the Detroit public school
system urged a Sixth Circuit panel on Oct. 24 to reinstate their
civil rights case against the state of Michigan for its alleged
failure to provide "even a minimally adequate education."

The students sued former Governor Rick Snyder and other state
officials in September 2016, claiming the state's emergency
management of the Detroit school system was failing. Black students
were disproportionately affected, according to the complaint,
because of overcrowded classrooms, a lack of qualified teachers,
and unsafe school buildings.

The numerous failings of the school system and the state actors who
run it, the students claimed, led to a precipitous drop in literacy
rates and violated their constitutional rights.

The students say they were "denied access to literacy on account of
their races" and "have not received even a minimally adequate
education," according to court records.

Snyder and the other officials argued they were improperly named in
the suit and merely exercised a "supervisory role" in the city's
educational system, but U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III
disagreed last year.

Murphy, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that because the
emergency managers appointed by Snyder reported directly to the
governor's office, the state exercised direct control over the
school system and could be sued by the students.

The judge also found the students had suffered a concrete and
particularized injury to grant them standing under federal law, and
that their injuries could be traced to the state officials and
emergency managers who failed to rectify the poor conditions in
Detroit's public schools.

However, Murphy underscored the point that access to literacy is
not a fundamental right, which "requires finding that neither
liberty nor justice would exist absent state-provided literacy
access."

He called the outcomes of Detroit's educational system
"devastating," but ultimately concluded the due process clause does
not "demand that a state affirmatively provide each child with a
defined, minimum level of education by which the child can attain
literacy."

The Oct. 24 arguments before the Sixth Circuit took place in a
Cincinnati courtroom packed with spectators, the majority of whom
traveled from Detroit and are intimately involved with the case and
the public school system at large.

Attorney Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin --
cphillips@sidley.com -- argued on behalf of the students, and told
the panel "the Supreme Court has consistently left open the
question of whether this right exists."

He outlined the issues faced by students in Detroit, including the
lack of textbooks, qualified teachers, and adequate buildings, and
called the city's educational facilities "schools by name only."

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, who was appointed by President
Donald Trump earlier this year, interrupted the attorney and
suggested the majority of Supreme Court cases regarding education
dealt with the fundamental right of education, not access to
literacy.

Phillips responded that state constitutions have consistently
emphasized the importance of education and literacy.

"If the history is there," the attorney said, "then the history
speaks for itself."

Phillips added that the state "has not identified the remotest
justification . . . for this sham arrangement" and has told
innocent students "you are now stigmatized for all time."

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay, a Bill Clinton appointee, questioned
Phillips about the injunctive relief sought by his clients, and
also wondered if the local school board should have been named as a
defendant in the case.

"You want a decent school system funded and set up," Clay said, and
then asked where the money would come from and how it would be
distributed if the court ruled in the students' favor.

"You're putting the cart before the horse," Phillips answered,
while admitting the question of potential relief is a "daunting
task."

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Raymond Howd argued on behalf
of the state, denying that it was ultimately in control of
Detroit's public schools during the time period spelled out in the
complaint.

Clay and U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee,
immediately contested the point.

"There hasn't been shyness about the state coming in and taking
control," Clay said.

Stranch followed by pointing out there is a 20-year history of the
state government moving "in and out" of control of Detroit's public
schools.

Howd said local control has been reinstated, and that following the
state's $750 million funding of a "debt-free school district,"
there are no continuing constitutional violations and the case has
become moot.

Stranch disagreed, and spoke at length about the case and Detroit's
failing schools in general.

"What is at issue is the failure to provide access," she said.
"You've not made it available. [The students] can't be within the
American system . . . if they can't read or write at a minimum
level."

No timetable has been set for the court's decision.

In addition to the near-capacity courtroom, there was also a line
of protesters outside the courthouse during and after the
arguments.


DICK BLICK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dick Blick Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Dick Blick
Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10108 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
31, 2019).

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

Dick Blick Holdings Inc. operates stores that retail and resell
fine artist supplies to artists, art educators, students,
hobbyists, architects/designers, schools, and local art
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Credit Checks
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
DirecTV illegally pulls people's credit reports even though they
have nothing to do with the company, an act that in itself lowers
their credit score.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                      https://is.gd/3J1ZLR



DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Payne Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, a Tennessee
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00933 (M.D. Tenn.,
Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is a corporation that has an extensive chain of
variety stores. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

On July 10, 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 6061, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Justin G. Day, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


EDDIE BAUER: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eddie Bauer LLC. The
case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10143 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Eddie Bauer, LLC is an American limited liability company,
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, that operates the Eddie
Bauer clothing store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FILM STAGE: Warner Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Warner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FILM, STAGE & SHOWBIZ EXPO LLC D/B/A SMALL BUSINESS
EXPO, Case No. 0:19-cv-62754-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2019), arises
from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

To solicit new clients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text
messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, says the complaint.

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

Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a business event company headquartered in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
                 jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FIRST COLLECTION: Cash Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Collection
Services, et al. The case is styled as Artis Cash, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First
Collection Services, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-09416 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

First Collection Services (FCS) is a debt collection agency located
in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          Jonathan Stieglitz Law Offices
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com



FIRST INTERSTATE: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Banking Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hunter, all others similarly situated v. FIRST INTERSTATE
BANK, CB1 COLLECTIONS, Case No. 4:19-cv-05073-LLP (D.S.D., Nov. 6,
2019), is brought against the Defendants alleging violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Defendants became a corporation as a bank guided and required
by Federal and State laws to advance to all customers a fair,
honest, undeceptive practice to all customers. However, the
Plaintiffs alleges, the Defendant decided to assert, promote, and
contrary to the Laws, cheat, deceive and implement unfair practices
as not allowing the Plaintiff to understand the complex laws. When
the Plaintiff was told to sign into an agreement to pay certain
fees, he asserts that he was not informed of how much interest and
fees he would be required.

The Plaintiff contends he did not get to read or examine the papers
and $30 per month payments for his checking account and "Gold"
MasterCard. He adds that he did not know how much would be assigned
to pay the Bank. This information was omitted for the purpose to
subtly get him to sign into the agreement not knowing the payments
were unfair, says the complaint.

Michael Hunter is a resident of the State of South Dakota.

First Interstate Bank is a corporation as a bank in the state of
South Dakota.[BN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP
et al. The case is styled as Jacob Klein individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06164 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus, LLP., is a New York debt collection law
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GANNI INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ganni, Inc. The case
is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Ganni, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06146 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Ganni is a Danish brand dealing in ready-to-wear clothes. The brand
mostly focuses on girls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GARMENTORY INC: Violates ADA, Kiler Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garmentory Inc. The
case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Garmentory Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06141 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Garmentory, Inc. offers online retail clothing products. The
Company offers tops, blouses, sweaters, cardigans, pants, denim,
skirts, shorts, jumpsuits, dresses, and related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Faces Stein Class Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services, LP. The
case is styled as Bradley Stein individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services, LP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02083-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Diversity
Action.

GC Services LP provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues. The Company offers customer care call
handling, sales order, entry taking, and tracking, also debt
collection, early delinquency, letter, and mailing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Hyde & Swigart
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (866) 219-3343
          Fax: (866) 219-8344
          Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Daniels Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Kelvin Daniels, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Government
Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-CA-009967, was
removed from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court to U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Oct. 22, 2019.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-02612-MSS-SPF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

The suit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.

The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Maryland. It is the second
largest auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, PA
          954 First Ave. N
          St Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          Facsimile: (727) 822-1499
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          John Patrick Marino, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 N Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6104
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6204
          E-mail: jmarino@sgrlaw.com


GUAM: Wants to File Certiorari Petition in Davis Suit on Dec. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Guam, et al., have applied to the Supreme Court of the
United States for extension of time to file a petition for writ of
certiorari in the matter styled GUAM, GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION,
ALICE M. TAIJERON, MARTHA C. RUTH, JOSEPH F. MESA, JOHNNY P.
TAITANO, JOSHUA F. TENORIO, DONALD I. WEAKLEY and LEONARDO M.
RAPADAS, Applicants v. ARNOLD DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Respondent.

The Defendants-Applicants seek an extension, pursuant to Rule 13.5
of the Rules of Court, of 60 days within which to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari up to and including Dec. 27, 2019.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
civil rights action, which deals with the topic of
self-determination of the political status of the island and who
should have the right to vote on a referendum concerning such.  The
Plaintiff claims that he is prohibited from registering to vote on
the referendum, which is a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Organic Act of Guam, and his Fifth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendment rights.

In the complaint, he alleges discrimination in the voting process
by Guam and the Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that under Guam
law, a Political Status Plebiscite is to be held concerning Guam's
future relationship with the United States.

The District Court case is titled Arnold Davis v. Guam, et al.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Guam.  The appeals case is captioned as Arnold Davis v. Guam, et
al., Case No. 17-15719, in United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Defendants-Applicants are represented by:

          Michael F. Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & BORDALLO, P.C.
          410 West O'Brien Drive
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Phone: (671) 477-2223


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Fowler Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Kaliah Fowler individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Halsted
Financial Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24509-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          Zeig Law Firm, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


HARD ROCK CAFE: Faces Dominguez Class Suit Under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hard Rock Cafe
International (USA), Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez
and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10169 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Hard Rock Cafe Inc. is a chain of theme restaurants founded in 1971
by Isaac Tigrett and Peter Morton in London.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


HEALTH-ADE LLC: Deal in Bayol Fraud Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entered final approval of the settlement in
the case GABRIELA BAYOL and BRUCE VERBECK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH-ADE
LLC, and WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01462 MMC (N.D. Cal.), on the terms set forth in the
Parties' Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, signed and filed
with the Court on March 15, 2019.

The following class is granted final certification, for settlement
purposes only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3):
All persons in the United States and United States Territories who
purchased at retail one or more of the Subject Products during the
Class Period. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a)
Defendants and their employees, principals, officers, directors,
agents, affiliated entities, legal representatives, successors, and
assigns; (b) the judges to whom the Action has been or is assigned
and any members of their immediate families; (c) those who
purchased the Subject Products for the purpose of resale; and (d)
all persons who have filed a timely Request for Exclusion from the
Class.

The "Subject Products" are all products sold by Defendants during
the Class Period under Health-Ade's kombucha product lines,
including but not limited to the following flavors: Beet; Blood
Orange-Carrot-Ginger; California Grape; Cayenne Cleanse;
Ginger-Lemon; Holiday Cheers; Jalapeño-Kiwi-Cucumber; Maca-Berry;
Matcha+Cold Brew Coffee; The Original; Pink Lady Apple; Plum;
Pomegranate; Power Greens; Reishi-Chocolate; and Sweet Thorn.

Judge Chesney dismissed the claims in the Action on the merits and
with prejudice pursuant to the terms (including the Release) set
forth in the Parties' Agreement and in the Court's Final Order
Approving Class Action Settlement and Final Order Approving
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards, without costs to
any party except as provided in the Final Orders.

Judge Chesney awarded (i) the Plaintiffs' Counsel in the amount of
$999,375 in attorneys' fees and $14,252.78 in costs and expenses;
and (ii) Plaintiffs Gabriela Bayol and Bruce Verbeck in the amount
of $2,000 each as a Service Award in their individual capacity as
the representative Plaintiffs in the Action.

The Settlement Administrator is entitled to recover its costs in an
amount not to exceed $375.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/Xgk2xf from Leagle.com.

Gabriela Bayol & Bruce Verbeck, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. &
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher,
P.A.

Health-Ade LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert James Herrington
-- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Michael Slade
Neighbors -- neighborsm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robert James Herrington, Greenberg Traurig LLP.


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Class Certified in Suit Over Lapsed Sanitation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that an Essex County
judge granted class certification on behalf of 3,700 former surgery
center patients instructed to get tested for HIV and hepatitis
after inspectors found unsanitary conditions there.

Superior Court Judge Bridget Stecher granted the motion for class
certification Oct. 11, 2019, on behalf of all New Jersey residents
instructed by the outpatient HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle
Brook to get tested for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Stecher
also appointed Stephen DeNittis and Joseph Osefchen of DeNittis
Osefchen Prince in Marlton as class counsel.

The class certification ruling comes 13 months after the state
Department of Health shut down HealthPlus over what inspectors said
were major lapses in sanitation at the facility. The department
ordered the facility closed on Sept. 7, 2018, and allowed it to
reopen three weeks later.

The inspectors found that surgical instruments used at the facility
had debris in the hinges, and were rusty and discolored, and that
surgical staff failed to cover their facial hair during operations.
The inspectors also found poor drug storage methods, an outdated
infection control plan and unacceptable sterilization practices.
HealthPlus sent letters to 3,778 people treated between January and
September 2018, instructing them to have blood tests for hepatitis
B, hepatitis C and HIV.

The litigation seeks medical monitoring of the facility's former
patients. The surgery center agreed after the shutdown to pay for
only a single blood test for each patient but that measure is
inadequate considering the long incubation period for HIV and
hepatitis, the suit claims. The suit also seeks preventive medical
treatment before class members receive a positive test result.

The judge has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Nov. 13
concerning the plaintiffs' request for an injunction regulating the
defendant's communications with class members regarding their
potential exposure to disease.

The ruling follows the defendant's removal of the case to U.S.
District Court based on application of the Class Action Fairness
Act in January 2019 and a remand to state court in June. U.S.
District Judge William Martini ordered the case back to state court
based on a finding of minimal diversity between the parties, since
the plaintiffs' pleadings limited the class to New Jersey
residents, even though some HealthPlus patients who received
notices lived outside the state.

The suit claims medical monitoring is warranted under the New
Jersey Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Ayers v. Jackson Township,
which first recognized a cause of action for medical monitoring. In
that case, the court affirmed a jury verdict awarding medical
surveillance relief to Jackson residents exposed to carcinogens in
their drinking water. Declaring the relief consistent with the
early detection of disease, the court in that case eliminated the
need for proof of current injury.

A complaint by DeNittis and Osefchen seeks medical monitoring,
education and warnings and preventive medical treatment, and
brought claims for negligence and medical malpractice. Other
plaintiffs who sued the surgical center brought claims for
emotional distress and claims on behalf of spouses and partners of
persons who underwent procedures at the center.

After the state ordered HealthPlus shut down, the center improved
its infection control procedures, hired additional staff and
supervised the cleaning and repair of surgical instruments by an
outside vendor.

DeNittis and Osefchen did not respond to calls about the case.

The lawyer for HealthPlus, Keith Roberts, Esq. of Brach Eichler --

kroberts@bracheichler.com -- in Roseland, also did not return a
call about the case. [GN]

HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANIE SNIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEARTLAND BEEF, INC., an Indiana
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11517 (Ill. Cir, Oct. 4,
2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Since 2008, it has been illegal in Illinois to collect an
individual's biometric information or identifiers-such as a
fingerprint, voiceprint, or faceprint-without the individual's
informed, written consent.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, Heartland Beef uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires employees to use fingerprint scans as a means
of authentication each time they start or stop working.

