/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 233 Headlines ADTRAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline AFG FUNDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in California AMAG INC: Faughnan Files PI Suit in New York AMAZON WEB: Hryniewicki Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data ART OF SHAVING-FL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASCENA RETAIL: Faces Hardmon Suit for Not Paying All Wages Owed BARNES & NOBLE: Averts Cafe Managers' OT Pay Class Action BENEFICIENT INC: Brown Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA BLUE VALLEY: S.F.B., et al Seek to Certify Two Classes BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen, et al. Seek to Certify Class BRETFORD MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Amos Files Falsely Labeling Suit CANDY CLUB: Faces Nisbett ADA Class Action in NY CHEMOURS COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE: Lisk Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers COLUMBIA GAS: Residents Have Until Jan. 9, 2020 to File Claims CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY: Addi Files PI Suit in Maryland CRANKNYC INC: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Asserts DICK'S SPORTING: Class Suit From Ammunitions Distributor Nixed DROPBOX INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Plaintiff Deadline DUCK DONUTS: Faces Kiler Suit Alleging ADA Breach ELDORADO RESORTS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov 22 Deadline EPAY SYSTEMS: Hussein Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of BIPA EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Assoulyn Asserts Breach of FCRA FETEER FACTORY: Zerbib Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, Samaritano Suit Asserts FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class FLORAVERE INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts ADA Violation FMA ALLIANCE: Krajenka Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. FORSTER & GARBUS: Kola Alleges Violation under FDCA GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action I.C. SYSTEM: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey IROBOT CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit IROBOT CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action KAVA HOLDINGS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in California LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims Suit over List Prices LABORATORY CORP: Dismissal of Davis Class Action Reversed LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Suit over Unpaid Commissions Underway LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Merger-Related Ongoing LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Bloomquist v. Covance LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Class Suit LEVINBOOK LAW: Ejnes Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation over COI Rates Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit Ongoing LUXURY BRAND: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MACROGENICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action MANDARICH LAW: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MANDARICH LAW: Passee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MDL 2036: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class MDL 2918: Elmazi vs. TDK over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: IT Worx v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Kluessendorf v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Now Micro v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Oda v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MICHAEL KORS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MILACRON HOLDINGS: Akerman Opposes Proposed Sale to Hillenbrand NEWELL BRANDS: Deceptively Sells Orthodontic Pacifiers, Benson Says NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Two Ex-Employees Entitled to Class Action Status OMEGA RMS: Scavone Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation OMNICELL INC: Continues to Defend Heard Class Suit over Biometrics PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline PERDUE FARMS: Conspires to Depress Workers' Wages, Avila Alleges PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit PRINTOGRAPH INC: Hakopian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRODIGY PLUMBING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed PURDUE PHARMA: Alberta Government to Join Opioid Class Action REAL TIME: Kola Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Faces Hayes Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy ROACH & MURTHA: Musarra Files Class Suit Under FDCPA ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Citizen Energy RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline SANOFI-AVENTIS: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. New York SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective SRAH BAKERY: Settlement in Polanco Suit Wins Final Approval STOVER MEDICAL: Certification of Mobile Phlebotomists Class Sought SUMMIT ELEMENTARY: Faces Class Action Over Lead Levels SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline TOMORROW ENERGY: Lindenbaum Sues to Stop Illegal & Unwanted Calls TRADEMANGO: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANS UNION: Faces Lowenbien Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA TRUE RELIGION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIMED INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit in New York UNIQLO USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Suit Transferred to Massachusetts UNITED STATES: DHS, ICE Must Face Immigration Records Class Suit UNITED STATES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Treatment of Jailed Son W.W. GRAINHGER: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAITR HOLDINGS: Zhang Files Securities Class Action WALMART INC: Settles Pregnancy Bias Class Action for $14 Mil. WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Early Mediation to Occur Before the End of 2019 XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline ZENDESK INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action ********* ADTRAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn Pareteum Corporation (TEUM) Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] AFG FUNDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFG Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFG Funding, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-07438 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AFG Funding, LLC is a Finance broker in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com AMAG INC: Faughnan Files PI Suit in New York -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAG, Inc. The case is styled as Teresa Faughnan and Jennifer Maltese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAG, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01394-FJS-ML (N.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. AMAG provides Ultrasonic, Clamp-on, Non-Invasive, accurate Flow and Temperature Measurements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chantal Khalil, Esq. Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 298-3294 Fax: (914) 298-3329 Email: ckhalil@fbfglaw.com AMAZON WEB: Hryniewicki Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Asia Hryniewicki, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 19CH00001155 (Ill. Cir., Lake Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act relating to the collection and storage of biometric data. The BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as the Defendant, may not store an individual's biometric information, such as fingerprints and hand scans, or any biometric information, including any data regardless of the manner from which it was converted unless they first: inform that person in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information will be stored; inform that person the specific purpose of the length of term for which such biometric identifier or biometric information is being stored; and receive a written release from the person for the storage of their biometric identifier or biometric information. Despite obtaining, storing, and possessing biometric information of thousands of Illinois residents, including the Plaintiff's biometrics, the Defendant failed to comply with the BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of the Defendant's conduct in violating her biometric privacy rights under the BIPA. The Plaintiff has been a resident of Lake County, Illinois. The Defendant is a leading cloud provider in the United States, offering its customers the ability to store their data, access their data remotely, and create back-up copies of their data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com ART OF SHAVING-FL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10432 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Art of Shaving is a United States retail business of high-end men's shaving and skin care accessories.[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 ASCENA RETAIL: Faces Hardmon Suit for Not Paying All Wages Owed --------------------------------------------------------------- Shyrome Hardmon, on her own and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-02207 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff and members of the Class seek compensation from the Defendants for the relevant time period because the Defendants failed to: pay wages for all hours worked; provide meal and rest breaks; pay all wages owed at termination; provide accurate itemized wage statements; and provide standards to regulate excessive indoor heat. The Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, unfair business practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing improper employment policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in Riverside, California, from 2017 through July 18, 2019. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP INC., is a Delaware corporation that conducts business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com BARNES & NOBLE: Averts Cafe Managers' OT Pay Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a New York federal judge has adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation not to certify a proposed class action accusing Barnes & Noble of misclassifying cafe managers as being ineligible for overtime pay. [GN] BENEFICIENT INC: Brown Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA BROWN, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. BENEFICIENT, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04040 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiff and other employees employed by or formerly employed by the Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. Beneficient, Inc., is a Texas corporation and an "employer" as defined by the FLSA. Ms. Brown worked for the Defendant as a health care provider from April 6, 2016, until July 10, 2019, providing her services in the homes of the Defendant's patient clients--usually to multiple patients per day. She contends that during her tenure with the Defendant, she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid for all the hours she worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com BLUE VALLEY: S.F.B., et al Seek to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as S.F.B., et al., the Plaintiffs v. Blue Valley et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02480-CM-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify Classes: Class 1: "all children cared for in a child care facility, as defined by K.S.A. 65-503, in the state of Kansas whose parents and guardians have made religious objections to vaccinations in 2019-2020 to a child care facility"; and Class 2: "all parents and guardians that have a child enrolled in private or public school in the state of Kansas who have made religious objections in 2019-2020 on behalf of themselves or their child to vaccinations". Kansas Department of Health & Environment requires each child care facility in each county to enforce K.S.A. 65-508 and in particular that in order to make a religious objection to vaccine injections that the parent must be an adherent of a religious denomination whose teachings are opposed to vaccinations. Every school district in the state of Kansas is subject to enforcing K.S.A. 72-6262 and in particular the requirement that in order to object to vaccine injections a student must be an adherent of a religious denomination whose teachings are opposed to vaccinations. There are 105 counties in the state of Kansas. There are 291 school districts in the state of Kansas.