/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 236 Headlines ACTIVEHOURS INC: Stark Files Suit in N.D. California ALASKA: Smith Wants Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and Marriages ALTRIA GROUP: JPML Orders Consolidation of Suits over JUUL Vape AMERICAN ADVISORS: Illegally Sent Marketing Calls, Abramson Says ANN INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANNTAYLOR INC: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach ASHLEY FURNITURE'S: Gets Favorable Ruling in "DuraBlend" Case ATLANTIC UNION: Townsley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia AUDIO-TECHNICA: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts AVEDRO INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Glaukos BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Awaits Decision on Investors' Appeal BISCAYNE HOLDING: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Macklin Says BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports BRIDGER LOGISTICS: Bussey Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages BUCKEYE PARTNERS: 6 of 7 Hercules Merger-Related Suits Dismissed BUTTS COUNTY, GA: Group of Sex Offenders File Class Action CARE OPTIONS: Dobbins Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct. CARRA LLC: Tarax Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff CEPHEID: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Lopez Labor Suit Says CHEMOURS CO: Saw Sues Over PFAS-Related Decline in Share Prices CHRISTIAN FAITH: Literary Agents Class Certified in O'Brien Suit CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Class Certification in Gertler Suit Pending CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Reconsideration in NYPL Class Suit Denied CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Allianz 2nd Amended Suit Pending CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Denied CITRIX SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff COLORADO CAPITAL: Haque Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CONAGRA BRANDS: Aleisa Sues over Mislabeled Cocoa Products COVETRUS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline DEEP SENTINEL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation DETROIT CITY, MI: Bottner Asks Appeals Ct. to Review Case Ruling DEWINE: Class Settlement in Ball Suit Obtains Preliminary Court Nod DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action Pending DOMINION ENERGY: Cooper Voluntarily Consents to Stay Cross Claims DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Class Action Ongoing EAZE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages EL POLLO: Receives $18.1MM from Insurance Proceeds EL POLLO: Settlement Approval Seen in 2020 First Quarter EL POLLO: Settlement Paid in Turocy-Huston Case ESL INVESTMENTS: James Darr Files Affidavit and Verification EUBA CORP: Class Settlement Approved; Buckles Suit Dismissed FL RETAIL: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action in NY FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Faces Dominguez Suit Over ADA Violation FOOT LOCKER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRANCESCA'S COLLECTION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York GENISYS CREDIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint filed in 1MDB Suit in NY GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Lawsuit over Uber's $8.1 Billion IPO GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit over Alnylam's Nov. 2017 IPO GOLDMAN SACHS: Ill. State Court Suit over Camping World IPO Stayed GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal GRANDVIEW APARTMENTS: To Be Fumigated; Tenants Still Being Evicted HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Coverage Criteria Too Limiting, Smith Says INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Edgardo Canez Appointed as Lead Plaintiff IQVIA INC: Certification of Class Sought in Fischbein TCPA Suit JOSEPH NASTASI: Faces Galie Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Moves to Certify Class of Investigators JUICE GENERATION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JUST BRANDS: CBD Leads to Failed Drug Test, Trucker Claims KELLOGG: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $20 Million LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Jan Class Suit in California LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Counsel Withdraws from Class Suit LANE BRYANT: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards LIPOCINE INC: Abady Sues over 71% Drop in Share Price LJM FUNDS: Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set for June 3 in Sokolow Suit LOAD TRAIL: Cheated Undocumented Workers of Overtime, Suit Claims MARSHALLS OF MA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York MDL 2804: Village of Great Neck Opts Out of Opioid Class Action MITCHELL SIMONE: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA MYER: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Judgment in Australia NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT: Teran Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hart Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski's Bid for Class Certification Denied NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending OHIO: Settles Suit Over 'Needlessly Institutionalized' Patients ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Class Action Concluded OZARK PIZZA: Kindle Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data PACIFIC GAS: Investors File Class Action Following Power Outages PARETEUM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline PARETEUM CORP: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Breach Claims RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing S-L DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Maranzano for Diverting IBOs' Earnings SABER GRILLS: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Action in NY SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued by Jones for Violating Interest Rate Cap SCHOOL OUTFITTERS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton Suit Alleging RICO Act Violation SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Tabat Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action SKINNYCORP LLC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Blackburn Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENN.: $3-Mil. Lawsuit Filed Over Inmate Assault SUNDIAL GROWERS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Aquapan Suit Alleges SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alfaro Says SURESCRIPTS: Falconer Pharmacy Files Antitrust Class Action T.E.H. REALTY: Northwinds Apartments Residents Seek Class Action TAPPAN GOLF: Garzon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages TARGET CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Pay TEREX CORP: Ace Tree Appeals N.D. Georgia Ruling to 11th Circuit TORRID LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kudatsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay UNITED PARCEL: Must Face Drivers' Overtime Class Action UNITI GROUP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit UNITI GROUP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit URBAN ONE: Lucas Seeks OT Wages; Alleges Pay Bias and Retaliation VICTORIA SECRET: Cortes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Faces Makeen Suing Alleging ADA Violation WESTBRAE NATURAL: Barreto Sues Over False Vanilla Soymilk Claims WHOLE FOODS: Burke Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Soymilk Claims WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending WORLDWIND