When Heartland Beef's Illinois employees begin their employment,
Heartland Beef requires them to scan their fingerprints into an
employee database.  These scans are not limited to clocking in and
out of work; Heartland Beef also subjects employees to a
fingerprint scan each time an employee cashes a customer out at a
register or any time a manager needs to provide a refund.

Indeed, any time an employee accesses a register, he or she is
required to submit to a fingerprint scan.

Heartland Beef's scanning and retention of employees' fingerprints
without informed consent is clearly unlawful in Illinois.

The Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that Heartland Beef's
conduct violates BIPA, requiring that Heartland Beef cease the
unlawful activities described herein and destroy the biometric data
it unlawfully collected, and awarding Plaintiff and the Class
statutory damages, the lawsuit says.

Heartland Beef is an Arby's restaurant franchisee with more than 20
locations located throughout the Midwest, seven of which are in
Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  nl@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com

INTERO REAL ESTATE: Chinitz Files Class Suit in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intero Real Estate
Services. The case is styled as Ronald Chinitz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Intero Real Estate
Services, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-mc-00396-PG (D.P.R., Oct. 31,
2019).

Intero Real Estate Services Inc. operates as real estate services
company. The Company offers real estate services in areas of
property searching in areas of interest for potential customers,
methods to get certified for loans, property development in various
locations, and real estate brokers assisting customers with
inquires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hector Sueiro-Alvarez, Esq.
          Gallo LLC
          1311 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 400
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (415) 257-8800
          Fax: (415) 257-8844
          Email: hsueiro@gallo.law



INTERSTATE CLEANING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ariatna Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. INTERSTATE CLEANING CORPORATION, a
Missouri corporation; JUAN NAVARRO, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG19036072, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Nov. 6, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07307 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure
to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (5) Wage
Statement Violations; (6) Waiting Time Penalties; (7) Violation of
Labor Code; and (8) Violation of Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William C. Sung, Esq.
          Bryan P. Mercke, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.250.1800
          Facsimile: 213.250.7900
          Email: William.Sung@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Bryan.Mercke@lewisbrisbois.com


JAMBA JUICE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JAMBA JUICE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-10321 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 6, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store
gift cards that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's store gift cards will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls Jamba restaurants
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284


KC LODGE: Settlement in Enegren FLSA Suit Gets Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALYSSA ENEGREN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KC LODGE
VENTURES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-2285-DDC-GEB (D.
Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion to Grant Final Certification and Approve Collective Action
Settlement, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees in Conjunction with
Settlement.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") on May 17, 2017, alleging unlawful pay practices against
the Defendants,

The Defendants own and operate Twin Peaks franchise restaurants in
Kansas and Missouri.  Plaintiff Alyssa Nida is a former Twin Peaks
employee.  She represents a collective class of current and former
employees who have filed a putative collective action claim for
alleged FLSA violations.  They assert that the Defendants (1)
failed to pay Twin Peaks plaintiffs for all hours worked; (2)
failed to compensate the Twin Peaks Plaintiffs for the cost of
their uniforms and other image and costume standards; and (3)
failed to ensure servers made minimum wage after mandatory tip
sharing.

The parties participated in an unsuccessful mediation session on
Jan. 22, 2018.  The Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, and
the Defendants filed an answer and asserted various affirmative
defenses.  The parties proceeded with discovery from March to July
2018.  On Aug. 31, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion
stipulating to conditional collective action certification and
asked the court to approve the parties' eventual stipulation for
conditional certification.

On Sept. 10, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the
Plaintiffs' claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), and authorized notice to all current and former servers,
bartenders, and hostesses employed by any defendant at any time
since June 6, 2015.

On Feb. 21, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation session
with mediator Dennis Gillen.  After a full day of mediation, the
parties reached a settlement agreement.  The parties later executed
a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims memorializing the
terms of their settlement.  All the opt-in Plaintiffs have received
notice of the terms of the settlement, and none have objected.  The
parties have submitted the Settlement Agreement to the Court with
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking approval of the
settlement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has
agreed to pay a total of $300,000, which will be allocated as
follows: (i) no more than $15,000 to the representative Plaintiff
as a service award; (ii) no more than $133,000 in attorneys' fees;
and (iii) the remainder -- $152,000 -- to the 102 collective action
members distributed on a pro rata basis.

In exchange, the Twin Peaks plaintiffs have agreed to release any
claims under state and federal wage and hour laws, and any claims
under state wage payment laws from the same facts as those asserted
in the case.  Also, the named Plaintiff has signed a general
release of all the claims against the Defendants.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a pro rata distribution of
the Settlement Fund to each collective action member who consented
to join this lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs' counsel developed a formula
accounting for each Plaintiff's total period of employment, number
of shifts worked, and average hourly wage.  The Plaintiffs who had
worked for a shorter period of time will receive a smaller amount
for uniform reimbursement, and those who worked for a longer period
will receive more. The portion of the settlement for unpaid meeting
time is allocated based on the number of shifts each Plaintiff had
worked.

The Defendants will pay the Settlement Fund in four installments.
They will pay one-half of the total amount after the Court approves
the settlement.  They will pay the remaining one-half in three
subsequent equal installments.  All amounts will be allocated on a
pro rata basis across the overall payment timeline (meaning that
the named Plaintiff, the opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs'
counsel will receive their portions of the Settlement Fund at the
same time).

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion to Grant Final Certification and Approve Collective Action
Settlemen, and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of
Award of Attorneys' Fees in Conjunction with Settlement.

Judge Crabtree granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion to Grant Certification and Approve Collective
Action Settlement.  The Judge reduced the Plaintiffs' counsel's
request for a $15,000 service award for the representative
Plaintiff to a $5,000 award.  

Judge Crabtree holds that he can't permit Ms. Nida to increase her
service fee to compensate her for an unasserted retaliation claim.
The FLSA makes it unlawful to discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed
any complaint or instituted.  Doing so, in effect, would let her
recover for that alleged loss from her fellow class members.  This
theory isn't a proper basis for a service fee award.  The Judge
thus reduces the representative Plaintiff's service award to
$5,000, finding that the amount is a fair and reasonable amount for
her contributions.

Judge Crabtree granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees in Conjunction with Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/5WrRiX from Leagle.com.

Alyssa Enegren, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Sidney Nichole Fetty, Sharell Garner, Morgan Koch, Lisa
Jo Schiffbauer, Ashlyn Sullivan, Kindsey Lohman, Hannah Lowe,
Taylor Martin, Catherine McMurray, Marissa Salyer, Casey Sanders,
Jessica Saunders, Kelsey Wellner, Kelsey Gosroski, Lakea Gray,
Hannah Hall, Lauren Lowenthal, Madison Palmer, Kempsie Valentine,
Prenecia Ponds, Rachel Vanhamme, Dana M Dirks, Hannah Jones,
Brittany Martinez, Lia Mayfield, Kavindu Ndeti, Ella Pavin, Taylor
Pointer, Jordyn Vazquez, Alaisia Wright, Adrieonna Young, Erika
Carr, Tiffany Hughes, Alexandra Johnson, Michaela Jordan, Rebecca
Ann McClain, Erin Oots, Alexandra Adkins, Nonalicia Bush, Andrea
DeJarnnett, Julia Farson, Emily Mask, Lori Beth McCue, Sarah
Roberson, Bethanie Nicole Smith, Megan Sullivan, Jessica Warnstaff,
Naomi Washington, Ashley Zahari, Megan Felty, Taylor Kruse, Mariela
Ramon, Sarah Sage, Lauren Shoemaker, Keiley Bakhtiar, Myranda
Cowan, Gabrielle Dabney, Lesta Rylan Michele Davis, Kyla Krashin
Faulhaber, Brittany Girdner, Megan Hubbard, Shiloh Kirchoff, Asia
McChesney, Hailey McLain, Katelyn Shingler, Andrea Svaglic, Shelby
Trimble, Talia Yeager, Victoria Armstrong, Arianna Balque, Jahliah
Clay, Brandy Davis, Samantha DeFeo, Kyla Everett, Olivia Fazio,
Lacey Glasgow, Shekieah Kemp, Kourtnee Lewis, Mackenzi Lowery,
Jessica Lynch, Crystal Meyer, Brittney Ralston, Tyann Reddell,
Miranda Robinson, Briana Smallwood, Shecainah Villarta, Morgan
Hope, Stephanie Manley, Karis Pruitt, Ashley Ramsey & Alyssa Tite,
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony F. Rupp -- trupp@foulston.com --
Foulston Siefkin LLP, Boyd A. Byers -- bbyers@foulston.com --
Foulston Siefkin LLP, Forrest T. Rhodes, Jr., Foulston Siefkin LLP
& Rebekah L. Pinkston -- bekapinkston@gmail.com -- Foulston Siefkin
LLP.

Courtney Loney, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Rupp, Foulston
Siefkin LLP, Forrest T. Rhodes, Jr., Foulston Siefkin LLP & Rebekah
L. Pinkston, Foulston Siefkin LLP.

KC Lodge Ventures LLC, St. Louis Lodge Ventures LLC, PB&J
Restaurants, Inc., KC Lodge Ventures I, LLC, KC Lodge Ventures II,
LLC, KC Lodge Ventures III, LLC, KC Lodge Ventures IV, LLC, St.
Louis Lodge Ventures I, LLC, St. Louis Lodge Ventures II, LLC & St.
Louis Lodge Ventures III, LLC, Defendants, represented by Mitchell
E. Wood -- mwood@halbrookwoodlaw.com -- Halbrook Wood, PC.


LEGACY GROUP: Kedney Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legacy Group
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as John Kedney, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Legacy
Group Holdings, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Leslie
Duke, Jr., Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00914 (S.D.
Ala., Nov. 1, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Legacy Group provides trained, skilled employees in many areas of
expertise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Glenn Montgomery, Esq.
          63 S. Royal Street, Suite 710
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (251) 800-6030
          Fax: (251) 800-6062
          Email: pmontgomery@forthepeople.com



LEXINGTON INTERNATIONAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexington
International LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Lexington International LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06142 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Lexington International, LLC is a manufacturer and developer of
advanced phototherapy medical devices for home use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Class in Slaughter Case Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification in the
case captioned Quintin Slaughter, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln Electric Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18cv2705, (N.D. Ohio).

Under the FLSA, an employer must generally compensate an employee
at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which he is employed for work exceeding 40 hours per week.  Only
similarly situated employees are permitted to opt into an FLSA
collective action. The FLSA does not define the term similarly
situated and neither has the Sixth Circuit.   

At the first stage, which generally occurs before the parties have
conducted discovery, a court must determine whether to
conditionally certify the collective class and whether notice of
the lawsuit should be given to putative class members.

During the second stage, the court makes a final determination
regarding whether opt-in class members are similarly situated based
upon a thorough review of the record after discovery is completed.


Because the first stage is conducted prior to or at the beginning
of the discovery process, plaintiffs need only make a modest
factual showing that they are similarly situated to proposed class
members.  

At the second stage of the certification process, a defendant may
file a motion to decertify the class. During the second stage, the
court makes a final determination on whether opt-in class members
are similarly situated based upon a thorough review of the record
after discovery is completed. This final certification decision is
normally based on a variety of factors, including factual and
employment settings of the individual plaintiffs, the different
defenses to which the plaintiffs may be subject on an individual
basis and the degree of fairness and procedural impact of
certifying the action as a collective action.

Conditional Certification

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he and the
putative collective class members typically clocked in 5-10 minutes
or more before the start of their shifts in order to put on certain
personal protective equipment (PPE). He alleges that they were
required by Defendant and OSHA to put on this equipment and,
further, that the act of donning the PPE was done for Defendant's
benefit and was required for Plaintiff and the Collective Class
members to perform their job duties.

Plaintiff asserts that he and the putative collective class members
put on their PPE within seconds of clocking in and immediately
thereafter reported to their work areas and began working.
Plaintiff alleges that, despite the fact that he and the putative
collective class members were clocked in and working, Defendant did
not pay them for any time spent working prior to their scheduled
shift time, resulting in them not being paid all of their overtime
compensation.

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues conditional certification is
warranted because both the piece rate and hourly workers at the
Mentor and Euclid facilities were subject to Defendant's policy of
knowingly failing to pay for pre-shift work. Plaintiff maintains
that the six declarations submitted in support of his Motion along
with the data summary are more than sufficient to satisfy the
modest factual showing necessary to warrant conditional
certification of a class consisting of all former and current
non-exempt employees employed by Defendant at its Ohio facilities
who worked forty or more hours in one or more workweeks within
three years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint to
the present.

Defendant argues conditional certification should be denied because
Plaintiff has failed to identify a policy or practice that violates
the FLSA. Specifically, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has
identified no Lincoln Electric policy that requires all piece
workers and hourly employees to start their shifts early, continue
working after clocking out for the day, and not report the time as
hours worked. Moreover, Defendant asserts Plaintiff has failed to
identify a single supervisor or manager who imposed such a
requirement on all piece rate and hourly workers.  

The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the modest factual
showing necessary to demonstrate that they are similarly situated
to other piece rate employees at Defendant's Euclid and Mentor
facilities for purposes of conditional certification. Plaintiffs
have not, however, satisfied their burden with respect to
Defendant's hourly employees.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged
a common theory of Defendant's alleged statutory violations.
Plaintiffs Slaughter, Snodgrass, Gerald Sanders, Abraham Sanders,
and Deangelo Collier provide declarations, in which they each state
that they (1) were paid on a piece rate basis (2) generally
reported to work early and clocked in before their shifts (3) put
on their personal protective equipment before clocking in and (4)
immediately reported to their work area and began working. Each
also states that, even though they were clocked in and working 5 to
10 minutes or more before the start of their shifts, they were not
paid for this time. They also aver that they observed other
employees clocking in before the start of the shift and reporting
to their work areas.

These allegations are sufficient to meet Plaintiff's modest burden
of showing that piece rate employees at Defendant's facilities
share a common theory of alleged violations and are, thus,
similarly situated.

Defendant argues, however, that conditional certification should be
denied because Plaintiffs have not identified an illegal policy or
practice affecting the putative class. Specifically, Defendant
maintains that its Employee Handbook expressly forbids employees
from all off the clock work.

Defendant notes that the Handbook allows employees to swipe in ten
minutes early to ensure that they are ready to work at their
scheduled start time but directs them not to actually begin work
until their shift starts. Defendant maintains that this policy does
not violate the FLSA and, therefore, conditional certification is
unwarranted.

The Court finds this argument to be without merit. As an initial
matter, Plaintiffs have set forth allegations identifying an
illegal policy or practice affecting the putative class.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they routinely arrive early in
order to put on personal protective equipment that they are
required to wear to perform their job duties, but are not paid for
this time. Defendant's substantive arguments that its policies and
procedures do not, in fact, violate the FLSA go the merits of the
instant action and are not properly considered at the conditional
certification stage.  

The Court also rejects Defendant's arguments that conditional
certification should be denied because of the inherently
individualized nature of Plaintiff's and the putative class
members' claims. As noted above, at this stage of the proceedings,
the Court does not resolve factual disputes or make credibility
determinations. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant's concerns
regarding the necessity for individualized inquiries are better
suited to the second stage of the certification process.