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiffs are: Linus L. Baker, Esq. 6732 West 185th Terrace Stilwell, KS 66085-8922 Telephone: 913 486 3913 Facsimile: 913 232 8734 E-mail: linusbaker@prodigy.net BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen, et al. Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-BLW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court on Nov. 13, 2019 to certify a class action. The case is a class action challenging fees allegedly charged in contravention of the Idaho Constitution. The Plaintiffs, who have students attending schools in the Pocatello and Bonneville School Districts, seek to proceed as class representatives of all patrons -- that is, students and parents -- in the 115 school districts and charter schools in the state of Idaho. The Plaintiffs allege that the fees charged by these school districts violate article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution and constitute a due process violation. They seek declaratory relief, reimbursement of fees charged for the past six years, and certification of a class of plaintiffs and defendants. The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school district in Boise, Idaho. The district was founded in 1865 under the auspices of Idaho Territory.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Robert C. Huntley, Esq. R. HUNTLEY LAW , PLLC 815 W. Washington Street P.O. Box 2188 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: 208-388-1230 Facsimile: 208-388-0234 E-mail: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com - and - T. Jason Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW GROUP, PC 1488 Midway Avenue Idaho Falls, ID 83406 Telephone: (208) 497-0400 Facsimile: (208) 932-4380 E-mail: jason@woodlaw.net BRETFORD MANUFACTURING: Lara Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eliseo Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRETFORD MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 2019CH13292 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed class members' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards, which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised, biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. 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. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff contends. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; receive a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. Bretford Manufacturing, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com BREW DR KOMBUCHA: Amos Files Falsely Labeling Suit -------------------------------------------------- GUNNAR AMOS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. BREW DR. KOMBUCHA, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Case No. 3:19-cv-01663-BR (D. Ore., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks redress for the Defendant's sale of kombucha products that were falsely advertised and labeled as having a significantly higher amount of probiotic bacteria than the products sold actually contained. Brew Dr. Kombucha, LLC is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business located in Portland, Oregon. The Defendant produces a variety of kombucha products, as well as designs and produces the labels for its kombucha products, in Oregon. Kombucha is a drink that is made from tea and added bacteria that cause fermentation to occur. The product is often advertised and promoted as having a variety of health benefits, including most commonly that it contains various beneficial probiotic bacteria. Mr. Amos contends that during the relevant time period, the Defendant, like many other sellers of kombucha products that claim to contain beneficial probiotics, advertised to consumers on its product labeling and through its advertisements the high number of probiotic bacteria that its kombucha drink products contained. However, he asserts, independent laboratory testing has revealed that the Defendant's product labeling and advertisements were false and misleading because its kombucha drink products contained far less probiotics than specifically represented by the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com CANDY CLUB: Faces Nisbett ADA Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candy Club, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Candy Club, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10459 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CANDY CLUB is the a place to buy premier candies and be delivered to the customers' door.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-71717 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 9 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn Pareteum Corporation (TEUM) Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE: Lisk Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Lisk and Orlando Buckles, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. CHRISTENSEN BRIDGE AND RAIL, LLC, CHRISTENSEN BUILDING GROUP, LLC, and MARK L. CHRISTENSEN, Case No. 4:19-cv-04500 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked with numerous other individuals, who were paid on an hourly basis and who were misclassified as independent contractors, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs assert these individuals were also construction workers, who also regularly worked over 40 hours per week, and were also not paid overtime pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendants also paid these other individuals straight time for all hours that they worked over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff Lisk worked for the Defendants as a welder and foreman while Plaintiff Buckles worked for the Defendants as a foreman and operator. The Defendant is a Texas limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Phone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com COLUMBIA GAS: Residents Have Until Jan. 9, 2020 to File Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Huffaker, writing for Patch, reports that residents have until Jan. 9, 2020 to file a claim to receive money from Columbia Gas, under the class action settlement agreement, according to details released by the plaintiffs' lawyers. All residents, property-owners and business-owners of Andover, Lawrence and North Andover on Sept. 13, 2018, the date of the deadly gas explosions, are elligible for cash payments. Class members can also apply for itemized compensation for specific extraordinary losses. "Class Members may also be eligible to apply for itemized compensation of extraordinary losses or expenses incurred as a result of the Incident, including among other things: property damage, evacuation expenses, heating expenses, lost wages, lost business income, and emotional distress," according to the announcement, notes the reports. "All extraordinary loss applications will be reviewed by the Settlement Administrator and must be substantiated. An application for extraordinary losses does not guarantee receiving additional compensation and will delay receipt of your settlement award." Otherwise, settlement amounts will take into account factors including "geographic location, household size and length of service disruption," notes the report. The total settlement is for $143 million, of which the lawyers asked for nearly 20 percent. The breakdown of settlements will be subject to a "fairness hearing" on Feb. 27, 2020. This settlement is separate from the $80 million settlement between Columbia Gas and the three municipalities. According to the report, claimants must file a claim in order to receive any compensation, which they must do by submitting a claim form by mail. The claim form and details on how to file are available at columbiagasexplosionsettlement.com. Class action members can also object to the terms of the settlement, by Dec. 10, 2019. The lump sum settlement amounts are estimated to range from $50 for a nominal disruption to $15,000 for a major disruption, but they may be bigger or smaller based on how many people file claims. The settlement details come one day after the National Transportation Safety Board issued its final report, finding "weak engineering management" led to the gas explosions. The explosion skilled one, injured 22 and damaged 131 structures, as well as taking gas service offline and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of homes. [GN] CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY: Addi Files PI Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corvias Management-Army, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Addi, Juliea Addi, Kylie Bowers, Antoine Bowers, A. B., Minor, Derek Buitrago, Sandra Buitrago, M.S., Minor, D. B., Minor, Daniel Chubb, Casey Chubb, C. C., Minor, L. C., Minor, E. C., Minor, K. C., Minor, Scott Gerber, Sandy Gerber, Andrew Gilliland, Shannon Gilliland, Alexander Nunez, Liza Nunez, individually and as next friend for their minor children, M. N., Minor, E. N., Minor, Youn Pascal, Noreen Pascal, individually and as next friend for their minor children, Y. P., Minor, K. P., Minor, Tyquan Scullark, Chauntay Scullark, individually and as next friend for their minor children, I. S., Minor, T. S., Minor, L. S. Minor, N. S., Minor, Andrew Ziemann, Kelly Ziemann, individually and as next friend for their minor children, M. S., A. Z., Minor, S. Z., Minor, Plaintiffs v. Corvias Management-Army, LLC and Meade Communities, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03253-ELH (D. Md., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other filed for Breach of Contract. Corvias is a fully integrated development, construction and property management company, providing housing for America's service members and their families.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin B Collins, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 662-5598 Fax: (202) 778-5598 Email: kcollins@cov.com CRANKNYC INC: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Asserts ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cranknyc, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Cranknyc, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06372 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cranknyc, Inc. is in the Physical Fitness Instruction business.[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 DICK'S SPORTING: Class Suit From Ammunitions Distributor Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for Pensylvannia Record, reports that an ammunition distributor involved in a legal wrangle with a major sporting goods retailer cannot file an amended complaint that seeks to convert the dispute into a class action, a federal judge has ruled. Battle Born Munitions (BBM) made the move to turn its complaint against Dick's Sporting Goods into a class action involving multiple vendors allegedly harmed by their products not making it onto shelves at Dick's, the judge ruled. Dick's has famously stopped selling assault-rifle weapons, and its CEO is possibly considering a run for President. U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 22 dismissed the amended complaint and barred the company from filing a new one on behalf of three proposed classes. Battle Born sued the retailer, alleging fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract over a deal for the delivery of ammunition to Dick's. The ammunition supplier in 2016 entered into an agreement to supply ammunition within Dick's Field & Stream packaging. BBM alleged it paid two manufacturers around $4.5 million for the ammo, which was available in November 2016. It is alleged Dick's did not take delivery for a year and refused to pay for the product during that period, while BBM was unable to sell the merchandise to anyone else because of the distinctive package. The distributor alleged it lost $200,000 storing the ammo, while also losing $5 million on another deal because of cash flow issues. The fraud and misrepresentation counts were dismissed after earlier hearings, leaving a part of the breach of contract count to be decided. In the current instance, the federal court was deciding whether to allow BBM's amended complaint that included the request to convert the dispute into a class action. "In its proposed class action, Battle Born seeks to bring breach of contract claims against Dick's on behalf of three separate classes of similarly situated vendors," Fischer noted. "Battle Born maintains that it has shown good cause for the proposed amendments and that Dick's will not be prejudiced by same because it was made aware of the potential class action at the outset of this litigation. "Dick's counters that it has been prejudiced by Battle Born's delays given the fact that discovery was scheduled to end Oct. 10, 2019, and further asserts that this case should proceed as to the remaining breach of contract claim between these two entities only." Fischer concluded that BBM has failed in its argument to be allowed file the amended complaint and it was wrong to add the class action claim just two weeks before the end of the discovery period. "The court believes that Dick's will be significantly prejudiced if the class action claims are permitted because this straightforward case between a retail sporting goods chain and one of its vendors alleging a breach of a single agreement would be transformed into a class action involving possibly hundreds of vendors," Fischer ruled. [GN] DROPBOX INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of shares of Dropbox, Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Dropbox's March 23, 2018 initial public stock offering (the "IPO") of the important December 3, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Dropbox investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Dropbox class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were negatively impacting Dropbox at the time of the IPO; (3) Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 3, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com, cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] DUCK DONUTS: Faces Kiler Suit Alleging ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duck Donuts Franchising Company, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Duck Donuts Franchising Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06375 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Duck Donuts is an American doughnut company based in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.