SERVICES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YNAP CORPORATION: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York [*] Class Actions in Canadian Cannabis Industry Expected to Rise ********* ACTIVEHOURS INC: Stark Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Activehours, Inc. The case is styled as Jared Stark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Activehours, Inc. doing business as: Earnin, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-07553 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Truth in Lending. Activehours. Inc. designs and develops application software. The Company offers a smartphone-based application that enables users to get paid for the hours worked when they need it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J Preusch, Esq. Keller Rohrback LLP 801 Garden Street Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com ALASKA: Smith Wants Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and Marriages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denali Nicole Smith, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, in his official capacity of Governor of the State of Alaska, KEVIN CLARKSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alaska, BRUCE TANGEMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, ANNE WESKE, in her official capacity as Director of the Permanent Fund Division, State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Case No. 3:19-cv-00298-HRH (D. Alaska, Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to stop the State from its unlawful enforcement of previously enjoined statutes, which excluded same-sex couples from marriage and prevents the State from recognizing valid same-sex marriages entered into elsewhere. The Alaska Statutes violate the equal protection and due process rights of the Plaintiff guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Ms. Smith contends. She asks the Court to enter an injunction (1) barring the Defendants from enforcing Alaska Stat. Section 25.05.011-.013 and other statutes violating her right to equal protection and due process, (2) requiring the Defendants to authorize and issue marriage licenses to her and all those similarly situated unmarried people, and (3) to extend legal recognition under state law to the existing marriages of people lawfully married elsewhere and all those similarly situated. After a court issued an order of declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, the State continued to enforce the Alaska Statutes, explicitly denying her and other Alaska residents, who were accompanying spouses of Alaska residents in military service outside the State in same sex marriages their permanent fund dividends on the basis of Alaska Stat. Section 25.05.011-.013, Ms. Smith asserts. Specifically, as to the Plaintiff, the State of Alaska denied her eligibility for the 2019 Permanent Fund Dividend because she is a woman married to a woman, who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who would, if married to a male member of the Armed Forces of the United States, be categorically eligible for the 2019 PFD, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Alaska. Defendant Michael Dunleavy is the Governor of the State of Alaska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Shortell, Esq. SHORTELL LAW LLC 911 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 204 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 272-8181 Facsimile: (888) 979-6148 Email: cs.sgalaw@gmail.com - and - Heather Gardner, Esq. 4141 B Street, Suite 410 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 375-8776 Facsimile: 1 (888) 526-6608 Email: hgardnerlaw@gmail.com ALTRIA GROUP: JPML Orders Consolidation of Suits over JUUL Vape --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. 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 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered the coordination or consolidation of class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products. As of October 28, 2019, Altria and/or PM USA were named as defendants in 12 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is also named in these lawsuits. The theories of recovery include: violation of RICO; fraud; failure to warn; design defect; negligence; and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales. Altria and/or PM USA also have been named as defendants in 26 individual lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is also named in these lawsuits. The majority of the individual and class action lawsuits mentioned above were filed in federal court. In October 2019, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the coordination or consolidation of these lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial purposes. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand; cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal, and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. AMERICAN ADVISORS: Illegally Sent Marketing Calls, Abramson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01341-MJH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff prerecorded telemarketing calls for the purposes of advertising its goods and services without consent, which is prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Advisors Group, Inc., is a California Corporation with its principal place of business located in Orange, California. American Advisors Group engages in telemarketing nationwide, including into this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-1250 E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ANN INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Inc. d/b/a Loft. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Ann Inc. d/b/a Loft, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10623 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ann Inc. is an American group of specialty apparel retail chain stores for women. The stores offer classic styled suits, separates, dresses, shoes and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ANNTAYLOR INC: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AnnTaylor, Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AnnTaylor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10625 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ann Taylor Inc. operates as a women apparel retail stores. The Company offers products such as blouses, tops, knits, tees, sweaters, dresses, suits, skirts, denim, swim suits, shoes, accessories, petites, and wedding clothes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ASHLEY FURNITURE'S: Gets Favorable Ruling in "DuraBlend" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled that a class failed to prove that Ashley Furniture's representations about its "DuraBlend" furniture would lead a reasonable consumer to believe the product is made out of genuine leather. A copy of the Memorandum is available at: https://is.gd/8tBgi9 ATLANTIC UNION: Townsley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank. The case is styled as Gennifer Townsley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Union Bank, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00849 (E.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Atlantic Union Bank provides financial services. The Bank offers offers checking accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance, payment protection, phone banking, bill pay, and merchant services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Thomas Fennell, Esq. P.O. Box 12325 Roanoke, VA 24024 Phone: (540) 339-3889 Fax: (540) 339-3880 Email: patrick@fmtrials.com AUDIO-TECHNICA: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audio-Technica U.S., Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audio-Technica U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10603 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Audio-Technica U.S., Inc. manufactures and distributes electronic equipment. The Company produces and retails microphones, headphones, wireless systems, mixers, and electronic products for home and professional use.