The Court agrees with Defendant, however, that Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that conditional certification is warranted with
respect to hourly employees at either the Mentor or Euclid
facilities. Ms. Hubbard did not aver that she observed or was
otherwise aware of any other hourly employees that clocked in early
in order to perform pre-shift work but were not paid for their
time. Nor did she aver that she was aware that other hourly
employees, in fact, needed to gather tools or do other similar
preparatory work prior to the start of their shifts in order to
report to their work stations on time.

The Court will grant conditional certification but not for the
exceedingly broad class proposed by Plaintiff in his Motion.
Rather, and for all the reasons set forth above, the Court will
grant conditional certification for the following limited class:

All former and current piece rate employees employed by Defendant
at its Mentor and Euclid facilities who performed off-the-clock
pre-shift work within three years preceding the date of the filing
of this Complaint to the present.

The parties are orderd to meet and confer, through counsel,
regarding the content and form of notice to be given to the
potential opt-ins and to submit, within fourteen (14) days of the
date of this Order, a joint proposed judicial notice. In addition,
Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order, provide Plaintiffs with a list of the full name and last
known home address of each current and former employee falling
within the conditional collective action class described above, as
well as their dates of employment and last known personal email
address. Once approved, the Notice shall be sent to the potential
opt-ins within thirty (30) days using the home and email addresses
provided by the Defendant. Duplicate copies of the Notice may be
sent in the event new, updated, or corrected addresses are found
for one or more potential opt-in.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 7, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y273w6ul
from Leagle.com.

Quintin Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon M. Draher, Nilges
Draher, Christopher J. Lalak, Nilges Draher, Robi J. Baishnab,
Nilges Draher & Hans A. Nilges, Nilges Draher,7266 Portage Street
NWSuite DMassillon, OH 44646

Lincoln Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Carrie A.
Valdez  - cvaldez@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler, Gregory V.
Mersol - gmersol@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler & Jeffrey R.
Vlasek- jvlasek@bakerlaw.com - Baker & Hostetler.

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Ends 4-Decade Suit Over Inmate Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel J. Garcia, writing for AZ Central, reports that after four
decades, a federal judge ended a class-action lawsuit against the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that sought to improve conditions
and medical care for pre-trial inmates.

U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake in a Sept. 19, 2019, ruling
closed the case, saying the Sheriff's Office, now under Sheriff
Paul Penzone, is meeting the minimum requirements that would assure
inmates adequate care and preserve their constitutional rights.

Community Legal Services filed the lawsuit in 1977 on behalf of
three inmates — Damian Hart, Michael G. McKane and Bartholomew C.
Trumble — against then Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Hill and the
County Board of Supervisors.

At the time, the men claimed the jail was overcrowded, there were
not enough beds and they were "not allowed to make collect
telephone calls" or receive phone calls from their attorneys,
according to a June 1977 Arizona Republic article.

The lawsuit turned into a decades-long battle, with additional
inmates claiming that they were also not receiving adequate medical
and mental health services.

Over the years, the county had entered into several agreements to
address the issues.

In 2001, the Sheriff's Office under Joe Arpaio tried to shed the
required federal oversight from a previous judgment. In 2005, the
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona took on the case.

In 2008, after a three-week trial, Wake ruled there were still
issues and constitutional problems for pre-trial inmates.

Eric Balaban, ACLU's senior staff counsel in the case, has been
involved in mental-health-care litigation in five states and the
Virgin Islands.

"I'm only involved with broken systems," Balaban told The Arizona
Republic in December 2018. "Maricopa is the worst. It is an
absolutely brutalizing environment."

The ACLU of Arizona didn't respond to an email seeking comment on
Wake's recent ruling.

In a news release, Penzone celebrated Wake's ruling. Penzone in the
statement credited the hard work of Maricopa County Correctional
Health Services, detention staff, and the staff attorney that
helped get to this conclusion.

"Their diligence and commitment to excellence have evolved the
Maricopa County jail system as one of the top in the nation,"
Penzone said in the release.

Still, the jails under Penzone's watch have been the subject of
criticism over the care of inmates diagnosed with mental
illnesses.

Puente Arizona, an adocacy group in Phoenix, has highlighted the
case of 19-year-old Valentina Gloria, who is being held on charges
in a Maricopa County jail.

Gloria has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, paranoia,
depression, schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress
disorder.

She was charged with four counts of aggravated assault on a
correction employee. She is accused of spitting at two Lower
Buckeye Jail correctional officers as other employees were tying
her down to a bed on Dec. 31.

She had been initially arrested and taken to jail after spitting at
a nurse at a hospital where she was receiving mental health
treatment. Her mother has said her daughter's reactions stemmed
from her mental illnesses.

In May, a judge ruled Valentina was incompetent to face the charges
and must stay in jail to receive treatment through the Restoration
to Competency Program.

Gloria's mother and Puente members have said that keeping the woman
in jail while she awaits trial will make her symptoms worse.

"We cannot treat a public-health crisis with cages," said Jovana
Renteria, the legal director for Puente Arizona. [GN]

MATTEL INC: Matzura Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattel, Inc. The case
is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mattel, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10139 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Mattel, Inc. is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in 1945 with headquarters in El Segundo, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2672: Court Dismisses Santander From VW Clean Diesel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s motion
to dismiss without prejudice the action captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN
"CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 1567 Martin,
3:16-cv-00712-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

The record supports that Defendant Santander has not been served
with the complaint in Martin, and more than 90 days have passed
since the complaint was filed.  Good cause for the failure to serve
Santander has not been shown.  The Judge therefore grants
Santander's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/dfmT1I from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer ,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MDL 2915: Grimm Suit Over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jonathan Grimm, Judy Milman, and
Fred Milman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital
One, National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02357 (Filed Aug. 5, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 22, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No.1:19-cv-02961-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The Grimm case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL
ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues
concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual
gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained
on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit
card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit
card products.

All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all
allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and
other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern
District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation.
Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district
in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and
witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants
maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS
facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is
an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will
steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that
centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga.
The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P. C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-2806
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com


MDL 2915: Imperatori Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jose A. Imperatori III,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One,
National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02503 (Filed Aug. 19, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on
Oct 22, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02964-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The Imperatori case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re:
CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share
factual issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an
individual gained unauthorized access to the personal information,
maintained on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital
One credit card customers and individuals who applied for Capital
One credit card products.

All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all
allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and
other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern
District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation.
Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district
in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and
witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants
maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS
facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is
an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will
steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that
centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga.
The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin James Vernia, Esq.
          THE VERNIA LAW FIRM
          1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 349-4053
          E-mail: bvernia@vernialaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-2806
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com


MDL 2915: Miller Class Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Kelly Miller individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02447
(Filed Aug. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 22, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02962-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL
ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues
concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual
gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained
on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit
card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit
card products.

All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all
allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and
other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern
District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation.
Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district
in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and
witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants
maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS
facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is
an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will
steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that
centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga.
The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P. C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-2806
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com


MEDIOCOPY: Swetlic Chiropractic Files Consumer Credit Suit in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medicopy Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Swetlic Chiropractic & Rehabilitation
Center, Inc. an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly- situated, Plaintiff v.
Medicopy Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00971 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 31, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

MediCopy is a health information management company that delivers
protected health information from healthcare partners of all
specialties and sizes to their requesting parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
          Neal & Harwell, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 238-3535
          Fax: (615) 726-0573
          Email: baaron@nealharwell.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Anderson + Wanca
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: (847) 368-1500
          Fax: (847) 368-1501
          Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


MEISNER'S GOURMET: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Alvarado Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES AVELINO REYES ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEISNER'S GOURMET CATERING,
INC., MEISNER'S KOSHER PREPARED FOODS INC., and SOLOMON MEISNER and
JOSEPH MEISNER, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05943-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of the Plaintiff's employment at Meisner's Gourmet
Catering, Inc. and Meisner's Kosher Prepared Foods Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in
an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiff also seeks interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies
this Court deems appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 2013
until June 2019 at their business located at 341 Central Avenue, in
Lawrence, New York. The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a cook
and kitchen worker, while performing other miscellaneous duties.

Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 72 or more hours per
week during his employment, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-263-9591


MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Latrice M. Lee individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01267
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com



MIDLAND CREDIT: Reynolds Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Paula Reynolds individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07188
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MORGAN SERVICES: Williams Sues Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORGAN SERVICES INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11860 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks
to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when Defendant hires an employee,
including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database
shared and maintained by and between Defendant to monitor the time
worked by hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant's
employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.

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, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Suprema 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.

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.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically,
Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did
not and continues not to.

Morgan Services, Inc. is a nationwide textile company with its
headquarters located at 323 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.,
60601.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses Patterson ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned ROBERT J. PATTERSON, TERRI LO SASSO,
AND RALPH A. COLO, Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY
DOMESTIC HOLDINGS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC, THE MORGAN
STANLEY RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-6568 (RJS), (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Robert J. Patterson, Terri Lo Sasso, and Ralph A. Colo
bring this putative class action against Morgan Stanley, Morgan
Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, the
Morgan Stanley Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and a group of
unnamed John Doe defendants raising various claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Defendants argue that (1) because they did not invest in all of the
funds identified in the Complaint, Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring many of the claims they now assert (2) Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty theories are not properly alleged under Rule 8 (3)
several of Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims are untimely
(4) Plaintiffs' prohibited transaction claims are barred by the
ERISA statute of repose (5) Plaintiffs' prohibited transaction
claims fail as a matter of law and (6) Plaintiffs' duty to monitor
claim must be dismissed for want of a properly alleged underlying
violation.

LEGAL STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), the party seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction
bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction
exists. A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the
statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must accept
as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.  However, that
tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Thus, a pleading that
offers only labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.

STANDING

Defendants initially challenge Plaintiffs' standing to bring claims
relating to certain funds. Specifically, Defendants note that
Plaintiffs' challenges relate to six Morgan Stanley proprietary
funds (MS Funds) and seven BlackRock target date trusts (BlackRock
Trusts) that were included in the set of investment options
available to Plan participants. But Plaintiffs collectively
invested in just six of the thirteen challenged funds (Selected
Funds):

  Global Real Estate Fund (Patterson and Colo),
  International Equity Fund (Patterson, Colo, and Lo Sasso),
  Mid Cap Fund (Colo),
  Large Cap Fund (Colo and Lo Sasso),
  Emerging Markets Fund (Colo and Lo Sasso), and
  The BlackRock 2025 Trust (Lo Sasso).

Defendants now argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims
related to the seven funds in which they did not invest
(Non-Selected Funds).   

Defendants are correct.

Article III of the United States Constitution requires that a
plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact  that is, an invasion of
a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.

Here, Plaintiffs arguably satisfy the first prong of the NECA,
NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, 693 F.3d at 162),class standing
test in that they allege they were injured by Defendants' inclusion
of the Selected Funds in the menu of Plan options and their
investments in those funds.   Although the same cannot be said with
respect to the Non-Selected Funds, NECA's first prong seemingly
requires only that plaintiffs suffer some injury.  

Nevertheless, it is with NECA's second prong whether Defendants'
alleged conduct with regard to the Non-Selected Funds implicates
the same set of concerns as the conduct alleged in connection with
the Selected Funds  that Plaintiffs' claim falters. For example,
Plaintiffs will need to prove an entirely separate set of facts to
establish that the fees charged for the Small Cap Fund were
inappropriately high than they will to prove that the fees for the
Mid Cap Fund were improper.

Similarly, as Plaintiffs' allegations reveal, the facts underlying
Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendants improperly continued to offer
the Small Cap Fund despite its poor performance are almost entirely
distinct from the facts Plaintiffs will need in order to prove that
Defendants improperly continued to offer the Mid Cap Fund. In
short, Plaintiffs' claims will undoubtedly require a fund-by-fund
analysis for all thirteen funds identified in Plaintiffs'
Complaint.

Thus, the mere fact that Plaintiffs have brought this suit as a
putative class action is insufficient to provide them with Article
III standing to bring claims regarding the Non-Selected Funds.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit as
to the Non-Selected Funds, and that their claims regarding those
funds must therefore be dismissed.

PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA,
Plaintiffs must adequately allege that (1) Defendants were
fiduciaries of the plan who (2) while acting within their
capacities as plan fiduciaries, (3) engaged in conduct constituting
a breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty.

Defendants concede that the Complaint appropriately pleads the
first and second elements as to Counts II, IV, V, and VI. Instead,
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not properly alleged
violations of the fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA. The Court will
address each of Plaintiffs' counts in turn.

Count II - Fees Associated with the MS Funds

Plaintiffs first allege that Defendants breached their duty of
loyalty by offering the MS Funds to Plan participants and charging
higher advisory and administrative fees to the Plan than it charged
to separate account clients with similar assets and investment
strategies for performing substantially the same services. It bears
noting that Plaintiffs do not assert that Defendants breached their
duty of loyalty by simply including the proprietary MS Funds in the
set of investment options available to Plan participants.

Nor do Plaintiffs argue that Plan participants who allocated
portions of their retirement investments to the MS Funds were
charged higher fees than other, i.e., outside, investors in the MS
Funds. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that outside investors, such as
the New York State Employee Retirement System, that hired Morgan
Stanley to manage their separate accounts, the outside investors'
portfolios, often made the same investments and pursued similar
investment strategies as Morgan Stanley's mutual funds, but were
charged lower fees. Therefore, Plaintiffs' theory boils down to an
allegation that Defendants either did not (1) offer Plan
participants the opportunity to invest in separate accounts that
replicated the strategies of the MS Funds, but with reduced fees.

Under either framing, Plaintiffs' theory must be dismissed.

To the extent Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their duty
of loyalty by either charging Plan participants the same fees as
other participants in the MS Funds, or by not unilaterally reducing
the fees to equal those charged to separate account clients,
Plaintiffs' theory is likewise untenable. Nothing in ERISA requires
Morgan Stanley to unilaterally offer Plan participants a discounted
fee as to the MS Funds, or to reduce the market-based fees of the
MS Funds to equal those charged to separate account clients simply
because those funds are included in an ERISA plan.

Of course, nothing in ERISA prevents Defendants from offering a
discount for Plan participants. But when unrelated plans can invest
in a pooled account at a fee that the unrelated plans' fiduciaries
have determined is reasonable, there is a reasonable basis for
allowing the plan sponsor's own plan to make an identical
investment in the same account at the same fee. Defendants
therefore did not violate their duty of loyalty by offering Plan
participants the opportunity to invest in the MS Funds subject to
the same fees applicable to non-Plan investors.

Count II must therefore be dismissed.

Count IV - Continuing to Offer the Mid Cap Fund and Global Real
Estate Fund

Plaintiffs next assert that Defendants breached their duties of
prudence and loyalty by offering, and not removing from the menu of
Plan investment options, the Mid Cap Fund and the Global Real
Estate Fund.