[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 ELDORADO RESORTS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming November 22, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERI) investors who purchased securities between March 1, 2019 and September 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On September 3, 2019, Eldorado revealed that CEO Tom Reeg, president and chief operating officer Anthony Carano, executive chairman Gary Carano, and director James Hawkins had received subpoenas in May pertaining to an ongoing investigation of the executives trading in an undisclosed company tied to James Hawkins. On this news, Eldorado's share price fell $3.09, or over 8%, to close at $35.42 on September 3, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that several of the Company's executive officers, including CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect to the securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) that as a result, Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eldorado securities during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 22, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN] EPAY SYSTEMS: Hussein Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of BIPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rafi Hussein, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. EPAY SYSTEMS, INC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No. 2019CH13250 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. The Defendant captured, stored, used, and/or disseminated the biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members without their informed written consent as required by law, says the complaint. The Defendant did not obtain consent from the Plaintiff for any dissemination of his biometrics to third parties, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that by failing to comply with BIPA, the Defendant has violated his substantive state rights to biometric privacy. The Plaintiff has worked for one of the Defendant's customers located in Illinois. EPAY is a leading provider of payroll, timekeeping, HR, tax, and compliance services for business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com tkingbury@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Assoulyn Asserts Breach of FCRA ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services LLC. The case is styled as Meir Assoulyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Newrez LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-20078 (D. N.J., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FETEER FACTORY: Zerbib Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- NABIL ZERBIB and VERA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. FETEER FACTORY INC. (dba LUXOR EGYPT FETEER FACTORY) and MOURAD A MOURAD, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-06472 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, in order to remedy the Defendants' wrongful withholding of the Plaintiffs' earned wages and overtime compensation. The Defendants repeatedly suffered or permitted the Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them the appropriate premium overtime pay of one and one-half times the statutory minimum wage, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendants also willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate an Egyptian themed restaurant called LUXOR EGYPT FETEER FACTORY.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/ FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, Samaritano Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Connie L Samaritano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06377 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM KIVETT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05131-WHA (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 22, 2018), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying class of persons similarly situated; "all persons who on or after April 18, 2014 had mortgage loans serviced by Flagstar Bank FSB on 1-4 unit residential properties in California and paid Flagstar money in advance to hold in escrow for the payment of taxes and assessments on the property, for insurance, or for other purposes relating to the property, but did not receive interest on the amounts held by Flagstar in their escrow accounts (excluding, however, any such persons whose mortgage loans originated on or before July 21, 2010)"; 2. appointing his attorneys Thomas E. Loeser of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Peter B. Fredman of the Law Office of Peter Fredman PC as counsel for the Class; and 3. appointing himself as representative of the Class. The Plaintiff asserts that Flagstar did not pay interest on escrow (IOE) on those loans as required by section 6 2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code, which act constitutes unlawful and unfair business practices within the meaning California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of all unpaid IOE accruals within the four-year statute of limitations, pre-judgment interest, and an injunction against Flagstar's continued flouting of section 2954.8, the lawsuit says. Flagstar Bank is a bank headquartered in Michigan. It is the primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding company. It is one of the largest residential mortgage servicers and is on the list of largest banks in the United States.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff for himself and persons similarly situate are: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter B. Fredman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 111 (South Hall) Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 868-2626 E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com FLORAVERE INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floravere Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Floravere Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10461 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Floravere is an integrated, direct-to-consumer wedding dress brand. The company takes the hassle out of the wedding dress buying experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-71717 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com FMA ALLIANCE: Krajenka Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN KRAJENKA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMA ALLIANCE LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1678 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] Attorneys for Brian Krajenka, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Kola Alleges Violation under FDCA --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP. The case is styled as Age Kola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus LLP and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-10496 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection 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 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN). You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN) Class Period: securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's April 2019 initial public offering. Deadline: November 12, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/gnln The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Greenlane's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN] I.C. SYSTEM: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. SYSTEM, INC., et al. The case is styled as Ingrid Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-20064 (D.N.J., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider and one of the largest collection companies in North America.[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 IROBOT CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against iRobot Corporation (Nasdaq: IRBT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of iRobot from November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for iRobot investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRobot's explosive growth was not based on increased demand, expanding margins, and product innovations, as it claimed, but rather based on channel stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to conceal its actions by acquiring its distributors in Europe and Asia; (3) these acquisitions were designed to clean up the company's global inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) as a result, iRobot's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 23, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] IROBOT CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman alerts investors in iRobot Corporation (IRBT) to a recently filed federal securities class action against the Company and its senior officials. The firm urges IRBT investors who have suffered losses in excess of $100,000 to submit their loss now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses. Class Period: Nov. 21, 2016 - Oct. 22, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 23, 2019 Sign Up Now: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/IRBT Contact An Attorney Immediately: IRBT@hbsslaw.com 10-725-3000 iRobot Corporation (IRBT) Securities Class Action: The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, iRobot reported explosive, double-digit revenue growth, which it attributed to increasing demand for its Roomba products, expanded gross margin due to distributor acquisitions, greater brand awareness and technological innovation. In reality, iRobot was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its sales and revenues figures, and had acquired two of its largest distributors in order to facilitate and conceal this deceptive practice. As a result of these misrepresentations, iRobot shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The market learned the truth about iRobot's fraud through a series of disclosures between April 23, 2019 and October 22, 2019, when the Company, unable to continue its channel-stuffing scheme, announced disappointing quarterly revenues and poor financial guidance. All told, these disclosures caused iRobot shares to decline precipitously, wiping out significant shareholder value. "We're focused on investors' losses and whether the company inflated its reported revenues," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of IRBT and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding iRobot should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email IRBT@hbsslaw.com. Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: HAGENS BERMAN Reed Kathrein, Esq. Tel: 510-725-3000 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] KAVA HOLDINGS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Lymayre Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. KAVA HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A BEL-AIR HOTEL, a corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV41220 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought to remedy the Defendants' violations of wage-and-hour laws. The Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the Plaintiff and their other non-exempt employees, including failing to provide meal and rest breaks, to pay minimum and overtime wages, and to furnish the Plaintiff and other employees with accurate, itemized wage statements. As a result of these violations, the Defendants are liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, says the complaint. Lymayre Sanchez was and is employed by Bel-Air Hotel as a pool server and mini bar-back from January 2018 to the present in Los Angeles, California. Bel-Air Hotel is a luxury hotel in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. Vache Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Phone: 818-507-8525 Facsimile: 818-507-8588 - and - Christopher A. Adams, Esq. ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL 230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Phone: 818-425-1437 LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims Suit over List Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson suit entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Dismissal of Davis Class Action Reversed --------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court of Appeal reversed a Florida state court's dismissal of the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Suit over Unpaid Commissions Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al. On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive compensation plan upon their termination of employment. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive damages, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On January 22, 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Merger-Related Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom) between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending. On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Bloomquist v. Covance ------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., has been settled in principle and the settlement is subject to judicial review and approval. On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance in California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the case to the Superior Court. This matter has been settled in principle and the settlement is subject to judicial review and approval. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc. On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Covance Market Access Services, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit sought monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, which was granted in May 2018. In December 2018, Plaintiff filed, and the Court granted, a second motion to conditionally certify an expanded class to a nationwide class action. Laboratory Corporation said, "This matter has been settled in principle and the settlement is subject to judicial review and approval." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LEVINBOOK LAW: Ejnes Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C. The case is styled as Richard Ejnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06369 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., focused on real estate transactions and collections, is experienced in strategies for recovering commercial and consumer debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. . Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. "We are vigorously defending this matter," Lincoln National said. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the putative class action styled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, is still ongoing. Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Lincoln said, "Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation over COI Rates Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("LNL") and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP. Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of New York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LUXURY BRAND: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxury Brand Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Luxury Brand Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10393 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Luxury Brand Holdings Inc operates as a jewelry store. The Company specializes in gemstones, pearls, bracelets, earrings, necklaces, and engagement rings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com MACROGENICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or obligation to you. MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late. Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 - August 26, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] MANDARICH LAW: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP. The case is styled as Nancy Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06326 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group is a debt collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com MANDARICH LAW: Passee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP. The case is styled as Cheryl A. Passee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06354 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group is a debt collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com MDL 2036: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION (MDL 2036), Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK, the Court entered an order on Nov. 13, 2019: 1. provisionally certifying a Settlement Class of: "all holders of an RBC Account who, from October 10, 2007 through March 1, 2012, incurred one or more Overdraft Fees as a result of RBC's High-to-Low Posting. Excluded from the Class are all former RBC and current PNC officers and directors, and the judge presiding over the Action"; 2. appointing Michael Dasher as Class Representative; and 3. appointing the following persons and entities as Class Counsel: Russell W. Budd, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX, 75219 - and - Richard Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Robert C. Gilbert, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150 Miami, FL 33134 - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LEIFF, CABRASER HEIMNANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 - and - David S. Stellings, Esq. 250 hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 - and - Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 - and - Bruce s. Rogov, Esq. BRUCE S. ROGOV, PA 100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderlade, FL 33301 - and - Ted E. Trief, Esq. TRIEF & OLK 150 East 58th Street,34th Floor New York, NY 10155 - and - Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Franklin G. Lemond, Esq. WEBB, KLASE, LEMOND, L.L.C. 1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GE 30339 - and - Sean Matt, Esq. HANGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 5th Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Darren Kaplan, Esq. DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PC 1359 Broadway New York, NY 10018 4. appointing the following Attorneys Aaron Podhurst, Bruce S. Rogov, and Robert C. Gilbert as Settlement Class Counsel; 5. preliminarily approving Settlement; and 6. directing Epiq Class Action & Claim Solutions to act as Settlement Administrator, Notice Administrator, Escrow Agent, and Tax Administrator.[CC] MDL 2918: Elmazi vs. TDK over HDD Assemblies Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as FERZULA ELMAZI, the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-12244 (Filed July 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07044-MMC. The suit demands $5 M worth of damages alleging violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Elmazi case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon Almonrode, Esq. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com saa@millerlawpc.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@robinskaplan.com NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 E-mail: ASheanin@robinskaplan.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Mark Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com MDL 2918: IT Worx v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as IT WORX, INC, the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02531 (Filed Sept. 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07052-MMC to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The IT Worx case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Alia M. Abdi, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com alia.abdi@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Steven Greenfogel, Esq. Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com mreuben@litedepalma.com - and - J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq. Scott C. Gayle TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A. 100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 271-5232 Facsimile: (336) 274-6590 E-mail: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com SGayle@tuggleduggins.com ` MDL 2918: Kluessendorf v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as SANDRA KLUESSENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02419 (Filed Sept. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07054-MMC to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Kluessendorf case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Reinhardt, Esq. Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com MDL 2918: Now Micro v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as NOW MICRO, INC., the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02196 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07049-MMC. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The New Micro case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Victoria Sims, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohenv CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com MDL 2918: Oda v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as HARLEY ODA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02372 (Filed Aug. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07053-MMC to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Oda case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Catherine K. Smith, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.coms MICHAEL KORS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Kors Retail, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Kors Retail, Inc., Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10405 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Michael Kors Retail, Inc. retails apparel and accessories. The Company offers dresses, tops, jeans, skirts, outerwear, bags, wallets, shoes, watches, jewelry, scarves, lingerie products, belts, and shorts for men and women.[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 MILACRON HOLDINGS: Akerman Opposes Proposed Sale to Hillenbrand --------------------------------------------------------------- MORRIS AKERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS, TIMOTHY M. CROW, WATERS S. DAVIS, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, GREGORY J. GULCHOWSKI, JR., THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES M. KRATOCHVIL, DAVID W. REEDER, REBECCA LEE STEINFORT, HILLENBRAND, INC., and BENGAL DELAWARE HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-05841 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Milacron will be acquired by Hillenbrand, Inc. and Bengal Delaware Holding Corporation. Pursuant to the announcement on July 12, 2019, Milacron's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Hillenbrand, Inc. ("Parent") and Bengal Delaware Holding Corporation ("Merger Sub," and together with Parent, "Hillenbrand"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Milacron's stockholders will receive $11.80 in cash and 0.1612 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Milacron common stock they own. On September 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement containing the Proxy Statement of both Milacron and Hillenbrand with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, Mr. Akerman contends. Accordingly, he alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. Mr. Akerman, who is the owner of Milacron common stock, alleges that the Registration Statement omits, among other things, material information regarding the Company's and Hillenbrand's financial projections. With respect to the Company's financial projections, he asserts that the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBIT and EBITDA; (ii) the Other EBITDA Adjustments; (iii) projections for year 2024; and (iv) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. He points out that the Registration Statement is an essential link in causing him and the Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Milacron is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Milacron. Milacron is a leader in the manufacture, distribution and service of highly engineered and customized systems within the plastic technology and processing industry. Milacron is a global company with a full-line product portfolio that includes hot runner systems, injection molding and extrusion equipment. Defendant Parent is an Indiana corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement. Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard T. Longman, Esq. Aaron Brody, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com abrody@ssbny.com NEWELL BRANDS: Deceptively Sells Orthodontic Pacifiers, Benson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHELLY BENSON and LISA CAPARELLIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. and NUK USA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06836 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 16, 2019), is a consumer protection class action arising out of the Defendants' false and misleading advertising of its "orthodontic" pacifiers. The Defendants' deceptive marketing practices include: (1) the deceptive misrepresentation that its pacifiers are "orthodontic," which is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers; and (2) the omission of material facts concerning the risks associated with pacifier use by children over the age of 24 months, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs, who purchased the pacifiers for their children, contend that the prolonged pacifier use by children over the age of 24 months can cause significant harm by interfering with the proper development of their teeth and orofacial structures. Newell Brands Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Hoboken, New Jersey. NUK USA LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Newell Brands Inc., the principal place of business of which is located in Reedsburg, Wisconsin. The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell a line of "orthodontic" pacifiers throughout Illinois and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 750-1591 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and - R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Bryan A. Fox, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 253-4996 Facsimile: (412) 231-0346 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com bfox@carlsonlynch.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE One Central Avenue, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Two Ex-Employees Entitled to Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that two former employees of a Northrop Grumman Corp. subsidiary are entitled to class action status for part of their lawsuit claiming they were denied cash severance after being laid off, a federal judge in Chicago held. The newly certified class includes up to 751 people laid off by Northrop Grumman since 2012 who didn't receive cash severance because they didn't receive written notification from the company about their eligibility for the benefits. The workers' claim for denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is appropriate for class treatment, Judge Andrea R. Wood ruled. [GN] OMEGA RMS: Scavone Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omega RMS, LLC. The case is styled as Louis J. Scavone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Omega RMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06378 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Omega-RMS is a provider of strategic contact campaigns, loan-servicing, third-party receivables purchasing and collections solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com OMNICELL INC: Continues to Defend Heard Class Suit over Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------------ Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company. The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the case with the Mazya Action. The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion, without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company's dismissal from the Mazya Action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31, 2019. The Court has scheduled a case status conference for November 7, 2019 at which time the Company intends to present its motion to dismiss to the Court. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. PARETEUM CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-cc ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-adtn Pareteum Corporation (TEUM) Class Period: 12/14/2017 - 10/21/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 23, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit http://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-teum If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] PERDUE FARMS: Conspires to Depress Workers' Wages, Avila Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- EUSEBIO AVILA and ASHLEY SCOTT, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. PERDUE FARMS, INC.; PERDUE FOODS LLC; TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON PREPARED FOODS, INC.; THE HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; TYSON PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.; TYSON REFRIGERATED PROCESSED MEATS, INC.; KEYSTONE FOODS, LLC; EQUITY GROUP EUFAULA DIVISION LLC; EQUITY GROUP-GEORGIA DIVISION LLC; EQUITY GROUP KENTUCKY DIVISION LLC; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOODS DIVISION); KOCH FOODS, INC.; KOCH FOODS OF GADSDEN LLC; KOCH FOODS OF CUMMING LLC; KOCH FOODS OF GAINESVILLE LLC; KOCH FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI LLC; KOCH FOODS OF ALABAMA LLC; KOCH FOODS OF ASHLAND LLC; KOCH FOODS LLC; JCG FOODS OF ALABAMA LLC; JCG FOODS OF GEORGIA LLC; JCG INDUSTRIES, INC.; WAYNE FARMS, LLC; WFSP FOODS, LLC; MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.; PECO FOODS INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.; SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS, INC.; FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION; GEORGE'S INC.; OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC.; GEORGE'S CHICKEN, LLC; GEORGE'S FOODS, LLC; GEORGE'S PROCESSING, INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC.; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS OF LOUISIANA, LLC; O.K. FOODS, INC.; HARRISON POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY, INC.; MAR-JAC POULTRY LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY MS, LLC; MAR-JAC POULTRY AL, LLC; MAR-JAC HOLDINGS, INC.; AMICK FARMS, LLC; CASE FOODS, INC.; CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC.; ALLEN HARIM FOODS, LLC; AGRI STATS, INC.; and WEBBER, MENG, SAHL AND COMPANY, INC. d/b/a WMS AND COMPANY INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03018-GLR (D. Md., Oct. 16, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Sherman Act. The class action alleges that beginning January 1, 2009, until the present (the "Class Period"), the Defendants conspired to unreasonably restrain competition for all persons employed by the Defendant Processors as non-supervisory production and maintenance workers at chicken processing plants in the continental United States, in violation of the Sherman Act. The Defendants' scheme had the effect of depressing wages and benefits paid to Class Members while maximizing the profits earned by the Defendants, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants accomplished their anticompetitive scheme by engaging in reoccurring, secret meetings where they agreed on specific wages and benefits paid to Class Members. Additionally, the Defendants utilized the services of two consulting firms to facilitate the scheme, and to monitor and enforce the effects of the conspiracy. The Defendants are 18 chicken processing companies and many of their subsidiaries and affiliates ("Defendant Processors"), representing more than 90 percent of the total broiler producing companies in the United States, as well as two consulting firms, Agri Stats, Inc. ("Agri Stats") and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. d/b/a WMS and Company Inc. ("WMS") (together "Defendant Consulting Firms"). During the Class Period, Defendant Consulting Firms helped to facilitate the exchange of competitively sensitive compensation data among the Defendant Processors, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendant Processors own and operate approximately 180 chicken processing plants in the continental United States. These chicken processing plants have employed hundreds of thousands of Class Members in various positions involved in processing live chicken, including slaughtering birds and preparing the poultry for sale to retailers and consumers. Other employees repair machines and conduct other maintenance at the processing plants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Eric R. Harlan, Esq. SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER, P.A. 250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 395-0202 Facsimile: (410) 539-7611 E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com erh@shapirosher.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG) against certain of the Company's officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-06996, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired PG&E securities between December 11, 2018, and October 11, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased PG&E securities within the class period, you have until December 24, 2019, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. PG&E Corporation was incorporated in 1905 and is based in San Francisco, California. The Company, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("Pacific Gas"), engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California of the United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The Chapter 11 petition followed in the wake of multiple high-profile lawsuits against PG&E related to widely publicized and catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. The incidents were faulted to PG&E, whose alleged misconduct apparently caused the Company's equipment to ignite the wildfires. PG&E is facing $30 billion in liabilities in connection with the wildfires. Following the wildfire incidents, PG&E began periodically initiating rolling power outages across its customers' facilities and service areas. The blackouts were intended to reduce the risk of future wildfire events and scheduled for times when dangerous weather conditions exacerbated the chances of further wildfires occurring. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PG&E's purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly designed; (ii) as a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the Company implemented to minimize wildfire risk; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published an article reporting on PG&E's efforts to deal with the rolling power cuts it had implemented in California aimed at minimizing wildfire risk. The article reported, among other issues, that "PG&E's communications and computer systems faltered, and its website went down as customers tried to find out whether they would be cut off or spared." According to the article, "[a]s the company struggled to tell people what areas would be affected and when chaos and confusion unspooled outside. Roads and businesses went dark without warning, nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup power and even government agencies calling the company were put on hold for hours." On this news, PG&E's stock price fell $0.35 per share, or 4.36%, to close at $7.67 per share on October 14, 2019, the following trading day. On October 23, 2019, it was reported that as a last resort to prevent additional wildfires PG&E began shutting off power to 179,000 homes and businesses in 17 northern and central California counties. Following this news, PG&E's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 12.2%, to close at $7.20 on October 24, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] PRINTOGRAPH INC: Hakopian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRINTOGRAPH, INC. The case is styled as VREESH HAKOPIAN INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PRINTOGRAPH, INC. D/B/A GOTPRINT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV40338 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 8, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case". Printograph Inc is a privately held company in Burbank, CA and is a Single Location business, categorized under Printers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by KESHISHYAN ROMINA, ESQ. PRODIGY PLUMBING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRODIGY PLUMBING, INC., a corporation doing business in California, MARK ELLEFSON, an individual and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV41175 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought to collect civil penalties for the Defendants' Labor Code violations. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated aggrieved employees regularly worked more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week without lawful compensation. The Defendant violated numerous wage and hour laws with respect to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees by failing to provide: accurate and itemized wages statements, payment for all hours worked (including regular wages and overtime), minimum wage lawful meal periods, lawful rest periods, timely payment during employment, and payment upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumbing technician. The Defendant is a corporation doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS, PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202 Torrance, CA 90505 Phone: (866) 496- 7552 Fax: (424) 355-8535 Email: Justin@WorkLawyers.com PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1679 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] Attorneys for Cindy Zurakov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: Alberta Government to Join Opioid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sammy Hudes, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that the Alberta government will join a class-action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies to recoup costs it has incurred from the ongoing opioid crisis, it announced on Oct. 15. Speaking in Calgary, Health Minister Tyler Shandro said that while doctors have overprescribed painkiller drugs such as fentanyl, it's the manufacturers and distributors that are to blame, he said. "One of the main reasons doctors overprescribed is that the companies told them that the opioids were safe. The manufacturers aggressively promoted the claim that opioids posed a low risk of addiction. That was misleading," Shandro said. "We're suing the companies because they oversupplied the drugs recklessly. They ignored evidence that the drugs were being overprescribed and diverted; that is, being taken by people other than the patient that they were prescribed for." The result was that opioid painkillers became too widely available, according to the health minister. "That oversupply was already causing a huge amount of preventable harm before fentanyl starting pouring into our province," he said, citing a figure showing around 200 people were fatally overdosing from legal painkillers before 2015, when fentanyl use in Alberta began to soar. "The companies played an essential role in creating this crisis and they have to be held accountable for it." The lawsuit, filed in B.C. by that province's government, alleges that Purdue Pharma Inc., the makers of OxyContin, and more than 40 other companies and even pharmacies knowingly marketed quantities of the drugs that went well beyond legitimate needs. The legal action seeks money to recover medical expenditures related to opioid addiction. Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have also joined B.C. in its lawsuit, which hailed a decision by an Oklahoma court in late August ordering Johnson and Johnson to pay US$572 million to the state for its role in fuelling opioid addictions. Though the state had sought US$17.5 billion, the company is appealing the decision. "It's encouraging to see that there is a basis here for claims like this in Canada as well," said Justice Minister and Solicitor General Doug Schweitzer. "I think we have a strong legal case here. This is important for the future of our province to make sure we send a signal that we can't prey on the vulnerable." Schweitzer called the class-action suit "the most efficient and cost-effective" approach that will also add pressure on the defendants to settle. He said work is underway to quantify the damages the Alberta government will seek. The legal action will include both direct and indirect costs related to opioids from 1996 to the present, including costs incurred by the province's health-care, criminal justice and policing systems. A spokesperson for Alberta Health said direct health-care costs from opioid-related harms in Alberta were approximately $52 million annually as of 2014, according to a calculation by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. But the province estimates that figure has increased substantially with the growth of opioid use in Alberta since then. Calgary addictions physician Dr. Monty Ghosh praised the Alberta government's decision as a step in the right direction. "It's imperative that (pharmaceutical companies) take responsibility for this. Many of them have not taken responsibility for what they've done," he said. But Ghosh cautioned that no matter the outcome, the opioid crisis won't be solved by short-term funding from a potentially favourable decision in court. He said better long-term supports are needed to treat addiction, which can last a lifetime. Ghosh also said physicians aren't completely blameless for the crisis. "There became a culture of managing patients with these drugs. It was a quick and easy solve for a lot of the pain concerns," he said. "There are some physicians who, knowing that there is some addictive potential of these drugs, still then re-prescribed it. I think as a profession we need to own our contribution to this as well, with the understanding that a lot of it was misguided." NDP mental-health and addictions critic Heather Sweet said the Opposition supports the UCP's move, adding it would have done the same had the party remained in government following April's election. "We recognize this lawsuit is going to take a long time before we'll see anything happen. Because of that, we're urging the government to continue to address the opioid crisis today, and not wait until this lawsuit is finalized," said Sweet. In 2018, there were nearly 800 fatal opioid-related overdoses and 4,200 calls to EMS. Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Jason Luan said the province's rate of opioid and other drug-related emergency room visits rose 45 per cent from 2016 to 2019. The UCP government has committed $140 million to improve mental health and addiction care, including $40 million earmarked for opioid response. Luan said more details on the province's strategy to combat opioid use will be announced in the coming weeks. The government will also appoint a mental health and addictions advisory committee to look into the issue. Shandro said opioids can be a legitimate therapy when used appropriately. "Suing the opioid companies won't change the crisis we're in today, but holding them accountable is the right thing to do," he said. [GN] REAL TIME: Kola Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Age Kola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-10454 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[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 RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Faces Hayes Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Hayes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. RENTERS WAREHOUSE, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-02909 (D. Minn., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought for damages, injunctive relief and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff through text messages on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy. The Defendant routinely sends text messages to wireless telephone with automatic telephone dialing equipment without the wireless user's prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's violations caused the Plaintiff and members of the Class actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their statutory rights, says the complaint. Heather Hayes is a resident of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Renters Warehouse is America's leading real estate investments services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (651) 770-9707 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Peter F. Barry, Esq. THE BARRY LAW OFFICE, LTD 2828 University Ave. SE, Suite 202 Minneapolis, MN 55414-4127 Phone: (612) 379-8800 Email: pbarry@lawpoint.com ROACH & MURTHA: Musarra Files Class Suit Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. The case is styled as Jennifer Musarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06373 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. is engaged solely in collecting debt and is experienced collecting all types of debt, including judgment enforcement, commercial debts, accounts receivable, promissory notes, subrogation and consumer debts including medical and credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Citizen Energy -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ROAN RESOURCES, INC., RICK GIDEON, JOSEPH A. MILLS, MATTHEW BONANNO, EVAN LEDERMAN, JOHN LOVOI, PAUL B. LOYD JR., MICHAEL RALEIGH, ANDREW TAYLOR, and ANTHONY TRIPODO, Case No. 1:19-cv-02142-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 15, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Roan will be acquired by Citizen Energy Operating, LLC and Citizen Energy Pressburg Inc. On October 1, 2019, Roan's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Citizen Energy. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Roan's stockholders will receive $1.52 in cash for each share of Roan common stock they own. On November 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for December 4, 2019. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement because the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections, including failure to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate Operating Cash Flow and Adjusted EBITDAX; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement also omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Jefferies LLC, according to the complaint. The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose whether any parties are currently subject to "don't ask, don't waive" provisions in nondisclosure agreements that are preventing the parties from requesting waivers of standstill provisions to submit offers to acquire the Company, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns Roan common stock. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants fail to disclose certain material information necessary for Roan shareholders to adequately assess and value the merger consideration. Roan is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the development, exploration, and acquisition of unconventional oil and natural gas reserves in the Merge, SCOOP, and STACK plays of the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or obligation to you. MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late. Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 - August 26, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] SANOFI-AVENTIS: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yesenia Melillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06376 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zahra R. Dsouza, Esq. Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: zdsouza@kohnswift.com SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JERRY HUDDLESTON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation, and ERIC SLOAN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-12364-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective of: "all current and former hourly employees who worked for Sloan Environmental Services, Inc. at any time in the past three years"’ 2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the proposed Collective; 3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and authorizing dissemination of that notice to each member of the proposed Collective by mail and email; 4. requiring the Defendants to identify and produce the names, phone numbers, last known addresses, and email addresses of all proposed Collective members in a computer-readable format within 14 days; and 5. giving members of the proposed Collective 45 days from the date the notice is mailed to join this case if they so choose.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. KREIS ENDERLE, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge P.O. Box. 