[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 AVEDRO INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Glaukos ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AVEDRO, INC., GIL KLIMAN, DONALD J. ZURBAY, JONATHAN SILVERSTEIN, HONGBO LU, GARHENG KONG, THOMAS W. BURNS, REZA ZADNO, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, GLAUKOS CORPORATION, and ATLANTIC MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Avedro will be acquired by Glaukos Corporation and Glaukos' wholly owned subsidiary, Atlantic Merger Sub, Inc. On August 7, 2019, Avedro's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Glaukos. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Avedro's stockholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.365 shares of Glaukos common stock for each share of Avedro common stock they own. Based on Glaukos stock's August 6, 2019 closing price, the Merger Consideration is valued at approximately $27.86 per share. Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Glaukos shareholders will own approximately 85% of the combined company, and Avedro stockholders will own approximately 15%. The Plaintiff alleges that Avedro and the members of Avedro's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, in connection with the Proposed Transaction. On September 17, 2019, The Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends the Registration Statement fails to provide Company stockholders with material information, or provides them with materially misleading information, concerning: -- Avedro's, Glaukos', and the combined company's financial projections; -- the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Guggenheim Securities, LLC; -- the inputs and assumptions underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Guggenheim; and -- Guggenheim's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The Plaintiff, who owns Avedro common stock, seeks an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction, or any vote on the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the Defendants disclose and disseminate the missing material information to Avedro stockholders. Avedro is a leading commercial-stage ophthalmic medical technology company focused on treating corneal ectatic disorders and improving vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact lenses.[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 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bd1@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Awaits Decision on Investors' Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Biglari Holdings 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 is awaiting a decision on the shareholders' appeal from the order of dismissal of the class action lawsuits. On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Sardar Biglari as a result of the dual class structure. On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors. This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018 to approve the dual class structure. On April 16, 2018, the shareholders withdrew their motions to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018 complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new, consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the dual class structure. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class, and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 14, 2018, the judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits. On January 11, 2019, the shareholders filed an appeal of the judge's order dismissing the lawsuits. Biglari said, "The appeal was argued on October 7, 2019, and we await a decision." Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns, operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. BISCAYNE HOLDING: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Macklin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL MACKLIN on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BISCAYNE HOLDING CORP. d/b/a WILD ZEBRA and CHRISTOPHER VIANELLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-00561 (D.R.I., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendants required and permitted the Plaintiff and others to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club "Wild Zebra" in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Biscayne Holding Corp. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 245 Allens Ave., in Providence, Rhode Island. Christopher Vianello is the owner, controlling shareholder, manager, and president of Biscayne Holding Corp. The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Providence County, Rhode Island, under the name of "Wild Zebra." The Defendants employ exotic dancers, including the Plaintiff, at this location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chip Muller, Esq. MULLER LAW, LLC 47 Wood Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: (401) 256-5171 Facsimile: (401) 256-5178 E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com - and - Jonah A. Flynn, Esq. FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC 4200 Northside Pkwy. NW Building One, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 835-9660 Facsimile: (404) 835-6005 E-mail: jflynn@flynnlaw.com BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN TRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, d/b/a ALPHERA FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02081-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently or intentionally reporting erroneous negative and derogatory information on the Plaintiff's credit report. The Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages arising out of the systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by the Defendant since it has erroneously reported continual monthly payment obligations on accounts that have been paid in full and closed. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to properly investigate disputes concerning the inaccurate data it knew or should have known was erroneous and which caused the Plaintiff and the Class damages pursuant to the California Consumer Credit Reporting Act. Alphera supports dealers and customers to finance vehicles of all makes and models.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.cm BRIDGER LOGISTICS: Bussey Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- LAMARK LOUIS BUSSEY, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b) v. BRIDGER LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00310 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff and other misclassified workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Texas and was formerly employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant attempted to circumvent the FLSA's protections by misclassifying the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers in order to deny them overtime wages. Specifically, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees based on the quantity of work performed and in a manner that has failed to compensate them for overtime work. Bridger Logistics is a limited liability company that serves midstream and oilfield service-oriented businesses. The Company is in the business of assisting companies in shipping oil all over the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Meredith Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N St. Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com mmathews@foresterhaynie.com BUCKEYE PARTNERS: 6 of 7 Hercules Merger-Related Suits Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Buckeye Partners, L.P. 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 six out of seven lawsuits related to its merger deal with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC have been dismissed with prejudice. On May 10, 2019, Buckeye Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership" or "Buckeye"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement") with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), Hercules Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), Buckeye Pipe Line Services Company, a Pennsylvania corporation ("ServiceCo"), and Buckeye GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of the Partnership (the "General Partner"). On June 13, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, captioned Harry Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-2147 (the "Curtis Action"). On June 18, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01128 (the "Kent Action"). On June 19, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned John Greer v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05741 (the "Greer Action"). On June 20, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Anthony Luers v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05767 (the "Luers Action"). On June 26, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Michael Weston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01208 (the "Weston Action"). On June 26, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Heather McManus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06000 (the "McManus Action"). On June 28, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned John Ingalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06098 (the "Ingalls Action"). On June 28, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Michael Riss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01241 (the "Riss Action" and, together with the Curtis Action, the Kent Action, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the Weston Action, the McManus Action and the Ingalls Action, the "Federal Merger Litigation"). On June 28, 2019, Buckeye also received a joint demand letter from the plaintiffs of each of the Curtis Action, the Kent Action and the Greer Action reiterating the claims contained in each of those actions. On July 18, 2019, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the McManus Action and the Ingalls Action were transferred to the United States District Court for Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These cases are now docketed as Case No. 4:19-cv-02648, 4:19-cv-02647, 4:19-cv-02644 and 4:19-cv-02645, respectively. The Curtis Action alleges, among other things, that in pursuing the Merger, the Board breached its express and implied contractual duties pursuant to Buckeye's limited partnership agreement and its fiduciary duties to Buckeye's unitholders in agreeing to enter into the Merger Agreement by means of an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price. Each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases alleges that (i) either Buckeye's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on June 7, 2019 or Buckeye's definitive proxy statement, filed with the SEC on June 25, 2019 omits material information with respect to the Merger, rendering it false and misleading and, as a result, that Buckeye and the members of the Board violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) the members of the Board, as alleged control persons of Buckeye, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of the allegedly materially deficient Preliminary Proxy Statement or Proxy Statement. Each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases sought some or all of the following relief: an order enjoining the Merger, an order enjoining the unitholder vote until disclosure of the allegedly omitted material information identified is provided, the disclosure of all material information concerning the Merger, an order directing the Board to disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, an order rescinding the consummation of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages (in the event the Merger is consummated), a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. Buckeye believes that each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases is without merit and no supplemental disclosure was required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Federal Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on July 22, 2019, Buckeye filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K and a Schedule 14A supplementing certain of the allegedly misleading proxy statement disclosures identified in the Federal Merger Litigation. Each plaintiff agreed that the disclosure contained in the Supplemental Proxy Statement mooted his or her disclosure claims. On August 27, 2019, the Greer Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. On September 5, 2019, the Kent Action was dismissed without prejudice. On September 11, 2019, the Riss Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. On September 30, 2019, the Ingalls Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. On October 3, 2019, the Curtis Action was dismissed without prejudice. On October 22, 2019, the McManus Action was dismissed with prejudice. Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye), incorporated on July 11, 1986, owns and operates a network of integrated assets providing midstream logistic solutions, primarily consisting of the transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid petroleum products. The Company's segments include Domestic Pipelines & Terminals, Global Marine Terminals and Merchant Services. Buckeye GP LLC (Buckeye GP) is the Company's general partner. The Company is an independent terminaling and storage operator in the United States in terms of capacity available for service. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BUTTS COUNTY, GA: Group of Sex Offenders File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David Boroff, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a group of sex offenders in Georgia has filed a class-action lawsuit after objecting to "No Trick-or-Treat" signs posted at their homes by the local sheriff ahead of Halloween. The registered sex offenders claim the signs violate their privacy and their right to free speech, and have asked a federal judge to stop Butts County Sheriff Gary Long from placing them. "It's easy to pick on these guys," lawyer Mark Yurachek told TV station 11 Alive. "Because nobody really wants to see anything done for a sex offender. But I promise you if this goes by without a legal challenge and push-back, it's going to get worse . . . the Sheriff's going to say the next time, when it's the DUI registry, and he wants to identify people who drink and drive, that that's OK, as well." Yurachek was making an emergency request for an injunction to be put in place. Sheriff Long, who also posted the signs last year, says he plans to argue that he is following state law by placing the signs. "Regardless of the Judge's ruling, I WILL do everything within the letter of the Law to protect the children of this Community," Long wrote on