Duty of Prudence

As noted above, the duty of prudence requires an ERISA fiduciary to
exercise the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the
circumstances that a prudent person acting in a like capacity would
use. Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), Plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to raise the
plausible inference that Defendants breached their duty of prudence
in view of the facts available at the time they made the challenged
decisions. Plaintiffs do not meet this threshold.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' inclusion of the Mid Cap Fund
among the Plan offerings was imprudent because (1) the Mid Cap Fund
underperformed relative to its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth
Index, on a one-, five-, and ten-year basis as measured in January
2016 (2) the Mid Cap Fund's cumulative performance over the class
period was worse than both its benchmark  (3) the Mid Cap Fund
underperformed vis-á-vis its benchmark and two alleged comparator
funds in 2011, 2012, and 2014  (4) the Mid Cap Fund had lower
ratings from Morningstar a ratings agency upon which both parties
rely than other comparable investment options and (5) the Mid Cap
Fund sustained mass redemptions in 2012 and 2014.

Even assuming these allegations are not improperly based on
hindsight, Plaintiffs' allegations of the Fund's alleged
underperformance in average annual returns as compared to certain
benchmark indices or alleged insufficient performance history do
not raise a plausible inference that a prudent fiduciary would have
found the Fund to be so plainly risky as to render the investments
in them imprudent.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that the Mid Cap Fund had an average annual
return of 7.42% compared to its benchmark, the Russell Midcap
Growth Index, which returned 8.16% over the same ten-year period.
This difference of less than one percentage point is certainly
insubstantial compared to the nine-point differential in Jacobs.
Even assuming the truth of these allegations, such a small
disparity in performance relative to its benchmark does not support
the inference that Defendants were imprudent to retain the Mid Cap
Fund in the set of Plan offerings.

Plaintiffs' duty of prudence claim based on Defendants' supposedly
improper retention of the Global Real Estate Fund in the menu of
Plan offerings is also deficient. Plaintiffs allege that the Global
Real Estate Fund (1) underperformed relative to its benchmark the
FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index on a one- and
five-year basis in the period, as measured in 2016 and (2)
performed worse than a supposed comparator fund, the Prudential
Global Real Estate Fund, throughout the class period. As with
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the Mid Cap Fund, these
allegations are impermissibly hindsight-based. Data compiled in
2016 would not have been known to the fiduciaries earlier in the
class period, and beyond that, the difference in performance the
Global Real Estate Fund's average annual return over five years was
6.59% compared to the benchmark's 7.73%  is relatively small and
certainly not enough to support a claim for breach of the duty of
prudence.

If anything, Plaintiffs' claims regarding the Global Real Estate
Fund's fees are even more sparse than their deficient assertions
about the Mid Cap Fund. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the
fund charged a 0.93% fee in 2014, but do not explain how that fee
fit into the marketplace or whether any comparable fund charged a
lower rate. Without more detail, Plaintiffs have failed to allege
that the Global Real Estate Fund was inappropriately priced or that
Defendants acted imprudently by retaining it.

Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants breached their duty of
prudence by continuing to offer the Mid Cap Fund and Global Real
Estate Fund are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiffs' duty of
prudence claim as to those funds must therefore be dismissed.

Duty of Loyalty

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants disloyally retained the
poorly-performing proprietary funds to collect fees from Plan
participants. To state a claim for breach of loyalty, a plaintiff
must allege facts that permit a plausible inference that the
defendant engaged in transactions involving self-dealing or that
otherwise involve or create a conflict between the trustee's
fiduciary duties and personal interests.

A duty of loyalty claim may lie where a plaintiff alleges that "the
defendants who were Plan fiduciaries offered proprietary index
funds that charged fees that were excessive compared with similar
investment products" and where the defendants stood to gain from
those fees. However, as described in connection with the duty of
prudence claims, Plaintiffs have not properly alleged that the fees
charged by the Mid Cap Fund or the Global Real Estate Fund were
excessive.

Here, the fee differential between the Mid Cap Fund (0.61%) and the
Vanguard Mid-Cap Fund (0.08%) is not insignificant. However, as
discussed with respect to the duty of prudence claims, Plaintiffs
have failed to properly allege that the passively-managed Vanguard
Mid-Cap Fund was in fact comparable to the actively-managed Mid Cap
Fund. And even assuming the funds were comparable, the fee
differential alone is insufficient to demonstrate disloyalty
without allegations that Defendants acted for the purpose of
providing themselves or others a benefit.  

Here, Plaintiffs offer no facts to suggest such an improper
purpose. In fact, Plaintiffs' duty of loyalty allegations largely
overlap with their failed duty of prudence claims.

Absent other evidence demonstrating some improper motivation,
Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating the
fiduciaries acted disloyally.

Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts supporting their duty of
prudence and duty of loyalty theories, Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claim in Count IV must be dismissed.

Count V - BlackRock Trusts

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of prudence and loyalty by selecting and then failing to
timely remover the BlackRock Trusts as investment options offered
to Plan participants.  

Duty of Prudence

Plaintiffs first contend that Defendants breached the duty of
prudence by offering and continuing to offer the 2025 Trust as an
investment option to Plan participants. In support of this theory,
Plaintiffs rely on factual allegations similar to those set out in
support of their Mid Cap Fund duty of prudence claim. Specifically,
Plaintiffs contend that the decision to offer and retain the 2025
Trust was imprudent, inter alia,because (1) the 2025 Trust
underperformed compared to its benchmark (S&P Target Date 2025
Index) and three allegedly comparable alternative investment
options (the Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Trust, the State
Street Target Retirement 2025 Trust NL, and the Voya Target
Solution 2025 Trust) over the class period  (2) the 2025 Trust
fared worse than the State Street Target Retirement 2025 Trust NL
in 2011, and worse than all three investment alternatives and the
benchmark in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
  
As with the prior claims, Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of
cumulative underperformance are insufficient to state a claim,
since backward-looking contentions regarding overall
underperformance are improperly grounded in hindsight. Putting
aside the fact that Plaintiffs have again failed to allege that the
2025 Trust may properly be compared to the three allegedly superior
trusts, Plaintiffs comparison of the trusts' yearly performance
numbers demonstrates only intermittent underperformance by the 2025
Trust. For instance, although Plaintiffs allege that the Vanguard
Target Retirement 2025 Trust, the State Street Target Retirement
2025 Trust NL, the Voya Target Solution 2025 Trust, and the
benchmark outperformed the 2025 Trust in some years, they concede
that the 2025 Trust beat three of the four comparators in 2011
(including beating the Voya Target Solution 2025 Trust by 2.74
percentage points in 2011), beat the benchmark in 2014, and lagged
closely behind the comparator trusts in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

In short, this mixed performance is insufficient to state a claim
that Defendants abdicated their duties by including the 2025 Trust
in the Plan.

Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that Defendants breached
their duty of prudence in connection with the decision to offer,
and to continue to offer, the 2025 Trust. Accordingly, this claim
must be dismissed.

Duty of Loyalty

Plaintiffs next argue that Defendants breached their duty of
loyalty to the Plan because their decision to offer the 2025 Trust
was motivated by a desire to foster a business relationship with
Blackrock, even though the 2025 Trust carried a higher fee (0.12%)
than the Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Trust. But Plaintiffs'
duty of loyalty claim based on the 2025 Trust suffers from the same
deficiencies that plagued its claim based on the retention of the
Mid Cap Fund and the Global Real Estate Fund.

As stated above, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the
2025 Trust's fees were excessive or even unreasonable, in part
because Plaintiffs make only conclusory allegations that the
Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Trust is a proper comparator to the
2025 Trust, but also because the disparity between the fees (0.05
percentage points) is relatively small.  

Despite their attempts to imply some quid pro quo from a common
business relationship, Plaintiffs do not actually allege any facts
to suggest that Defendants' business relationship with BlackRock
was contingent on Defendants offering BlackRock's trusts in the
Plan. In fact, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants disclosed to
Plan participants its relationship with BlackRock. Put simply, the
mere existence of a business relationship between two large
financial institutions is not enough to lift Plaintiffs' otherwise
deficient disloyalty claims above the bar set by Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570. More is needed.

Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim as to the remaining
breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the BlackRock 2025
Trust and must be dismissed.

Count VI - Duty to Monitor

As noted above, ERISA fiduciaries with the power to appoint and
remove other fiduciaries owe a duty to monitor the performance of
those appointees. Nevertheless, a duty to monitor claim cannot
survive without an underlying breach of a fiduciary duty. Thus,
because Plaintiffs have failed to allege an underlying breach, the
duty to monitor claim is dismissed.

Prohibited Transactions

In addition to imposing general fiduciary duties of prudence and
loyalty, ERISA categorically bars plan fiduciaries from engaging in
certain prohibited transactions. Specifically, Section 1106
prohibits an ERISA fiduciary from transferring plan assets to
itself or the employer whose members are covered by the plan and
from dealing with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for
his own account.

In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Section
1106 by investing Plan assets in the MS Funds and permitting the MS
Funds to deduct annual fees from the Plan assets invested in the
fund.  

Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
statute of repose set out in 29 U.S.C. Section 1113(1), which
provides that no action may be commenced more than six years after
the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach
or violation. Defendants argue that the last transaction
attributable to the Plan fiduciaries was the initial selection of
the MS Funds, which they assert occurred before 2010. The Court
need not resolve the parties' dispute at this time since the
Complaint is silent as to when the relevant breaches occurred and a
motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds may be granted
only if it is clear on the face of the complaint that the statute
of limitations has run.

Defendants may not prevail on their statute of limitations argument
at this time.

Defendants next assert that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
because the conduct at issue falls within the regulatory exception
allowing plan fiduciaries to invest in certain affiliated mutual
funds. To be entitled to protection under PTE 77-3, Defendants must
prove that four factors are met: (1) the plan must not pay any
investment management, investment advisory, or similar fee' to the
mutual fund, although the mutual fund may pay such fees to its
managers (2) the plan must not pay a redemption fee when selling
its shares (3) the plan must not pay a sales commission in
connection with the sale or acquisition of shares in the mutual
fund; and (4) all other dealings between the plan and the
affiliated fund must be on a basis no less favorable to the plan
than such dealings are with other shareholders.

Because the application of PTE 77-3 is an affirmative defense,
Plaintiffs have no obligation to plead around it. But even though
Plaintiffs are under no affirmative burden to plead that PTE 77-3
is inapplicable, a complaint must allege conduct that is plausibly
actionable under the relevant statute and must go beyond creating a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Therefore,
where an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint,
the Court may apply the defense to dismiss a claim.  

The Court therefore finds that PTE 77-3 is applicable, and Count
III must be dismissed.

According to Circuit Judge RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, contrary to
Plaintiffs' claims, ERISA does not require clairvoyance on the part
of plan fiduciaries, nor does it countenance opportunistic
Monday-morning quarter-backing on the part of lawyers and plan
participants who, with the benefit of hindsight, have zeroed in on
the underperformance of certain investment options. More is
required, and Plaintiffs come nowhere close to alleging such a case
in their Complaint. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs lack standing
as to the Non-Selected Funds, and because their Second Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim under ERISA as to the Selected
Funds, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion pending at document number 92 and to close this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 7, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2d2yuz3 from
Leagle.com.

Robert J. Patterson, Individually and as representative of a class
of similarly situated persons of the Morgan Stanley Retirement
Plan, Plaintiff, represented by David Hahn Tracey -
dtracey@sanfordheisler.com - Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, Charles
Henry Field, Jr. - cfield@sanfordheisler.com - Sanford Heisler
Sharp, LLP, David W. Sanford -dstanford@sanfordheisler.com -
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP & Kevin Sharp-
ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP.

Terri Lo Sasso, Individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons of the Morgan Stanley Retirement Plan &
Ralph Colo, Individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons of the Morgan Stanley Retirement Plan,
Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Henry Field, Jr. , Sanford
Heisler Sharp, LLP.

Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings Inc. & Morgan
Stanley Retirement Plan Investment Committee, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle  - bboyle@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine Vergow - mvergow@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Pamela Addison Miller - pmiller@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers, LLP & Shannon M. Barrett - sbarrett@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by Meaghan
McLaine Vergow , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

MOVING SOLUTIONS: Moves for Prelim. OK of $470K Accord in Rider
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Parties in the lawsuit titled Gary Middle Rider, et al. v.
Moving Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), jointly move for preliminary approval of $470,000 class
action settlement.

The Parties note that the Motion is the third motion for
preliminary approval.  The Parties hope this Motion addresses the
issues raised by the Court in rejecting the two previous
preliminary approval motions.  The Parties say they have heavily
edited the Claim Form and the Notice of Claim.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action and collective action
complaint on behalf of nonexempt movers against Defendants Moving
Solutions Inc., Managed Facilities Solutions LLC and Chartwell
Staffing Solutions, Inc.  During the class period, July 17, 2013,
through November 30, 2018, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs Gary
Middle Rider, Albert Arellano, Robert Garza, Daniel Coronado, and
Jose Don Coronado aka Dan Coronado as non-exempt corporate movers.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendant Moving failed to
pay them for all regular and overtime wages.  The Plaintiffs later
amended the complaint three times.

The Parties inform the Court that after a full day of mediation,
they agreed to settle this case for $470,000 to be paid by the
Defendants.  The Settlement Sum includes attorney's fees, costs and
expenses directly related to the case.  The Settlement
Administration costs are estimated to be $16,000.

Subject to Court approval, Class Representatives Barbara Middle
Rider, Robert Garza, Albert Arellano, and Jose Don Coronado shall
receive Service Awards of $5,000 each.  Subject to Court approval,
Class Counsel will be paid up to 25% of the gross settlement for
attorneys' fees, and an additional amount for reasonable litigation
costs not to exceed $8,500.  Class Counsel shall file the motion
for an award of attorneys' fees at least 60 days prior to the Final
Fairness and Approval Hearing so that Class Members shall have
adequate time to decide whether to object to and/or oppose the
request for attorneys' fees.

The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the
number of work weeks they worked during the class period. The net
settlement is an estimated $290,183.  If every potential claimant
returns a claim form, then a total of approximately 17,225 work
weeks will be paid.  In that case each claimant shall be paid
approximately $16.85 for every week they worked for the
Defendants.

The settlement shall be funded in two installments.  The first for
$235,000 shall be paid within 30 days after the final approval.
The second payment of $235,000 shall be paid 210 days later.  The
settlement payment shall be distributed upon receipt of the second
payment.  Any uncashed checks 180 days after the payment shall
escheat to the State of California and submitted to the State of
California unclaimed property fund in the name of the Claimant.

All Class Members will be given 45 days from the day the Notice of
Claim is sent to them to either file a claim or object to the
settlement as a whole (and to the proposed attorney's fees).  The
Defendants shall be relieved of liability for all wage and hour
causes of action related to those pled in the class, including the
FLSA claims for every class member who makes a claim.  Class
members who do not make a claim shall be deemed to have settled all
claims with the exception of their respective FLSA claims.  Only
Class Members who make a claim opting into the class shall settle
the FLSA portion of the claim.