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010 Telephone: (269) 324-3000 Facsimile: (269) 324-3010 E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com tcedoz@kehb.com SRAH BAKERY: Settlement in Polanco Suit Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KELLY POLANCO, ANA MENDEZ, and ADELINA MELARA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SRAH BAKERY, INC. d/b/a STRAUSS BAKERY, G.E.S. BAKERY, INC., TZVI GOLDSTEIN, and ELLIOT BERMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02530 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan granted final approval of the parties' settlement, conditioned upon it being fully funded by Defendants within 40 days of the order, and directed the parties implement it, as follows: a. The parties are directed to implement the Settlement in accordance with its terms. b. There being approximately 85 class members as of the date of this Order, pursuant to the Agreement, the Court hereby dismisses with prejudice the Action, all claims contained therein, and all released claims against defendants. c. The Court approves the reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $3,508.56 to Class Counsel. d. The Court approves an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $181,666.66. e. The Court authorizes the payment of the claims administrators' fees of $9,500. f. The Court approves service award payments of $5,000.00 to plaintiffs Kelly Polanco, Ana Mendez, and Adelina Melara. g. The Court approves the service award payments of $1,500.00 to Opt-in Claimants Minerva Mendoza, Jose Zepeda, Dina Velasquez, Geronimo Sohom, Carmen Rosales, and Briselda Sosa. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order, the Court dismisses the action with prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.[CC] STOVER MEDICAL: Certification of Mobile Phlebotomists Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER MEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-740 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order permitting the case to proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, for minimum wage and overtime violations on behalf of the following class: "all mobile phlebotomists who worked for Defendants at any time since August 22, 2016". The Plaintiffs contend that they and other current and former mobile phlebotomists who worked for Defendant are similarly situated because they performed the same job; were subject to the same policies and procedures; and were misclassified as independent contractors and not paid the full minimum wage and overtime, the lawsuit says.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON , LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Emily Alcorn, Esq. GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: David Wade, Esq. Andrew Gardella, Esq. MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C. 315 Deaderick Street, Suite 1550 Nashville, TN 37238 Telephone: 615-627-0668 Facsimile: 615-627-0669 E-mail: dwade@martintate.com agardella@martintate.com SUMMIT ELEMENTARY: Faces Class Action Over Lead Levels ------------------------------------------------------ Tanner Cole, writing for Butler Eagle, reports that lawyers involved in a class action complaint over lead levels in Summit Elementary School came before a judge for public arguments for the first time on Oct. 15. Those arguments were brief and not at all heated, but their contents foreshadow a long process ahead as the parent plaintiffs hope to gather masses of necessary evidence and potentially rack up a significantly larger list of similar families and school staff members interested in joining the suit. [GN] SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Francis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Francis, Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SUPREME TOUCH HOME HEALTH SERVICES CORP, Case No. 2:19-cv-05019-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 15, 2019), accuses the Defendant of not paying proper overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff contends that she routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but she was not paid overtime of at least one and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Ms. Francis worked as a licensed practical nurse for the Defendant from June 2017 until February 2018. Supreme Touch Home Health Services Corp. is a home nursing care staffing agency of direct care workers and provider of in-home rehabilitation and health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Dulaney, III, Esq. MANN DULANEY LLC 211 Bradenton Avenue, Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: (614) 763-2163 Email: wdulaney@m-dlegal.com - and - Matthew D. Austin, Esq. AUSTIN LEGAL Huntington Bank Building 17 South High Street, Suite 810 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 843-3041 Email: Matt@MattAustinLaborLaw.com TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or obligation to you. MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 12, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, MacroGenics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival ("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (b) the October 2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (c) the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier curves crossed in several spots (thereby violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late. Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 - August 26, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=4038&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] TOMORROW ENERGY: Lindenbaum Sues to Stop Illegal & Unwanted Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMORROW ENERGY CORP, a Nevada corporation, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02680-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff files this action against the Defendants to: (1) stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; and (2) obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. The Defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited prerecorded calls were, and are, unauthorized as they fail to obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. She points out that ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these unsolicited prerecorded calls. By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this complaint, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury, says the complaint. Plaintiff Roberta Lindenbaum is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Tomorrow Energy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown PA 18104 Phone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com TRADEMANGO: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trademango Solutions US Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trademango Solutions US Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10398 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. TradeMango Solutions, Inc. operates as an online furniture retailer. It offers sofas, chairs, tables and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com TRANS UNION: Faces Lowenbien Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ Esti Lowenbien, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. TRANS UNION, LLC and SYNCHRONY LENDING, INC. D/B/A SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06461 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019), seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal practices, which violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, relating to credit reporting. The FCRA and NY FCRA prohibit furnishers of credit information to falsely and inaccurately report consumers' credit information to credit reporting agencies. Defendant Synchrony Bank has wrongfully reported a debt purportedly owed to Comenity Capital Bank as 30 days late. The Plaintiff says she has long since set up "auto-pay" on her personal online account and Synchrony had been continuously and uninterruptedly charging her personal bank account automatically. Synchrony Bank, therefore, knew, and had reason to believe that there was an "auto-pay" option set up between her and Synchrony Bank at the time that it notified Trans Union that the said account was "late," Ms. Lowenbien contends. Thereafter, Trans Union notified the Plaintiff that it had initiated an investigation into the said dispute. Trans Union's investigation did not resolve the dispute and the Plaintiff subsequently filed a statement of dispute with Trans Union on August 5, 2019. The Plaintiff obtained her consumer credit report from Trans Union on August 18, 2019, and found that Trans Union had not included the her statement of dispute in the credit report. The Defendants violated the FCRA, since the Plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the information in her credit file and then notified the Defendants of the said dispute, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a consumer and a citizen of the state of New York. Trans Union, LLC is a Credit Reporting Agency that engages in the business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com TRUE RELIGION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Religion Apparel, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. True Religion Apparel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10442 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. True Religion Brand Jeans is an American clothing company established in December 2002 and focuses on premium denim, some of which is made in the United States.[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 UNIMED INTERNATIONAL: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unimed International Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Unimed International Inc. doing business as: Chamonix Skin Care Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06374 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unimed International is a procurer and supplier of healthcare commodities globally and is fully regulated and authorized by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA UK).[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 UNIQLO USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniqlo USA LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uniqlo USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10438 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. UNIQLO is a clothing apparel company, which was originally founded in Yamaguchi, Japan in 1949 as a textiles manufacturer.[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 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Suit Transferred to Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21258 (Filed April 3, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Oct 28, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-12224-ADB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The case is a class action on behalf of beneficiaries of Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans administered by UHC who were denied Proton Beam Radiation Therapy because of UHC's uniform application of an arbitrary medical policy to deny as experimental or investigational such treatment for prostate cancer, despite PBRT being recognized for decades by the medical community as an established, medically appropriate treatment for cancer, including prostate cancer. UnitedHealthcare offers plans that provide reliable health care coverage, and dental, vision and other insurance plans.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Dean Churchill Colson, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. Stephanie Anne Casey, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: 476-7469 E-mail: dean@colson.com laz@colson.com scasey@colson.com Attorneys for the United Healthcare Insurance Company are: Allen Paige Pegg, Esq. James Leo VanLandingham, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, 27th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6641 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com UNITED STATES: DHS, ICE Must Face Immigration Records Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that U.S. immigration authorities must face a certified class action by attorneys and nonresidents challenging "significant delays" they face when trying to get access to immigration case files, the Northern District of California held Oct. 15. The Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies, Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are required by law to answer Freedom of Information Act request for Alien Registration Files within 20 days. [GN] UNITED STATES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Treatment of Jailed Son --------------------------------------------------------------- Alberta Rose Jones and those similarly situated v. William Barr, (Official Capacity Attorney General United States), David Prater (individual capacity), Robert Ravitz (individual capacity), Cindy Ferrell Ashwood (individual capacity), Allen Brown (individual capacity), Lori McConnell (individual capacity) Robert Groshon and Does 1 Thru 100, Case No. 5:19-cv-01056-G (Okla. Dist., Okla. Cty., Nov. 15, 2019), seeks damages resulting from the Defendants' act and omissions, and any legal fees and costs, which the Plaintiff is entitled in connection with her son's unlawful treatment in the Oklahoma County Jail. The Plaintiff has a developmentally disabled son, who was unlawfully charged and incarcerated for many months in the Oklahoma County Jail in 2017 and 2018 and soon to be possibly in 2019. Her son's living conditions in the Oklahoma County Jail were unconstitutional, the Plaintiff alleges. She adds that he received illegal treatment in the Oklahoma County Jail. Several of the Defendants knowingly created and perpetuated an overcrowded and understaffed jail, subjecting the 2,000 plus men and women held in the Oklahoma County Jail to dangerous, inhumane, and degrading conditions, Ms. Jones states. She contends that the Defendants failed to provide minimally adequate medical care to her son when he was in their custody. Ms. Jones, a resident of Lincoln County, Oklahoma, also alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately screen her son for his medical conditions; failed to timely or adequately respond to his and her request for medical care; and completely denied his chronic and specialty care. William Barr is the United States Attorney General. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] W.W. GRAINHGER: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W. W. Grainger, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating supplies, and related information to the commercial, industrial, contractor, and institutional markets in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com WAITR HOLDINGS: Zhang Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Waitr Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:WTRH) between May 17, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 26, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, go http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=waitr-holdings-inc&id=2046 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=waitr-holdings-inc&id=2046 According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial statements or omitted to disclose: (1) the Company was not on the verge of profitability; (2) it was not true that the Company was providing its services at a sustainable low take rate established at 15%; (3) it was not true that Waitr was able to extract efficiencies from its full time fixed-rate labor force that was purported to allow the Company to offer its services at a lower rate than competitors; (4) its software provided little or no competitive advantages and what first-mover advantage the Company claimed existed, was quickly squandered by the inability to obtain sophisticated high-level programmers and software engineers who could enable Waitr to refine and develop the software necessary to stay competitive in its market; (5) it was not true that Waitr maintained an adequate system of internal controls so as to report and eliminate material conflicts of interest; and (6) as a result, Waitr's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] WALMART INC: Settles Pregnancy Bias Class Action for $14 Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Walmart Inc. has agreed to pay $14 million to resolve allegations by pregnant or formerly pregnant workers who claimed the retail giant's policies on disability accommodations discriminated against them on the basis of their pregnancy. [GN] WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Early Mediation to Occur Before the End of 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a Court-sponsored early mediation is expected to occur in the class action suit related to the consent decree entered by the company and Knorr-Bremse AG, before the end of 2019. On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. No monetary fines or penalties were imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants' actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs, three of whom were Company employees. The litigation is in its early stages and the Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously. The Company's motion to dismiss the entire claim was denied on June 20, 2019, but the Court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy allegations and strike the plaintiffs' class definition. In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition, targeting employees with 'valuable' railroad industry experience or skills', and the Company has filed a new motion to strike that categorization. On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs for an unknown amount. A Court-sponsored early mediation is expected to occur before the end of 2019. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., doing business as Wabtec Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for the rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. XPO LOGISTICS: Lepe Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned CARMEN LEPE, on behalf of herself, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1930360, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 15, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09834 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: 1) failure to pay overtime compensation; 2) failure to provide meal periods and/or pay missed meal period premiums; 3) failure to maintain and provide accurate and itemized wage statements; 4) failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner and upon separation of employment; 5) unfair competition; and 6) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Mathew Katz, writing for Digital Trends, reports that Yahoo is about to reach a $117.5 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit over a series of data breaches that affected users between 2012 and 2016 -- and you're likely eligible for your $100 cut or free credit monitoring if you had an account during that time. Millions of people could qualify for the $100 Yahoo settlement and the company has been emailing potentially affected users about the class action settlement over the past few weeks. Just because you got the email doesn't mean you'll get your settlement money or free credit monitoring. You've got until July 20 to figure out what to claim. Here's what you need to know about the data breaches and how to make a settlement claim. What happened: Yahoo's years of data breaches The class-action settlement comes after several major data breaches or "data security intrusions" -- essentially when a hacker got into the system but didn't take any information -- that plagued Yahoo over the course of several years. Yahoo sent out an email about the settlement on Oct. 16, detailing all the of the breaches that happened over the years. In 2012, two different hackers accessed Yahoo's internal systems, but didn't take anything. In 2013, "malicious actors" got into the company's database and took records from all of Yahoo's accounts -- roughly 3 billion in all. The hackers behind that breach could have gotten into users' email accounts, calendars, and contacts. Yet another database, this time in 2014, involved Yahoo's user database. Malicious actors took a ton of data from about 500 million Yahoo accounts, including names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birthdays, passwords, and security questions and answers. One last data breach took place from 2015 to September 2016, where hackers were able to use cookies to get into about 32 million Yahoo email accounts. While this is not nearly as big as the $700 million settlement that credit agency Equifax agreed to for its 2017 data breach involving the personal information of about 147 million people, it's still a substantial sum. Here's what you need to know about the Yahoo data breach settlement. What are your claim options for the Yahoo settlement? Like other data breach settlements, you're not just entitled to a cash payment. Yahoo is offering two years of free credit-monitoring services to anyone who had a compromised Yahoo account. If money sounds better to you, you can ask for a cash payment of $100 as long as you verify that you've already signed up for a credit-monitoring service. There are plenty of free credit-monitoring services online -- including Credit Karma -- that you can quickly sign up for if you choose this option. There is, of course, a catch to all of this. The settlement is a set amount of $117.5 million, meaning there's only so much cash to go around. If too many people sign up for the cash option, you'll have to split the pool. That means you might sign up for a $100 settlement and end up actually receiving substantially less. The same thing happened with the Equifax settlement -- leading the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to recommend people not choose the cash option because it would likely be tiny. Yahoo even warns users of that possibility on the claim website: "Payment for such a claim may be less than $100 or more (up to $358.80) depending on how many Settlement Class Members participate in the settlement," the company wrote. There are a few more options if the data breaches hit you more than most: If you had to spend time or money dealing with identity theft or other problems you believe stemmed from the hacks, you can file a claim for up to $25,000 in out-of-pocket losses. There's also additional settlement cash for small businesses and anyone who paid for premium Yahoo mail, so if you fall into either category, you could be eligible for additional compensation based on what you paid for services needed to deal with the breach. How to claim your Yahoo data breach settlement Anyone who had a Yahoo account between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, and is a resident of the United States or Israel is eligible for the settlement. To file your claim, simply visit the claim website, YahooDataBreachSettlement.com and fill out the claim form that's relevant to you. For most people, that's the basic account holder claim form. If you only want the $100 claim or credit-monitoring services, you'll just need your Yahoo username. If you want to make a bigger claim for lost time or out-of-pocket expenses due to the breach, you'll need to upload supporting documentation, like receipts, account statements with unauthorized charges, or letters from the IRS. If you plan to object or comment on the settlement, you'll need to do so by March 6, 2020. The deadline to make a claim is July 20, 2020. [GN] ZENDESK INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Zendesk, Inc. (NYSE: ZEN) between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zendesk investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Zendesk class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1698.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zendesk's clients had been subject to data breaches dating back to 2016; (2) Zendesk was experiencing slowing demand for its SaaS offerings, particularly in Germany, the U.K. and Australia, due in large part to political uncertainty and China trade issues there; (3) or the forgoing reasons, Zendesk's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented during the Class Period; and (4) as a result, Zendesk's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1698.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Zynerba Pharmaceuticals (ZYNE) between March 11, 2019, and September 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Zynerba securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Zynerba Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 Trial; (ii) the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for commercializing Zygel for the treatment of DEE in children and adolescents; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 18, 2019, during pre-market hours, Zynerba issued a press release announcing results from the BELIEVE 1 Trial evaluating topical gel Zygel in children and adolescents with DEE (the September 2019 Press Release). While Zynerba asserted that Zygel was well-tolerated in the September 2019 Press Release, it also disclosed that, among patients enrolled in the BELIEVE 1 Trial, the rate of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 96%, the rate of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) was 60%, and there were ten patients who reported serious adverse events (SAEs), of which, two SAEs (lower respiratory tract infection and status epilepticus) were determined to be possibly related to treatment. On this news, Zynerbas stock price fell $2.46 per share, or 21.77%, to close at $8.84 per share on September 18, 2019. If you purchased Zynerba securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/zynerbapharmaceuticalsinc-zyne-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-209/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP Matthew E. Guarnero 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 Tel: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. [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 ***