Facebook. Sheriff Long also offered a link to the sex offender registry in the Oct. 21 social media post. Yurachek said in a statement that all parties involved in the lawsuit are "extremely concerned about the safety of the children in this and every other community." "It is particularly concerning to us that the head law enforcement officer for Butts County believes that he may exceed the already substantial legal authority which the Georgia Sex Offender Registry grants him to compel these Petitioners, none of whom are currently on probation or parole, to speak as he wishes them to speak," read the statement. In full, the signs read "WARNING! No trick-or-treat at this address!! A community safety message from Butts County Sheriff Gary Long." The lawsuit alleges that sheriff's deputies last year "made overt threats to arrest or punish the registrants if they did not comply." [GN] CARE OPTIONS: Dobbins Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Care Options Management Plans and Supportive Services LLC. The case is styled as Marilyn Dobbins, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Care Options Management Plans and Supportive Services LLC, Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00269065-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 14, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other employment". Care Options Management Plans & Supportive Services, LLC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing counseling, welfare, and referral services including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief.[BN] CARRA LLC: Tarax Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- NAZARIO TARAX SONTAY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARRA LLC (D/B/A DOG & BONE), SINEAD C NAUGHTON , SUSAN VASQUEZ , AYA EGAWA , and LUIS DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10137 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Tarax was employed as a dishwasher and a food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant. He alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. The Defendants own, operate or control a restaurant, located at 338 3rd Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Dog & Bone."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CEPHEID: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Lopez Labor Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CEPHEID, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV358827 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for their violation of the California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wages Order. The Defendant required the Plaintiff and California Class Members to work without paying them for all the time they were under the Defendants' control, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, he asserts, the Defendant required him to work while clocked out during that was supposed to be his off-duty meal break. He adds that he was from time to time interrupted by work assignments while clocked out for what should have been his off-duty meal break, and there were days where he did not even receive a partial lunch. As a result, the Plaintiff and other California Class Members forfeited minimum wages and overtime compensation by working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable minimum wages overtime rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California from February 2018 to April 2018. The Defendant is a California molecular diagnostics company that develops, manufactures and markets fully integrated systems for testing in the clinical market, and for application in its original non-clinical market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Web site: http://www.bamlawca.com/ CHEMOURS CO: Saw Sues Over PFAS-Related Decline in Share Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- YU SAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, MARK P. VERGNANO, and MARK E. NEWMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02074-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover damages to investors, including the Plaintiff, caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws. The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of Chemours' securities between February 16, 2017, and August 1, 2019. The claims asserted are alleged against Chemours and certain of the Company's senior executives, and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case concerns Chemours' misrepresentations to investors that concealed the true extent of the massive environmental liabilities the Company incurred from decades of producing and releasing a variety of chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other serious health consequences by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Chemours' former parent company prior to its spin-off, and by Chemours itself. The truth concerning Chemours' actual exposure was revealed in a series of corrective disclosures. On May 6, 2019, Glenview Capital Management's Larry Robbins gave a presentation at the Sohn Investment Conference that disclosed significant new facts about Chemours' environmental liabilities, including a detailed analysis estimating the Company's true perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure was actually between $4 billion to $6 billion. In response to this disclosure, Chemours stock declined from $34.18 per share on May 3, 2019, to close at $31.61 on May 6, 2019--an over 7.5% decline that wiped out over $415 million in shareholder value. On August 1, 2019, after the close of the market, Chemours issued a press release reporting second quarter results and lowered full-year guidance, including reducing full-year free cash flow outlook to $100 million--down from prior guidance of over $550 million. In the Form 10-Q the Company filed the next day, Chemours disclosed significant increases in the Company's estimated liabilities, including numerous new legal and regulatory actions related to PFAS. Following the release of these results, analysts slashed their ratings on the Company's stock. For example, analysts at SunTrust downgraded their rating on Chemours from buy to hold, and cut their price target on the Company's stock by more than half (from $36 to $16), citing "$2.5B for PFAS" and the liabilities revealed in the Delaware Complaint. Following disclosure of the Company's results, Chemours shares fell dramatically and closed down 19% from $18.16 per share on August 1, 2019, to $14.69 on August 2, 2019, on unusually high volume, erasing over $560 million in shareholder value, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have long known about the extent of environmental liabilities that have only recently been disclosed to investors. For example, when it was still DuPont's Performance Chemicals division, in the 1950s, Company scientists began documenting the health effects of PFAS; by the 1970s, they knew that PFAS was building up in the blood of humans and staying there for long periods of time; and by the 1980s, DuPont became concerned about liver damage and birth defects among its own PFAS exposed workers. Chemours is a spin-off of DuPont and produces a wide range of industrial and specialty chemicals products for various markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com dsborz@andrewsspringer.