The timing of the class procedure is as follows: 1) Within 10 days
following the preliminary approval, the Defendants will send the
Class Administrator a copy of the class list; 2) the class
administrator will send the Class Notice out by mail to the Class
members within seven days of receiving the class list; 3) the class
members will have 45 days to respond; and 4) The class
administrator will skip trace the notices returned in the mail for
valid addresses and mail a second notice to the new address and
allow an additional 10 days to respond to the second notice.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 North 1st Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 472-5645
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com

               - and -

          Victoria L. H. Booke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BOOKE & AJLOUNY, LLP
          606 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com

Defendant CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES, INC., is represented by:

          Alexander Lawrence Conti, Esq.
          CONTI LAW
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 791-8555
          E-mail: aconti@conti-law.com

Defendant MOVING SOLUTIONS is represented by:

          Richard D. Schramm, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS
          1500 E Hamilton Ave.
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone (408) 796-7551
          E-mail: rschramm@eralawyers.com

Defendant MANAGED FACILITIES LLC is represented by:

          Susan Bishop, Esq.
          BERLINER COHEN LLP
          10 Almaden Blvd., 11th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 286-5800
          E-mail: susan.bishop@berliner.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeals Court Affirms Helmet Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that an Illinois appeals court
affirmed dismissal of a suit by former NFL players seeking to hold
the manufacturers and designers of their helmets liable for failure
to warn them of the danger of concussions.

The suit is barred by a two-year statute of limitations.

A copy of the Opinion is available at:

                       https://is.gd/miUDH6


NCAA: Fouts Sues Over Disregard for Health of Student-Athletes
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Fouts and Keith Busmire, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:19-cv-04463-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks to obtain
redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendants' reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of SCU
student-athletes.

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

As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the
Plaintiffs and countless former SCU football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, says
the complaint. As such, the Plaintiffs bring this Class Action
Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the
NCAA accountable.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons and citizens 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 Greensboro.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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: Howe Sues Over Disregard for Health and Safety of Athletes
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Howe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and WHITTIER
COLLEGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-04464-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 6, 2019),
seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the
Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Whittier student-athletes.

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

As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former Whittier football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.
As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order
to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

William Howe is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Arizona.

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 Greensboro.[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: Sued by Johnson Under FLSA for Not Paying Student Athletes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph "Trey" Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
a/k/a the NCAA, and the following NCAA Dvivion I Member Schools as
representatives of a DEnfednat Class of all private and semi-public
NCAA Division I Member Schools: BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, DREXEL
UNIVERSITY, DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY, FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY, LA
SALLE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, MONMOUTH
UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, RIDER UNIVERSITY, ROBERT MORRIS
UNIVERSITY, SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY, SAINT
JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY, SAINT PETER'S UNIVERSITY, VILANOVA UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, RUTGERS, STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, and TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:19-cv-05230-JP (E.D. Pa., Nov. 6, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Under the NCAA rules, NCAA Division I member schools treat Student
Athletes like students employed in Work Study programs, requiring
both adult supervisors to main timesheets for both. NCAA D1 member
schools just do not pay Student Athletes the same as students
employed in Work Study. Notably, student ticket takers, seating
attendants and food concession workers at NCAA contest are paid on
a minimum wages scale averaging $10.52 to $13.36 per hours under
Work Study.

At the same time, the Student Athletes, whose athletic work creates
those Work Study jobs are paid nothing, the Plaintiff contends.
This Complaint merely recognizes that the NCAA athletic experience,
by comparison to Work Study, constitute work for which Student
Athletes deserve to be paid under federal and state laws that
overrule the NCAA's self-defined amateurism, says the complaint.

Ralph "Trey" Johnson formerly played professional football for
Pittsburg Steeler and Denver Broncos, and collegiate football at
Villanova University.

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 Greensboro.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
          P L MCDONALD LAW LLC
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 238-3835
          Fax: (267) 238-3801
          Email: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
          Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
          Renan F. Varghese, Esq.
          WIGDOR LPP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 257-6800
          Fax: (212) 257-6845
          Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
                 mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
                 rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Certifies Class in Carlson ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as ALAN CARLSON and PETER DELUCA, Plaintiffs, v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and NORTHROP GRUMMAN SEVERANCE PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02635 (N.D Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Carlson and DeLuca sued Defendants Northrop Grumman
Corp. and Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, challenging the
Defendants' failure to pay cash severance benefits to the
Plaintiffs and a putative class of similarly-situated former
employees pursuant to the Defendants' ERISA-governed severance
plan.  The crux of the dispute between the parties at this stage of
the proceedings is whether the case should proceed as a class
action.

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

On behalf of the Proposed Class, the Plaintiffs seek to litigate
claims for benefits due and clarification of rights under the Plan
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I), for
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1140 due to interference with the
Plan participants' rights (Count II), and for equitable reformation
of the Plan under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) as a remedy for
Northrop Grumman's breach of fiduciary duties (Count III).  The
Plaintiffs also seek to be appointed as the class representatives,
and to have appointed as the co-lead class counsel Michael Bartolic
of Roberts Bartolic, LLP and R. Joseph Barton of Block and Leviton
LLP.

Judge Wood granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Count I will proceed as a class
action but with the Amended Class definition proposed by the Court.
The Plaintiffs may proceed as the class representatives; Michael
Bartolic of Roberts Bartolic, LLP and R. Joseph Barton of Block and
Leviton LLP are appointed as co-lead class counsel.

The Defendants argue that the commonality requirement is not met
because the Proposed Class definition encompasses persons who did
not receive cash benefits for reasons other than not receiving the
Memo -- such as not returning a separation agreement or being laid
off and then rehired quickly.

Judge Wood holds that the concern may be addressed by amending the
class definition to read, in pertinent part:  All persons who
worked for Northrop Grumman in the United States, were regularly
scheduled to work over 20 hours per week, were laid off from
Northrop Grumman from Jan. 1, 2012 and after, and who did not
receive the Cash Portion of the severance benefits (also known as
the Salary Continuation Benefits) under the terms of the Plan
(regardless of whether they received Medical, Dental or Vision
Benefits under the Plan), because they did not receive written
notification from management or from a Vice President of Human
Resources (or his/her designee) notifying them of their eligibility
for severance benefits under the Plan, as well as the beneficiaries
of such persons.

Judge Wood denied the motion is denied as to Counts II and III.
However, the denial is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing a
renewed motion for class certification to address the concerns
regarding class treatment of Counts II and III discussed in the
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

As to Count II, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' have not
established that their claims are typical of the Proposed Class.
Their claim reveals that it does not arise from the same practice
as for all other members of the Proposed Class.  The Plaintiffs
allege that Northrop discriminated against them and interfered with
their rights by not delivering the Memo because they qualified for
a high number of weeks of severance pay under the Plan.  But the
Proposed Class is not limited only to individuals with potentially
high severance pay -- some Proposed Class members may have been
denied the Memo for other reasons.

As to Count III, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not met
their burden of satisfying the typicality requirement, as
Northrop's conduct with respect to the Plaintiffs might have been
different than its conduct towards other Proposed Class members.
While the parties do not address the issue in their briefs, it is
apparent that the Plaintiffs' claims would likely differ from those
of Proposed Class members who did not work for Northrop at the time
of the alleged change in the administration of the Plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/VSPnMC from
Leagle.com.

Alan K Carlson & Peter DeLuca, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
Bartolic -- mbartolic@michaelbartolic.com -- The Law Offices of
Michael Bartolic, LLC, Rebecca Kay Bryant, The Law Offices Of
Michael Bartolic, Robert Joseph Barton -- jbarton@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP & Vincent Cheng, Block & Leviton LLP.

Northrop Grumman Severance Plan & Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Nancy G. Ross -- nross@mayerbrown.com --
Mayer Brown LLP & Sam P Myler -- smyler@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP.


OLD NAVY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Navy, LLC. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Old Navy, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10165 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Old Navy is an American clothing and accessories retailing company
owned by American multinational corporation Gap Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


PARETEUM CORP: Faces O'Brien Securities Suit Over False Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN O'BRIEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PARETEUM CORPORATION, VICTOR BOZZO, EDWARD
O'DONNELL, and DENIS MCCARTHY, Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-09767
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), seeks to pursue claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Pareteum securities between
March 12, 2019, and October 21, 2019, inclusive.

On June 7, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
questioning the Company's accounting regarding backlog, backlog
conversion rates, and receivables. On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $0.83, or over 24%, to close at $2.58 per share on
June 7, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On June 25, 2019, Viceroy Research Group published a report that
alleged further accounting discrepancies related to several sources
of "uncollectable" revenue, concluding that "total revenue is
overstated by 42%." On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$0.51, or over 20%, to close at $2.00 per share on June 26, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 15, 2019, the Company announced that Chief Operating
Officer Denis McCarthy was leaving the Company. McCarthy had
maintained the Company's 36-month contractual revenue backlog
spreadsheets and analysis that were scrutinized by the Aurelius
Value and Viceroy reports. On this news, the Company's stock price
fell $0.36, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at
$0.83 per share on October 17, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

On October 21, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that certain revenues recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not
have been recorded during that period and that, as a result, the
Company would restate their previously issued consolidated
financial statements as of and for the full year ended December 31,
2018, and interim periods ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.4401, or nearly
60%, to close at $0.2992 on October 22, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

   -- that the Company's backlog had been artificially inflated;

   -- that the Company was not likely to collect from several of
      its key customers;

   -- that, as a result, the Company's accounts receivable was
      overstated;

   -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue from certain
      customer transactions;

   -- that there was a material weakness in Pareteum's internal
      control over financial reporting related to the Company's
      backlog;

   -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
      reasonably likely to restate financial statements for
      several periods; and

   -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants'
      positive statements about the Company's business,
      operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
      and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the 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, the lawsuit says.

Pareteum is a cloud communication company. Its platforms connect
mobile networks using multiple communications channels including
mobile telephony, data, SMS, VOIP, and OTT services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 0169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com


PETER THOMAS: Miller Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned KARI MILLER and SAMANTHA
PAULSON, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH
DESIGNS LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH GLOBAL, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH LABS
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00698-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seek certification of
two classes:

   1. Water Drench Class:

      All purchasers of the Water Drench Products in the state of
      California since December 28, 2014; and

   2. Rose Stem Cell Class:

      All purchasers of the Rose Stem Cell Products in the state
      of California since December 28, 2014.

The Classes will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the Classes to pursue
claims for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint (1) Plaintiffs
Kari Miller and Samantha Paulson as class representatives, and (2)
Gutride Safier LLP as class counsel.  The Plaintiffs finally ask
the Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present the
Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a
proposed notice to the certified Rule 23(c) Classes.

The case concerns two false claims made on the Peter Thomas Roth
brand of cosmetics: that its Water Drench line of products
moisturize with hyaluronic acid, which "absorb[s] up to 1000 times
its weight in water from moisture in the atmosphere" and that its
Rose Stem Cell line of products have "cutting-edge biotechnology"
that leads to "bio-repair" of damaged skin.  The Plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the Defendants from continuing to make these claims.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 19, 2019, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com


PHILADELPHIA CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Double-Billing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in the Court
of Common Pleas claims the Philadelphia Credit Union double-bills
insufficient funds fees at $28 a pop.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                      https://is.gd/3QHQR1



PIZZA HUT: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pizza Hut of America,
LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all
others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pizza Hut of
America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10175 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2019).

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

Pizza Hut is an American restaurant chain and international
franchise which was founded in 1958 in Wichita, Kansas by Dan and
Frank Carney.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Insurance Cos. Reach Deal Over Terang Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thomson, writing for The Standard, reports that terms of
settlement have been agreed between the majority of St Patrick's
Day Terang/Cobden bushfire victims and Powercor.

Most victims opted out of being involved in a Supreme Court class
action run by Warrnambool's Maddens Lawyers and joined the
unprecedented no-cost offer from an alliance of insurance
companies.

The insurance companies have now settled the recovery action on
confidential terms.

A spokesman for global insurance giant IAG said: "I am pleased to
confirm that we have entered into terms of settlement with Powercor
on behalf of our clients, the victims of the Terang bushfire.

"However, the terms of the settlement must remain confidential
pending the outcome of the Maddens' class action," he said.

Maddens has not settled and the class action trial is scheduled to
start in the Supreme Court at Warrnambool 10.30am on October 21.

Maddens Lawyers class action principal Kathryn Emeny encouraged
everyone participating in the class action to attend on October
21.

"Day one of the hearing will commence with the plaintiff's opening
submissions which will summarise the plaintiff's case and the
evidence that will be given by various witnesses throughout the
trial," she said.

"It is expected that up to 20 witnesses will be called to give
evidence over the next three to four weeks.

"The commencement of this trial is an important day for the victims
of the Terang bushfire. The Judge will be required to determine
whether Powercor was negligent in maintaining its electrical
assets.

"If the judge rules in favour of the plaintiff, victims will be
entitled to compensation for their extensive losses and the
suffering that they endured on that catastrophic day in March
2018."

The majority of victims left both the Terang/Cobden and The
Sisters/Garvoc class actions after the no-cost offer from insurance
companies.

Those left in the class actions run by Maddens will have to foot
the firm's legal bills if the actions are successful.

A spokesman for insurer IAG previously said: "A very high
proportion of our customers impacted by the Terang and Garvoc
bushfires fires have chosen to opt out of the Maddens' class
actions.

"That is not surprising given that we have agreed to pursue
recovery of our customers' uninsured losses without seeking any
contribution to our legal costs.

"This has proven to be very attractive to our customers who were
concerned about shouldering the substantial legal costs being
incurred in the Maddens' class actions."

Member for Polwarth Richard Riordan said the insurance companies'
no cost offer to victims of The Sisters/Garvoc and the
Terang/Cobden bushfires was exceptional.

"The insurance companies have made a commercial decision. They have
assessed their chances of success in those fires as being very,
very good," he said.

There were four main fires in the south-west on St Patrick's Day
last year--Terang/Cobden, The Sisters/Garvoc, Camperdown and
Gazette bushfires.

Maddens initiated class actions in all four bushfires against
Powercor.

In February this year, a Supreme Court judge dismissed the Gazette
class action claim as "fanciful", which is likely to leave the lead
plaintiff liable for Powercor's legal costs--expected to be about
$250,000.

The Gazette bushfire was caused by a eucalypt tree falling on to a
powerline that ran through a blue gum plantation, sparking the
ignition of nearby vegetation.

The cause of the fire was admitted by Powercor.

Justice John Dixon found: "The proposition that Powercor created,
or aggravated, the risk of bushfire on St Patrick's Day in the
pleaded circumstances--that is, by failing to clear healthy blue
gums in a plantation--is fanciful.

"The claim in nuisance that is articulated by (plaintiff) Block is
not coherent with the responsibilities and obligations created by
the statutory scheme," he found.

Maddens Lawyers and Tim Tobin, QC, ran the class action and will
not be paid for their professional services.

The issue of Powercor's costs have been adjourned until a further
hearing, but it is expected that those costs will have to be paid
by the Gazette class action lead plaintiffs Nicholas and Georgina
Block.