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CHRISTIAN FAITH: Literary Agents Class Certified in O'Brien Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ELISSA O'BRIEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIAN FAITH PUBLISHING, Case No. 3:18-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., granted in part, and denied in part, the Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Court-Supervised Notice and Consent Forms and to Order Disclosure of Current and Former Employees. Through the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order (1) conditionally certifying a class of plaintiffs, who worked as literary agents for Defendant Christian Faith Publishing; (2) directing the Defendant to provide a list of last-known names, addresses, e-mail address, and telephone numbers for all putative class members; and (3) equitably tolling the statute of limitations for prospective class members during the opt-in period. The Defendant filed a response in opposition, and the Plaintiff filed a reply. Ms. O'Brien filed this action as a purported collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). She alleges that she and other similarly situated employees worked remotely for the Defendant as literary agents selling publishing services for the Defendant. She contends that she and other literary agents were improperly classified as "independent contractors," regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and at times were paid nothing, in violation of the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Campbell conditionally certifies a class of plaintiffs, who worked as literary agents for Defendant Christian Faith Publishing within the past three years. Judge Campbell also rules that (i) within 15 days, the Defendant shall provide Plaintiff a list of names, and last-known e-mail and mailing addresses of potential class members, and (ii) within fifteen days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall confer and submit agreed notice and consent forms. If the parties cannot agree, the Plaintiff shall file her proposed forms, and the Defendant may file its specific objections thereto, both by the same deadline. The Plaintiff may respond to the Defendant's objections within five days.[CC] CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Class Certification in Gertler Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup 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 motions for certification of class actions alleging manipulation of foreign exchange markets have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel. Subsequently, an amended motion for certification of a class action was filed and served on Citibank. The consolidated case is captioned GERTLER, ET AL. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG. Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Reconsideration in NYPL Class Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 in the case, NYPL, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., the court has denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's earlier denial of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add new allegations concerning credit card, ATM, debit card, and wire transactions. Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Allianz 2nd Amended Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 defendants are awaiting a court ruling on their motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the case, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 25, 2019. Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup 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 in the case, IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court has issued an order granting without prejudice CGMI's and other defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint. The court order was entered on September 3, 2019. On September 10, plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended class action complaint. On September 17, CGMI and the other previously dismissed defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the court denied. Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITRIX SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff ------------------------------------------------------------------- Citrix Systems, 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, together with LogMeIn, Inc., continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings. On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix, LogMeIn and certain of their directors and officers in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn. The complaint seeks among other things the recovery of monetary damages. Citrix Systems said, "We believe that Citrix and our directors have meritorious defenses to these allegations; however, we are unable to currently determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or the potential exposure or loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. COLORADO CAPITAL: Haque Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Capital Investments, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Mohammed Haque, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colorado Capital Investments, Inc., Colorado Capital Asset Management Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06516 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Colorado Capital Investments is an infamous "debt buyer", buying up portfolios of old debt from banks, credit card companies, hospitals, doctors, cell phone companies and car companies for pennies on the dollar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. Fagenson & Puglisi 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (212) 268-2128 Fax: (212) 268-2127 Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Aleisa Sues over Mislabeled Cocoa Products ---------------------------------------------------------- MISHARI ALEISA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07520 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for false and misleading promotion of cocoa products. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant sells "Swiss Miss Simply Cocoa Dark Chocolate Hot Cocoa Mix", which is advertised as being "Simply Cocoa" and "Made with Real Cocoa". However, the Defendant's product consist of alkalized cocoa, which is a highly processed cocoa of substantially inferior quality compared to its all-natural counterpart. Conagra Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail consumers, restaurants, and institutions. The Company offers meals, entrees, condiments, sides, snacks, specialty potatoes, milled grain ingredients, dehydrated vegetables and seasonings, and blends and flavors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nick Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com COVETRUS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL) Class Period: securities issued either in or after the August 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 25, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sndl/ Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) Class Period: 2/8/2019 - 8/12/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cvet/ 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 KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients--including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] DEEP SENTINEL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deep Sentinel Corp. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deep Sentinel Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10606 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Deep Sentinel is a home security company that produces a series of cameras powered by deep learning that can evaluate threats on a property.