Mr. Block has previously declined to comment when contacted by The
Standard.

The class action involving the Camperdown/Gnotuk bushfire was also
discontinued in July with members understood to have walked away
from the litigation seen as having little prospect of success. [GN]

PRESSLER FELT: Colon Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP. The case is styled as Jasmin Colon individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pressler,
Felt & Warshaw, LLP formerly known as: Pressler & Pressler, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10174 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP is a debt collection law firm in the
tri-state area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RALPH LAUREN: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph Lauren
Corporation. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Ralph Lauren Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10198
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

Ralph Lauren Corporation is an American fashion company producing
products ranging from the mid-range to the luxury segments. They
are known for the clothing, marketing and distribution of products
in four categories: apparel, home, accessories, and
fragrances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com



RCS CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCS Capital Partners,
Inc. The case is styled as Amy R. Bryan individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCS Capital
Partners, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00585-FDW-DCK
(W.D.N.C., Nov. 1, 2019).

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

RCS Capital, Inc. is a full service provider of receivable
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
          Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
          631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
          Mooresville, NC 28117
          Phone: (704) 997-9529
          Fax: (704) 230-0413
          Email: arthur@lawahp.com


RHODE ISLAND: Class of Offenders Certified in Chapdelaine Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel in the lawsuit entitled THEODORE
CHAPDELAINE, FREDERICK KENNEY, and RICHARD MOREAU v. PETER NERONHA,
in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Rhode
Island, and PATRICIA A. COYNE FAGUE, in her official capacity as
Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Case No.
1:15-cv-00450-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.).

The certified class is defined as:

     All persons currently residing in, and those who may in the
     future relocate to, the State of Rhode Island who were or
     are convicted of offenses that require registration under
     the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification
     Act of the State of Rhode Island, chapter 11-37.1 of the
     General Laws of the State of Rhode Island, and have been, or
     will be, assigned to "tier" or "level" 3 and are therefore
     subject to the Residency Prohibition and the 2020 Residency
     Prohibition contained in Section 11-37.1-10(d).  Excluded
     from the class are any persons as to whom a criminal charge
     or indictment for alleged violation of the Residency
     Prohibition is pending.

The Court designates the individual Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, and appoints Lynette J. Labinger, Esq., and John
E. MacDonald, Esq., as Class Counsel for the Plaintiff Class.[CC]


SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Two Classes Certified in Pontones Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LAURA PONTONES v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT
INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00219-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
James C. Dever III grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
class certification and court-authorized notice concerning the
Plaintiff's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
conditional class certification concerning her claim under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Judge Dever also ruled that the parties shall meet and confer
concerning future proceedings, the contents of the proposed notice,
and submit a proposed schedule no later than December 6, 2019.  The
parties also shall participate in a court-hosted settlement
conference with United States Magistrate Judge Gates.

On May 17, 2018, Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated plaintiffs, filed a complaint against a group of allegedly
related Mexican restaurants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.  She is a
former server and sues for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation.  On June 11, 2018, she amended her complaint.

On April 26, 2019, Ms. Pontones moved for conditional class
certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  She sought to bring a collective
action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for:

     All current and/or former servers of Defendants whose
     primary duty is/was non-exempt work, who were not paid
     minimum wage and/or overtime, and who are/were subjected to
     deductions of a fixed percentage of all credit and cash
     purchases made by Defendants' customers, ... within the
     three (3) year period prior to joining this lawsuit under 29
     U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Ms. Pontones also sought certification of a class action under Rule
23 on behalf of this proposed class:

     All current and/or former employees of Defendants in North
     Carolina whose primary duty is/was non-exempt work, who
     are/were not paid for all of their hours worked; including
     promised regular and/or overtime wages, and who are/were
     subjected to unlawful deductions of a fixed percentage of
     all credit and cash purchases made by Defendants' customers,
     at any time within the two (2) year period prior to the
     filing of this lawsuit.[CC]


SECURITY BENEFIT: Rosen Sues over Fraudulent Sale of Annuities
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD ROSEN, a California resident, TERRI L. STAUFFER-SCHMIDT, an
Arizona resident, MICHAEL A. WEBBER, an Illinois resident,
individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Kansas corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-08889 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2019), alleges that Security
Benefit is engaged in a fraudulent scheme that included the
development and marketing of a series of misleading and deceptive
annuity products purporting to provide above-market returns through
purported "uncapped" 100% participation in the gains in certain
"proprietary" indices artificially engineered specifically for use
in these new annuity products (the "Synthetic Indices").

In furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, Security Benefit sold its
"Secure Income Annuity" and "Total Value Annuity" products to
Plaintiffs and thousands of other consumers, offering them the
purported ability to earn favorable positive returns by allocating
some or all of their account values to the Synthetic Indices that
supposedly tracked the performance in certain equity or commodity
markets: specifically, the so-called "Morgan Stanley Dynamic
Allocation Index Account" (the "MSDA Index") for the Secure Income
Annuity, and the so-called "Annuity Linked TV Index" (the "ALTV
Index") for the Total Value Annuity.

Through this scheme, Security Benefit wrongfully induced Plaintiffs
and thousands of similarly situated California and Illinois
residents to purchase the Secure Income and Total Value Annuities
through materially false and misleading representations and
half-truths, in contravention of the California Unfair Competition
Law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

In August of 2010, Guggenheim Partners LLC acquired Security
Benefit, rescuing the failing insurance company from the brink of
insolvency. Soon thereafter, with the active assistance of an
independent marketing organization known as Advisors Excel,
Security Benefit devised and implemented a fraudulent scheme to
exploit the market for equity-indexed deferred annuities (EIAs).

EIAs have traditionally featured annual account value credits
linked to well-known, third-party stock indices such as the
Standard & Poor's 500 or the Russell 1000.

Security Benefit is a Kansas-based insurance company that has been
in business for more than 127 years.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          600 West Broadway, #900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4292
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
                  afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Ingrid M. Evans,Esq.
          EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
          3053 Fillmore Street #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          E-mail: Ingrid@evanslaw.com

               - and -

          F. Edie Mermelstein, Esq
          FEM LAW GROUP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Twelfth Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (213) 986-4300
          E-mail: edie@femlawyers.com

SEMGROUP CORP.: Walpole Says Registration Statement Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WALPOLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEMGROUP CORPORATION, CARLIN G.
CONNER, RONALD A. BALLSCHMIEDE, SARAH M. BARPOULIS, KARL F. KURZ,
JAMES H. LYTAL, WILLIAM J. MCADAM, THOMAS R. MCDANIEL, NAUTILUS
MERGER SUB LLC, and ENERGY TRANSFER LP, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01957-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to
Energy Transfer LP through its wholly-owned subsidiary Nautilus
Merger Sub LLC.

The lawsuit says the Defendants violated the the Exchange Act by
causing a materially incomplete and misleading registration
statement to be filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 3, 2019. The S-4 recommends that
SemGroup stockholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction
whereby SemGroup is acquired by Energy Transfer.

The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on September 16, 2019,
when SemGroup and Energy Transfer announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
SemGroup stockholders will receive $6.80 and 0.7275 common units of
Energy Transfer for each share of SemGroup that they hold. The deal
is valued at approximately $5.1 billion and is expected to close in
late 2019 or early 2020.

The S-4 is materially incomplete and contains misleading
representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the S-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
sales process, financial projections prepared by SemGroup
management, and the financial analyses conducted by Jefferies LLC,
SemGroup's financial advisor.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction, including filing an amendment
to the S-4 with the SEC or otherwise causing an amendment to the
S-4 to be disseminated to SemGroup's stockholders, unless and until
the material information is included in any such amendment or
otherwise disseminated to SemGroup's stockholders.

In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without the
material omissions referenced below being remedied, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations,
the lawsuit says.

SemGroup transports oil, natural gas and other products across
North America through a network of pipelines, processing plants,
refinery-connected storage facilities and deep-water marine
terminals. The company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol 'SEMG' in 2010.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

SEVEN FOR ALL: Matzura Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seven for All
Mankind, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seven for
All Mankind, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10141 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
31, 2019).

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

7 For All Mankind is an American denim brand founded by Michael
Glasser, Peter Koral, and Jerome Dahan in 2000 and headquartered in
Vernon, California. It was purchased by the VF Corporation in 2007
and sold to Delta Galil Industries in 2016. 7 for All Mankind began
by designing women's jeans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SLIDE FIRE: Deadline to Reply in Prescott Suit Deferred
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEVON PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated; BROOKE FREEMAN, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SLIDE FIRE
SOLUTIONS, LP, a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURERS 1-100,
inclusive; and ROE RETAILERS 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00296-GMN-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered an order
deferring the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC").

The Plaintiffs filed their FAC on Oct. 8, 2018.  The Court granted
a Stipulation and Order to Extend and Set Briefing Schedule
Regarding Defendant Slide Fire Solutions, L.P.'s Response to
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint ("MTD") on Oct.
19, 2018.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class
Action Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on Nov. 2, 2018.  The
Court, on Sept. 26, 2019, entered a ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss, where it: (a) dismissed four claims of the FAC with
prejudice; (b) dismissed six claims of the FAC without prejudice,
with leave to amend; and (c) sustained one claim of the FAC.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), the Defendants' responsive
pleading to the sole remaining claim of the FAC was due on Oct. 10,
2019.  Pursuant to the MTD Order, the Plaintiffs were granted
through Oct. 17, 2019 to file a Second Amended Complaint to address
those claims of the FAC which were dismissed without prejudice and
with leave to amend.

Insofar as the deadline for the Defendants to respond to the sole
remaining claim of the FAC precedes the deadline for the Plaintiffs
to file a Second Amended Complaint, and further insofar as the
counsel for the Plaintiffs has indicated that the Plaintiffs intend
to file a Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 17, 2019, the counsel
agree to the following:

     a. The deadline for Defendants to file a responsive pleading
        to the FAC, if any, will be extended by and through
        Nov. 1, 2019.

     b. If the Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint on
        Oct. 17, 2019 as permitted in the MTD Order, the
        Defendants will not be required to file a responsive
        pleading to the FAC; and

     c. If the Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint on
        Oct. 17, 2019 as permitted in the MTD Order, the
        Defendants will file a responsive pleading or motion
        to the Second Amended Complaint on Nov. 8, 2019.

It is the second extension requested in connection with submission
of a responsive pleading to the FAC.  The purpose of requesting the
extension is due to the overlapping deadlines set under the MTD
Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4)(A).  An extension of time and
possible vacating of the deadline for the Defendants to respond to
the FAC, based on the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, will
conserve judicial and client resources and tailor focused pleadings
to the operative pleading that is ultimately presented to the Court
for adjudication.

For these reasons, the parties respectfully requested, and
Magistrate Judge Weksler approved, the stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ty6LvC from Leagle.com.

Devon Prescott & Brooke Freeman, Plaintiffs, represented by Erica
D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, Jonathan Lowy, pro hac vice, Robert M.
Adams, Eglet Prince, Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince, Aaron D. Ford,
Nevada Attorney General, Cassandra Cummings, Eglet Adams & Richard
Hy .

Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Defendant, represented by Danny C. Lallis
-- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch, F. Thomas Edwards
-- Tedwards@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey &
Thompson, James D. Boyle -- Jboyle@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs
Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson & Jeffrey Martin Malsch --
jmalsch@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch PC, pro hac vice.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Interested Party,
represented by Matthew Joseph Christian, c/o Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police DepartmentRisk Management.

Larry Bertsch, Special Administrator for the Estate of Stephen
Paddock, Interested Party, represented by Lisa A. Rasmussen, Law
Office of Lisa Rasmussen.


SONY ELECTRONICS: Allison Sues over Creator Program's Gender Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICH ALLISON on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SONY ELECTRONICS INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00052970-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges
that Defendants deny African-American women, Latinas,
Asian-American women, lesbians, transgender women, elderly women,
disabled women, and all women the ability to bid on and enter into
contracts with the multinational conglomerate solely because of the
prospective bidders and contractors' gender.

Sony's women-only Alpha Female Creator In Residence Program
violated California's strong public policy to eradicate sex
discrimination that is reflected in the many California statutes
that prohibit businesses from treating people unequally based on
their sex and sexual orientation. Sony's Female Creator In
Residence Program violated California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5,
and 52, which prohibit California businesses and individuals from
treating unequally, boycotting, blacklisting, refusing to contract
with, and discriminating against persons based on their sex.

As a result of Sony's unequal treatment of Californians based on
their sex, Sony denied male and non-binary photographers,
videographers, and filmmakers the full equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services they are entitled
to under Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, the lawsuit says.

Sony Electronics Inc. provides audio-visual products. The Company
offers a wide range of products such as televisions, digital
cameras, camcorders, personal stereo, flash media products, home
audio and video, digital photo frames, portable audio, and mobile
entertainment products.[BN]

Attorney for Rich Allison and the Putative Class are:

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: 619-238-1993
          Facsimile: 619-374-7288
          E-mail: alrava@cox.net

STALLION OILFIELD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Felts Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Felts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated persons v. STALLION OILFIELD SERVICES LTD., a Texas
corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-03153 (D. Colo., Nov. 6, 2019), seeks
to recover damages and backpay to compensate all current and
employees of the Defendant for its violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant violated the FLSA and analogous state laws by failing
to compensate employees at "time and one-half" their regular rate
of pay for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was required
more than 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff was not compensated
at the mandated time and one-half rate for all of his overtime
hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Stallion and a resident of
the State of Idaho.

Stallion is an oilfield service company headquartered in Denver,
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GONZALEZ, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Phone: (970) 214-0562
          Email: BGonzalez@ColoradoWageLaw.com


STATION CASINOS: Fails to Pay Faulstick Under WARN Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Faulstick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STATION CASINOS d/b/a and a/k/a KAOS DAYCLUB AND
NIGHTCLUB; RED ROCK RESORTS, INC. d/b/a and a/k/a KAOS DAYCLUB AND
NIGHTCLUB; EMPLOYEES/AGENTS DOES 1-10; AND ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01950-JAD-NJK (D. Nev., Nov. 6, 2019),
is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act for the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and give her
the required 60-day notice under the WARN Act.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class were given notice for the
very first time on Novembers 5, 2019, that the "KAOS Dayclub and
Nightclub" would be closing and that, therefore, "all KAOS
positions will be eliminated within the next 60 days." In such
November 5, 2019 letter, the Defendants offered the Plaintiff a
"choice" to either "not continue employment and elect to have their
position eliminated as of November 8, 2019" or "continue to work on
an on-call basis." At no time were the Plaintiff and Class members
given lawful notice of the closing of KAOS Dayclub and Nightclub
and/or termination of their employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a cocktail server for the Defendants' "KAOS
Dayclub and Nightclub" located within the Defendants' "Palms Casino
Resort."

The Defendants operated, managed, and/or owned a casino and hotel
using the name "Palms Casino Resort," located in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Gabroy, Esq.
          Kaine Messer, Esq.
          GABROY LAW OFFICES
          170 S. Green Valley Pkwy.
          Henderson, NV 89012
          Phone: (702) 259-7777
          Fax: (702) 259-7704
          Email: christian@gabroy.com
                 kmesser@gabroy.com


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY:  Legette Action Consolidated With Butler Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERRANCE LEGETTE, EUGENE BUTLER, DELMUS
LAMONT THOMAS, JOEL ALMANZAR, ANTOINE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. SUFFOLK
COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-4622(JS)(GRB), (E.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York rules that Legette's
application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the Clerk
of the Court is directed to CONSOLIDATE this matter with Butler, et
al. v. DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602; to mail a copy of this
Order, the Order of Consolidation, and the Consolidated Amended
Complaint to Plaintiffs at their last known address; and to mark
this case CLOSED.

Incarcerated pro se plaintiffs Legette, Smith, and Almanzar filed
this Complaint in the Court together with an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. Upon review of the declaration of Legette in
support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
finds that Legette is qualified by his financial status to commence
this action without prepayment of the filing fee.  

Pursuant to the Court's January 23, 2012 Order of Consolidation in
Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB)
(Consolidated Action), the Court has reviewed the instant Complaint
and finds that it relates to the subject matter of the Consolidated
Action.

Thus, this action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated
Action. This affects Plaintiffs in the following ways:

1. Plaintiffs in this action shall become members of the certified
classes in Butler (11-CV-2602)
2. Any claims in the instant Complaint that are not included in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint in Butler shall be severed; and

3. Plaintiffs, as members of the class, shall be represented by
pro bono counsel, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

If Plaintiffs do not wish to proceed as members of the Consolidated
Action, they must so indicate in a letter to the Court within
thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this Order. Upon receipt of
such a letter, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
sever this Complaint from the Consolidated Amended Complaint and
reopen and reinstate the individual pro se action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 7, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy6vqmb4 from Leagle.com.

Terrance Legette, Eugene Butler, Delmus Lamont Thomas, Joel
Almanzar, and Antoine Smith, Plaintiffs, appear pro se.

SUNCOR ENERGY: Bid to Stay Remand Order Pending Appeal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado issued an Order denying
Defendants' Motion for a Stay of the Remand Order Pending Appeal in
the case captioned BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY; and CITY OF
BOULDER, Plaintiffs, v. SUNCOR ENERGY (U.S.A.) INC.; SUNCOR ENERGY
SALES INC.; SUNCOR ENERGY INC.; and EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-01672-WJM-SKC, (D. Colo.).

This matter came before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a Stay
of the Remand Order Pending Appeal filed September 13, 2019. The
Defendants seek to stay this Court's Order of September 5, 2019
that granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and ordered that the case
be remanded to Boulder County District Court, Colorado.

Plaintiffs filed suit in Boulder County asserting state law claims
of public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and civil
conspiracy. The claims arise from Plaintiffs' contention that they
face substantial and rising costs to protect people and property
within their jurisdictions from the dangers of climate alteration.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants substantially contributed to
climate alteration through selling fossil fuels and promoting their
unchecked use while concealing and misrepresenting their dangers.

The Jurisdictional Grounds Subject to Appellate Review

Generally speaking, federal courts of appeals may not review
district court remand orders. This is mandated by 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(d), which states that an order remanding a case to the State
court from which is was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise. Section 1447(d) generally prohibits appellate review of
remand orders based on a district court's lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, as here.  

Based on the foregoing, appellate review would be foreclosed as to
almost every basis under which Defendants relied in their Notice of
Removal based on the Court's finding of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Section 1447(d) does, however, contain exceptions to
the bar of appellate review for claims brought under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1442 and 1443.

Here, since Defendants asserted federal officer jurisdiction under
Section 1442, an appeal of the remand order is appropriate on that
ground. Defendants argue that since an appeal is appropriate as to
federal officer jurisdiction, the United States Court of Appeals of
the Tenth Circuit may review the entire order and all grounds for
removal addressed there. Plaintiffs argue, on the other hand, that
the remaining grounds for removal other than federal officer
jurisdiction are plainly unreviewable pursuant to Section 1447(d).

Whether a Stay of the Remand Order is Appropriate.

A court must consider four factors in determining whether a stay is
warranted under the standard test: (1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits (2) whether the applicable will be irreparably injured
absent a stay (3) whether issuance of the say will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding and (4) where
the public risk lies.

The first two factors are the most critical.  

Defendants argue that in cases where the appealing party
demonstrates that the three harm factors tip decidedly in its
factor, it need only show that the appeal will raise issues so
serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue
ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate
investigation.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Court turns to the first factor whether Defendants have made a
strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. To satisfy
this standard it is not enough that the chance of success on the
merits be better than negligible. The Court finds that Defendants
have not made such a showing as to federal officer jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442.

While Defendants argue that this case raises complex and novel
questions regarding jurisdiction that have divided multiple
district court, this is not true as to the issue of federal officer
removal jurisdiction. Defendants have cited no case that has
accepted this argument in the context of climate change claims
against companies, such as Defendants, that market and sell fossil
fuels.  

It is a closer question as to whether Defendants have demonstrated
a likelihood of success if the Tenth Circuit were to review the
other bases for federal jurisdiction, particularly in regard to the
issue of whether Plaintiffs' claims arise under federal common law.
This is the one jurisdictional ground that federal district courts
are divided on, with two courts finding that jurisdiction exists on
this basis and three courts finding that jurisdiction does not.  

Given this split of authority, Defendants may have shown that this
issue is so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to
make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate
investigation. However, the Court finds that Defendants have not
shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits on this issue,
which is the applicable test. Defendants also do not make any
meaningful showing that there is federal question jurisdiction or
on any of the other grounds upon which they assert federal
jurisdiction, and no cases have found jurisdiction under such
arguments.

Irreparable Injury

To constitute irreparable harm, an injury must be certain, great,
actual and not theoretical. Irreparable harm is not harm that is
merely serious or substantial.

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish this
element. Defendants first argue that they will suffer irreparable
harm if a stay is not granted because they will be forced to
litigate this same case before the Tenth Circuit and in Colorado
state court, and could face burdensome discovery in state court.
The Court rejects this argument. The Supreme Court has made clear
that injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and
energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not
enough to show irreparable harm.  

Defendants also argue that state court proceedings could be
potentially duplicative, mooted or otherwise wasteful if the Tenth
Circuit rules in their favor. Similarly, they assert that the
appeal could become moot if the state court enters judgment before
the appeal is resolved, meaning that they would lose their appeal
rights. Again, these arguments are simply too speculative to rise
to the level of irreparable injury.

Similarly, Defendants' argument that discovery could be unduly
burdensome in state court is speculative. Moreover, Defendants
would be subject to similar discovery if they were proceeding in
federal court, and the interim proceedings in state court may well
advance the resolution of the case in federal court.

Nor would state court rulings present issues of comity. It is not
unusual for cases to be removed after substantial state litigation.


Whether Plaintiffs Would Be Substantially Injured if a Stay is
Entered and the Public Risk
The last two factors merge and are considered together when the
party opposing a stay is a governmental body, as here.  Defendants
argue that a stay will not permanently deprive Plaintiffs of access
to state court, it will only delay the vindication of their claim.
They also argue that the Complaint demonstrates the lack of harm,
as a substantial portion of the damages Plaintiffs seek stems from
purported costs that they have not yet incurred and may not incur
for decades. Defendants assert that this does not counsel against a
stay. Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs would actually be
served by granting a stay, because they would not incur additional
expenses from simultaneous litigation before a definitive ruling on
appeal is issued.

The Court disagrees, finding that the last two factors also weigh
against a stay. As the District of Maryland found in the Baltimore
case, this case is in its earliest stages and a stay pending appeal
would further delay litigation on the merits of the claims.
Plaintiffs' claims in this case were filed over a year ago. The
Court agrees with Baltimore's finding that this favors denial of a
stay, particularly given the seriousness of the Plaintiffs'
allegations and the amount of damages at stake.

Judge MARTINEZ held that Defendants have not shown a likelihood of
success or irreparable injury, or that the other factors weigh in
favor of a stay. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Stay of Remand
Pending Appeal filed September 13, 2019 is DENIED; and the Clerk
shall REMAND this case to Boulder County District Court, and shall
terminate this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 7, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2lxsmgc from Leagle.com.

Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Board of County
Commissioners of San Miguel County & City of Boulder, Plaintiffs,
represented by David G. Bookbinder , Niskanen Center, 820 First
Street, NE, Suite 675, Washington, D.C. 20002, Kevin Scott Hannon ,
Hannon Law Firm, LLC, 1641 Downing St., Denver, CO, 80218-1528,
Marco B. Simons - marco@earthrights.org - EarthRights
International, Michelle C. Harrison - michelle@earthrights.org -
EarthRights International & Richard Lawrence Herz , EarthRights
International, 41 Crossroads Plz Ste 240, West Hartford, CT
06117-2402

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc. & Suncor
Energy Inc., Defendants, represented by Hugh Q. Gottschalk  -
gottschalk@wtotrial.com - Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Evan
Bennett Stephenson - stephenson@wtotrial.com - Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Colin G. Harris
- colin.harris@FaegreBD.com - Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Theodore V.
Wells, Jr.- twells@paulweiss.com - Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, LLP, Daniel J. Toal – dtoal@paulweiss.com - Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Evan Bennett Stephenson -
stephenson@wtotrial.com - Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Jaren
Janghorbani - jjanghorbani@paulweiss.com - Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Kannon K. Shanmugam -
kshanmugam@paulweiss.com - Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP & Nora Ahmed - nahmed@paulweiss.com - Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison, LLP.

SWEETGREEN INC: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweetgreen, Inc. The
case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sweetgreen, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06170 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019).

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

Sweetgreen is an American fast casual restaurant chain that serves
salads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TAXI TOURS: Bid to Dismiss Balderramo Suit Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTOR H. ALVARADO BALDERRAMO, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. TAXI TOURS INC., d/b/a BIG TAXI TOURS; CHRISTOPHER PRESTON,
jointly and severally; MICHAEL ALTMAN, jointly and severally; and
HERNANDO CASTRO, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 15
Civ. 2181 (ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Balderramo filed the class action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and New York labor laws, against
the Defendants.  Preston was effectively terminated on Dec. 28,
2015.  Balderramo claims that he was employed by the Defendants as
a tour bus operator and that, inter alia, they failed to pay him
minimum and overtime wage.  

Balderramo initiated the instant case over four years ago on March
23, 2015, purportedly on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated.  He worked as a tour bus operator for the Defendants from
approximately July 2010 to April 2014, except between approximately
August 2013 and February 2014.  According to Balderramo, the
Defendants employed between eight to 10 other tour bus drivers who
worked similar hours and were similarly unpaid and underpaid for
overtime during the relevant time period.  He further alleges that
he and the other tour bus drivers were uninformed of their minimum
wage rights during this time.

Taxi Tours is a tour operator business in New York City.  Altman,
Castro, and Preston were allegedly owners, shareholders, officers,
or managers of Taxi Tours and exercised substantial control over
their employees' functions, hours, and wages.  However, Preston was
not affiliated with Taxi Tours prior to Nov. 21, 2014.  On Dec. 28,
2015, Balderramo amended his complaint, removing Preston as a
Defendant.

The Court granted Balderramo's motion for leave to conditionally
certify the collective action, but he has taken no substantive
action in the case in approximately 18 months.  On June 3, 2019,
Taxi Tours asked the Court to hold a conference so they could
request leave to file a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Balderramo did not respond to the letter motion but sent counsel
to contest dismissal during the July 10, 2019 conference.
Balderramo's counsel did not provide a reason for such a long delay
in case activity but asked for time to continue the case.  Taxi
Tours filed the motion to dismiss on Aug. 9, 2019, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

First, Judge Ramos finds that not only has Balderramo failed in his
duty as a plaintiff to diligently prosecute his case, but he has
also withheld such an opportunity from the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs -- whom he purported to bring the case on behalf of --
by not providing them with notice.

Next, Judge Ramos finds that the record does not show circumstances
that would have clearly notified Balderramo the consequences of his
actions would result in dismissal, such as to make advance notice
and hearing unnecessary.  Balderramo's first warning of dismissal
was Taxi Tours' letter motion for a conference to dismiss the
action on June 3, 2019, and such notice does not apply
retroactively to the prior period of inactivity.  In July 2019,
Balderramo sent the counsel to the pre-motion conference on the
matter and expressed his desire to continue litigating the case.

Third, prejudice to the Defendants resulting from unreasonable
delays can be fairly presumed as a matter of law.  The Defendants
generally allege that recollections are not as strong and witnesses
may no longer be available when there are long delays in a case,
but do not provide any details of how they were prejudiced.

Fourth, under the circumstances, the Court's need to alleviate
congestion does not outweigh Balderramo's due process rights.
However, the Second Circuit has held that there must be compelling
evidence of an extreme effect on court congestion before a
litigant's right to be heard is subrogated.  Judge Ramos finds no
such evidence was presented.  Additionally, where the Plaintiff's
failure to prosecute was silent and unobtrusive, rather than
vexatious and burdensome such as by swamping the court with
irrelevant or obstructionist filings, dismissal due to the Court's
docket is not warranted.

Fifth, the availability of lesser sanctions than dismissal with
prejudice weigh against dismissal, the Court states.  While
Balderramo does not provide cause for his lengthy delay, the record
does not indicate the lack of prosecution was motivated by an
obstructionist litigation strategy.  Balderramo asserted that he is
now available and ready to comply with Court orders and expressed
his desire to continue prosecuting the case at the July 10, 2019
conference.  

Accordingly, Judge Ramos directed Balderramo to send notice of the
litigation to the purported class of opt-in Plaintiffs within 30
days of his Opinion and Order.  Balderramo is on notice that
failure to comply with it or any other Court order, or further
unreasonable or unexcused delays in prosecuting the case, may
result in dismissal with prejudice.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Ramos denied Taxi Tours' motion
to dismiss, without prejudice.  The parties are directed to appear
for a subsequent conference on Nov. 15, 2019 at 3:30 p.m.  The
Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Cl30LY from
Leagle.com.

Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, Individually and in behalf of all
others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Brandon David Sherr -- bsherr@zellerlegal.com -- Law Office of
Justin A. Zeller, P.C. & Justin Alexander Zeller --
Jazeller@zellerlegal.com -- The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller,
P.C.

Taxi Tours Inc., doing business as Big Taxi Tours, Defendant,
represented by Diane Krebs -- Diane.Krebs@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., Kuuku Angate Minnah-Donkoh --
kminnahdonkoh@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Peter
Jakab, Fein & Jakab, Francis James Giambalvo -- fgiambalvo@grsm.com
-- Gordon & Rees LLP & Heather Elise Griffin -- hgriffin@grsm.com.


TEAM INTEGRITY: Perrong Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Integrity Energy
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, James Everett
Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Team Integrity Energy Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-mc-00112-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla., Nov. 1,
2019).

Team Integrity Energy Group LLC has formed an alliance with the top
licensed electricity and natural gas supply companies in the nation
to deliver options for the customers' needs based on their company
annual energy usage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          1625 North Commerce Parkway Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Phone: (954) 515-0123
          Fax: (954) 515-0124
          Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


UNITED STATES: $85MM Deal in Ciapessoni Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE CIAPESSONI, ELISA CIAPESSONI, BOB F. HANSEN,
HANSEN ENTERPRISES, R&H AGRI-ENTERPRISES, ELDORA ROSSI, ROSSI &
CIAPESSONI FARMS, and ROSSI & ROSSI, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, et al, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 15-938 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Lorena A.
Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendant will deposit
the Settlement Amount of $85 million and the Supplemental
Settlement Amount of $882,351.60 into the Settlement Class
Account.

Upon receipt of funds from the Defendant, the Settlement
Administrator will pay (1) attorneys' fees of $21,470,587.90 and
litigation costs and expenses and Notice and Administration Costs
of $783,899.26 as directed by the Class Counsel; (2) Time and
Effort Amounts of $12,500 each to named Plaintiffs (i) Bruce and
Elisa Ciapessoni, (ii) Bob F. Hansen, (iii) Hansen Enterprises,
(iv) R&H Agri-Enterprises, (v) Eldora Rossi, (vi) Rossi &
Ciapessoni Farms, and (vii) Rossi & Rossi; and (3) each Settlement
Class Member his, her, or its Settlement Amount Share or
Supplemental Settlement Amount Share;

Judge Smith authorized the Settlement Administrator to issue
settlement checks to a Settlement Class Member's heirs, assigns, or
successors upon receipt of an affidavit under penalty of perjury
from such person or persons attesting that he, she or they are the
sole and rightful heir(s), assign(s), or successor(s) of the
Settlement Class Member.

Judge Smith dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit.  The judgment is
final and no longer subject to appeal at any level because there
were no objections filed, either (i) in the time and manner
prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and the Court's July 18,
2019 preliminary approval order, or (ii) otherwise before the Oct.
8, 2019 hearing.  

The date of the Judgment is therefore the Settlement Finalization
Date.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with the
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/S7LOdH from Leagle.com.

BRUCE CIAPESSONI, ELISA CIAPESSONI, BOB F. HANSEN, HANSEN
ENTERPRISES, R&H AGRI-ENTERPRISES, ELDORA ROSSI, ROSSI & CIAPESSONI
FARMS & ROSSI & ROSSI, Plaintiffs, represented by M. Miller Baker
-- mbaker@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Isaac Benjamin Rosenberg, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Education Secretary Sued Over Student Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos illegally continues to demand
student loan payments from more than 7,000 students of the former
Everest Institute, run by Corinthian Colleges, which was shut down
for fraud. Massachusetts filed a similar complaint in the same
court.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                      https://is.gd/jUbSeu


USA: Court Approves Settlement in Barlow Rails-to-Trails Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM E. BARLOW, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-396L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Lydia Kay
Griggsby of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the parties'
proffered settlement agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of
the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").

In the rails-to-trails case, the Plaintiffs allege that the
government has taken their real property situated along an
abandoned railroad line located in Fulton and Peoria Counties,
Illinois.  The Plaintiffs commenced the action on June 13, 2013.

The Plaintiffs in the class action matter are Illinois landowners
who allege a Fifth Amendment takings of their reversionary interest
in certain real property underlying a railroad line owned by the
Union Pacific Railroad Co., as a result of a Notice of Interim
Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board on Nov. 13,
2008.

Following class certification and the Court's Sept. 1, 2015,
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part
the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the
Plaintiffs moved to form several subclasses of the Plaintiffs and
for entry of final judgment with respect to certain Plaintiffs.  On
Feb. 4, 2016, the Court granted-in-part the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of subclasses of the Plaintiffs and for entry of
judgment pursuant to RCFC 23(c)(5) and 54, and created a subclass
comprised of 12 Plaintiffs associated with 14 parcels of property
who engaged in settlement discussions ("Subclass A") and a subclass
comprised of the remaining Plaintiffs in the class action (Subclass
B").

The certified class of the Plaintiffs include all persons owning an
interest in lands located along the railroad line between milepost
461.5 in Fulton County, Illinois and milepost 486.2 in Peoria
County, Illinois.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the parties jointly filed a motion for approval
of notice to Subclass A members regarding a proposed class action
settlement and requested that the Court set the date for a public
fairness hearing under RCFC 23(e).  On Sept. 4, 2019, the Court
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed class action
settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing.  On Oct. 10, 2019, the
Court held the fairness hearing with the parties to discuss the
settlement negotiated by the parties and to assess final approval
of the parties' proposed settlement agreement.

Judge Griggsby concludes that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate. Based upon the factual record and the
representations of the counsel at the fairness hearing, the Judge
finds that fair notice has been provided to the members of Subclass
A regarding the terms of the proposed settlement.

Judge Griggsby also concludes that attorneys' fees and costs to be
awarded in the amount of $243,290.51 are reasonable.  The counsel
for the parties represent that the amount includes $237,817.35 in
attorneys' fees and $5,473.16 in costs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griggsby approved the settlement
agreement.  There being no just reason for delay, the Judge
directed the Clerk to enter judgment pursuant to RCFC 54(b) in the
total amount of $456,542.18.  The amount consists of the following:
(i) $136,800 in principal and $76,451.67 in interest through May
15, 2019 for Subclass A members; and (ii) $237,817.35 in attorneys'
fees and $5,473.16 in litigation costs to be awarded to the class
counsel pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.  The judgment is payable
to the class counsel for distribution to the class according to the
terms of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the parties'
settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 11, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Cl30LY from
Leagle.com.

WILLIAM E. BARLOW, TWILA L. BARLOW & REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC., For Themselves and As Representative of a Class
of Similarly Persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Mathew Wald
-- WALD@SWM.LEGAL -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Marie Ferguson, U.S.
Department of Justice.


VILLA GROUP: Ray Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Villa Group, Inc.
et al. The case is styled as David S. Ray, individual and on behalf
of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. The Villa Group,
Inc., ResortCom International, LLC, Monterey Financial Services,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01295 (W.D. Tex, Oct. 31, 2019).

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

The Villa Group is one of Mexico's leading hotel, resort, and real
estate development companies that specializes in purpose-built
family-style accommodations with personalized service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


WALT DISNEY: Faces Wu ADA Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Walt Disney
Company. The case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Walt Disney
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06175 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2019).

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

The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as Disney, is an American
diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Sues Over Unsettled Money Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------
IBOLYA RADULESCU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation headquartered in Colorado; WESTERN UNION
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., A Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Colorado, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03009-SKC (D. Colo.,
Oct. 22, 2019), accuses the Defendants of using unredeemed money
transfers and never properly notifying affected customers.

The Plaintiff alleges claims for conversion on a nationwide basis,
violations of Washington law, or alternatively Colorado law, or
alternatively, for violations of substantially similar consumer
protection laws, and for unjust enrichment and conversion.

The case is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons, who between
April 2013 and the date of trial attempted to transfer money using
Western Union, whose money transfers were unredeemed, whose money
was kept and utilized by Western Union for its own benefit and who
were never notified by Western Union (until applicable law required
notice to the customers that the money would escheat to the
state).

When Western Union agrees to wire money for a customer, it takes
the customer's contact information. Sometimes the money transfer
does not go through for any number of reasons, which are not
germane to the allegations against Western Union. The lawsuit
addresses what Western Union does with customers' money when
Western Union knows a money transfer did not go through and the
customer's money has not been redeemed.

What Western Union should do is immediately notify the customer and
inform them of the fact the money transfer has not been redeemed
and give the customer an opportunity to correct the error or get a
refund of the funds deposited with Western Union. What Western
Union does instead is an entirely different story: Western Union
purposely does not notify the customer and holds onto the
customer's money and makes use of it by using it to make financial
investments and earn interest for its own benefit until applicable
state statutes require the funds escheat to the state unless
otherwise claimed by the customer.

Only then, many years later and after making use of that money for
its own benefit and financial gain, does Western Union attempt to
notify the customer the transaction they paid for never transpired,
or the money went unredeemed, and the customer has only a limited
amount of time to claim the money--minus a fee charged by Western
Union against the funds--because state law requires it under
unclaimed property statutes in advance of escheat. Under such
circumstances not only does Western Union benefit financially from
holding onto the customers' money for years, Western Union then
charges the customer a separate fee to get their money back;
Western Union not only has its cake and gets to eat it too, but the
customer suffers double-the-harm by not having the use of their
money for years and then has to pay a fee to get it back.

Western Union brags about this unfair and deceptive business
practice in its publicly filed financial statements, telling
investors it always has access to more than $100 million in cash
from these unremitted funds that is essentially better than an
interest free loan because Western Union gets to both make use of
the money and then ultimately, after using the money for years,
charge the customer a fee to return the money instead of paying the
customer interest.

According to Western Union's Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007, such unredeemed funds, or "unsettled money
transfers," are classified as "settlement assets" and "are not used
to support [Western Union] operations" but are utilized to "earn
income" for the company, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Western Union has previously been
successfully sued in this Court, in an earlier class action
lawsuit, for the same alleged conduct, "Tennille v. Western Union
Company, 2009-cv-00938-JLK ("Tennille Action")." The Tennille
Action was filed on April 23, 2009. Based on information and belief
Western Union has not remedied, corrected or changed its business
practices complained of in the Tennille Action as of April 11, 2013
(the date when Plaintiff used Western Union to send funds) through
August 2018, when Western Union notified Plaintiff that funds she
attempted to send through Western Union were never received by the
intended recipient. That notification was more than five years
after Plaintiff used Western Union to send funds.

Ibolya Radulescu was not a member of the Tennille Action class
action settlement and is thus not barred by any settlement of the
Tennille Action from pursuing her claims and claims for all others
similarly situated.

Western Union is an American worldwide financial services and
communications company. Its headquarters is in Denver, Colorado. Up
until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was
globally the best-known American company in the business of
exchanging telegrams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Radulescu, Esq.
          ROMANCORE LAW, P.C.
          401 W A St., No. 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 766-2626
          E-mail: robert@romancorelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
          P.O. Box 999
          Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
          Telephone: (760) 753-3118
          Facsimile: (760) 753-3206
          E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com


[*] Elko County Votes Not to Opt Out of National Opioid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Burmeiste, writing for Elko Daily, reports that after a
discussion about a nationwide class action lawsuit currently in
progress against opioid manufacturers, distributors and sellers,
Elko County commissioners this week reluctantly approved a motion
to do nothing.

"That's what us politicians get accused of, anyway," Commissioner
Cliff Eklund joked after the vote.

Their motion to do nothing means that the county will remain part
of the class action lawsuit, and the county and the cities in the
county will receive some money if there is a settlement.

The three commissioners at October 16's meeting all expressed their
misgivings about holding manufacturers responsible for the actions
of those who use their products, but they also agreed it would be
irresponsible to local taxpayers to refuse money that could come
from this lawsuit.

Back in February the commissioners decided not to join a class
action lawsuit which a Las Vegas law firm was planning to file
against opioid manufacturers.

Then on Sept. 12, a nationwide opioid lawsuit took an unprecedented
step when U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of Cleveland certified
what news reports called a "first of its kind" negotiating class
which sweeps all cities and counties in the U.S. in as class
members in the lawsuit unless they opt out.

A variety of people have taken issue with Polster's decision on a
global settlement negotiating class.  A Reuter's story by Alison
Frankel said that attorney generals from 37 states and the District
of Columbia issued a letter on July 23 which "argued that the
negotiating class mechanism is both unconstitutional, because it
impinges on state sovereignty, and unworkable, because Judge
Polster cannot approve a settlement that purports to allocate
settlement money among local governments without the states'
approval."

Some people are advising counties to opt out of the nationwide
lawsuit, because if the counties remain as class members in this
lawsuit that might prevent them from being able to join other
lawsuits against opioid manufacturers that might bring bigger
settlements.

Commissioner Rex Steninger said the reason the opioid lawsuit was
on the week's agenda is because the previous week he was contacted
by a friend who said a Reno law firm wanted to give a presentation
to the commissioners to advise them to opt out of the national
lawsuit and hire the Reno firm to pursue a bigger settlement.
Steninger said he has not yet been contacted by the Reno firm.

Elko County Manager Rob Stokes said he had talked with Nevada
Association of Counties Executive Director Dagny Stapleton, "and
the information she had was that they would recommend that we opt
out so that down the road the county could perhaps participate in
other class actions lawsuits."

Stokes said information provided by the national lawsuit said that
if the suit were to result in a hypothetical $1 billion gross
settlement for the counties and cities in the United States, Elko
County would receive $70,922, the City of Elko would receive
$26,630, West Wendover would receive $9,575, Carlin would receive
$2,606, and Wells would receive $1,178. This settlement would be
about $2.18 per person in Elko County.

Steninger said that in some ways he felt inclined to opt out of the
national lawsuit, not to try to pursue some other possibly larger
settlement "but to just walk away from the whole thing."

"I really don't believe in holding the manufacturers of something
responsible for the misuse of whatever they produced," Steninger
said. "I don't blame the gun manufacturers for the misuse of guns.
I don't blame the opioid manufacturers for the misuse of opioids.
It's crazy.

"Like I said, I wouldn't mind just walking away from the whole
thing other than the fact that we would be leaving $100,000 on the
table, and I think we've got a responsibility to the taxpayers.
That's $100,000 that they don't have to pay."

"I fear the consequences of these lawsuits, too," Steninger added.
"At best, they're going to make pain medication harder to come by,
and there are people that are very dependent on pain medication.
I've got a doctor friend that told me that his professor at medical
school told him that he had better not catch any of those docs
under-prescribing pain medication. Because, he said, that's the one
thing that we can do in all medical cases is eliminate pain. I take
that to heart.

"And he also said that he fears that if this continues, the whole
medical profession is going to be destroyed by the control of
politicians and lawyers.

"So I personally feel that we should do nothing. That will give us
$100,000 if this class action is settled, and we don't participate
in any further lawsuits."

The other two commissioners at October 16's meeting, Cliff Eklund
and Jon Karr, said they basically agreed with Steninger.

"I personally don't know if big pharm purposely were adding
something to cause an addiction," Karr said. "It's my
understanding, from the little bit I've researched, they haven't.
So I'm not really a big supporter of going after them, either,
especially when doctors were the ones over-prescribing it."

"These lawsuits, to me, are getting out of hand," Eklund said.
"They're going after car manufacturers for how people use their
cars, gun manufacturers on how criminals are using their guns.

"The manufacturers, to me, manufacture for a purpose, and the
purpose of the opiates is for medical purposes for the alleviation
of pain."

Eklund said some people have argued that it was the manufacturers'
responsibility to properly educate doctors on what to prescribe and
how to prescribe. But Eklund said he feels it is the responsibility
of the doctors to get the education they need about the medications
they prescribe.

"If you don't know, you shouldn't be prescribing it," Elkund said.
"So to hold the manufacturers liable, I'm not sure that I can go
along with that." [GN]


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***