[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 DETROIT CITY, MI: Bottner Asks Appeals Ct. to Review Case Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Leah Bottner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled LEAH BOTTNER v. CITY OF DETROIT, Case No. 19-004507-CZ, in the Wayne Circuit Court. The appellate case is captioned as LEAH BOTTNER v. CITY OF DETROIT, Case No. 351020, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BOTTNER, LEAH/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is represented by: Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 West Big Beaver, Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-5667 Facsimile: (248) 649-5668 E-mail: mark@wasvarylaw.com - and - Aaron D. Cox, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC. 23380 Goddard Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telephone: (734) 287-3664 Facsimile: (734) 287-1277 E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF DETROIT is represented by: Sheri L. Whyte, Esq. CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT 1010 City County Bldg. 2 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226- 3437 Telephone: (313) 237-3076 DEWINE: Class Settlement in Ball Suit Obtains Preliminary Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- Disability Rights Ohio on Oct. 23 disclosed that the Honorable Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has granted preliminarily approval to a comprehensive settlement agreement in the class action Ball v. DeWine (Case No.: 2:16-cv-282), in the United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division, Disability Rights Ohio (DRO), the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, the Center for Public Representation (CPR), and attorney Sam Bagenstos brought the class action lawsuit in March 2016 on behalf of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, and The Ability Center of Greater Toledo. The parties include the state of Ohio, the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD), the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM), Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD), and the Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (OACBDD). DODD has agreed to continue and expand programs that will allow more people with developmental disabilities the option to live and work in their communities with the supports they need. Under the agreement, DODD will: * Expand options counseling and pre-admission counseling programs. The two counseling programs provide people with information about community-based waivers and the opportunity to discuss their options to receive services in the community. The Department and county boards of developmental disabilities will extend these programs to people who live in eight-bed intermediate care facilities (ICFs). * Maintain peer-to-peer and family-to-family programs and exploratory community visits for people who have not yet made a decision. The Department will continue to fund programs that connect people who are considering community living with families and individuals who are already living and working in community settings. The Department and county boards of developmental disabilities will continue to provide opportunities to visit community programs and see what types of service options exist in a person's preferred geographic area. * Expand access to state-funded Individual Options waivers for people who choose a waiver. The Department will provide a total of 700 waiver slots over the first two years of the agreement, with first priority for people in ICFs who want waivers to live in the community and for people who have applied for admission to an ICF with eight or more beds but want a waiver to remain in the community. For the next two years the Department will request additional funds based on an assessment of the future needs of people across Ohio. * Support and expand programs for integrated, affordable housing, and integrated employment and day services. The Department will provide $24 million in capital housing assistance for State Fiscal Years (SFY) 2019 and 2020, to be primarily available for people receiving exit, diversion or conversion waivers. In SFY 2021 and 2022, the Department will project the continuing need for capital assistance and request budgetary approval, for not less than $12 million dollars. In addition, the Department will request $250,000 to fund new transformation grants for providers delivering integrated day and employment services. * Continue follow-along visits for people after they have left ICFs. The Department's Community Resource Coordinators will continue to visit people who have moved to the community to assist in resolving any service problems they may have. These visits occur 60, 180 and 365 days after transition from an ICF of 8 or more beds. Under this agreement, no one who currently lives in an ICF will be required to move into the community, and those who are considering ICF care will still be able to make that choice. In 2017, a group of guardians for individuals in ICFs, formally intervened in this lawsuit. These intervenors have negotiated a separate settlement agreement with the state and county board defendants. That agreement is separate from and will not impact the class-wide settlement described above. "We are pleased that we have arrived at an agreement that protects the civil rights of the plaintiffs and class members," says Michael Kirkman, Executive Director of Disability Rights Ohio. "Individuals with developmental disabilities in Ohio will now be offered more robust options that will allow them to live in and participate more fully in their communities." The public will have the opportunity to submit comments on the Settlement Agreement before the final hearing is held. The Notice to Class Members (https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/assets/documents/00579010.pdf) explains how to submit comments. More details, including the Proposed Settlement Agreement, can be found on DRO's website, http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org. Disability Rights Ohio is the federally and state designated Protection and Advocacy System and Client Assistance Program for the State of Ohio. The mission of Disability Rights Ohio is to advocate for the human, civil and legal rights of people with disabilities in Ohio. Disability Rights Ohio provides legal advocacy and rights protection to a wide range of people with disabilities. http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org The Center for Public Representation is a non-profit, public interest law firm that seeks to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities -- especially those who are institutionalized and discriminated against -- and to enforce their legal rights to exercise choice and self-determination in all aspects of their lives. http://www.centerforpublicrep.org The Ability Center of Greater Toledo is a non-profit Center for Independent Living (CIL) serving northwest Ohio. The Center is located in Sylvania, Ohio, and has a satellite office in Bryan, Ohio. The Ability Center believes in and supports equitable and inclusive communities for people living with disabilities. The mission of The Ability Center is to assist people with disabilities to live, work and socialize within a fully accessible community. http://www.abilitycenter.org About Sidley Austin LLP With 2000 lawyers in 20 offices around the globe, Sidley -- http://www.sidley.com-- is a premier legal adviser for clients across the spectrum of industries. Since our founding in 1866, Sidley has cultivated a tradition of, and commitment to, pro bono service. Sidley's lawyers and staff devote more than 100,000 hours annually to serving those most in need. [GN] DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, 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 individual defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action suit related to the unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), is pending. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. This case is pending. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: Cooper Voluntarily Consents to Stay Cross Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, 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 Santee Cooper has voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC). In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants, including certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina which was denied. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the underlying case. This case is pending. In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina. In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. This case is pending. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, 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 "Metzler" lawsuit. In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. EAZE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- John Schroyer, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that a class action lawsuit filed against cannabis tech platform Eaze -- a major player in the California marijuana delivery world -- was dismissed by a federal judge, who ordered the plaintiff to enter into arbitration with the company. U.S. District Court Judge James Donato dismissed the lawsuit brought by former Eaze customer Farrah Williams, after ruling that she had entered into a legally binding contract with the company that requires her to go through arbitration. Williams filed suit against Eaze in May 2018, alleging the company had violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending her unsolicited text messages advertising cannabis sales. But Donato sided with Eaze, ruling that because Williams agreed to Eaze's terms of service -- which required arbitration for any legal disputes -- she would be forced to use that process. "This ruling is enormously important for the entire industry, as contracts across California and nationally could have been invalidated had the court found for the plaintiff," Andrea Lobato, chief risk officer at Eaze, said in a news release. An attorney for Williams told Marijuana Business Daily that she plans to appeal. According to court records, Eaze is also on the brink of finalizing a settlement agreement with another plaintiff, Kristine Lloyd, who filed suit with similar TCPA complaints to Williams', in August 2018. [GN] EL POLLO: Receives $18.1MM from Insurance Proceeds -------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that during the 39 weeks ended September 25, 2019, the Company received insurance proceeds of $10.0 million related to the settlement of a securities class action lawsuit. During the 13 and 39 weeks ended September 26, 2018, the Company received insurance proceeds of $2.0 million and $6.1 million, respectively, related to the reimbursement of certain legal expenses paid in prior years for the defense of securities lawsuits. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. EL POLLO: Settlement Approval Seen in 2020 First Quarter -------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that the company is anticipating that the settlement in the Olvera Action, Perez Action, Vega Action, and Gonzalez Action will be approved by the Court in the first quarter of 2020. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) (the "Olvera Action") on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019 of all claims brought on behalf of approximately 32,000 putative class members in the Olvera Action, as well as all claims for failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001) (the "Perez Action"), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719 (the "Vega Action"), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC712867) (the "Gonzalez Action") and codified such settlement on April 26, 2019. The settlement reached in the Olvera Action, Perez Action, Vega Action, and Gonzalez Action resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that the Company's California based restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for the failure to pay all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and hour related claims. It is anticipated that the settlement will be approved by the Court in the first quarter of 2020. A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. EL POLLO: Settlement Paid in Turocy-Huston Case ----------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that all settlement payments in the consolidated Turocy-Huston class action suit were made during the 39 weeks ended September 25, 2019. Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a class as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants filed a petition for appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order. On October 19, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition. On January 23, 2019, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and Joint Request for Order to Stay Proceedings, stating the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims and allegations in the action and are negotiating the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement. On January 24, 2019, the Court ordered that all proceedings in the action be stayed until April 3, 2019, on or before which the parties were to file a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. On May 13, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation and the Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), which was granted by the Court on August 26, 2019. A $20.0 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018 and all settlement payments were made during the thirty-nine weeks ended September 25, 2019. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. ESL INVESTMENTS: James Darr Files Affidavit and Verification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned James Darr, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. ESL INVESTMENTS, INC., EDWARDS S. LAMPERT, RBS PARTNERS, L.P., ESL PARTNERS L.P., TRANSFOORM HOLDCO LLC, TRANSFORM MERGER CORPORATION, HOMETOWN MIDCO LLC, WILL POWELL, E.J. BIRD, JAMES F. GOOCH, JOSEPHINE LINDEN, KEVIN LONGINO, ELBERTO FRANCO and JOHN E. TOBER, Case No. 2019-0929 (Del. Ch., Nov. 20, 2019), James Darr filed an affidavit and verification pursuant to the Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection with the filing of a Verified Class Action Complaint. Mr. Darr discloses that he held shared of Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. continuously throughout the wrongs alleged in the Complaint. He has reviewed and authorized the filing of the Complaint against the Defendants in this action and is familiar with the allegations of the Complaint. He confirms that he verified and reviewed the Complaint and that the allegations as to him and his own actions, and all other allegation are true and correct. Mr. Darr also attests that neither him, nor anyone else affiliated with him, have received, been promise or offered, and will not accept any form of compensation, directly or indirectly, for prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this action except for (i) such damages or other relief as the Court may award him as a member of the class; (ii) such fees, costs or other payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to him or on his behalf; or (iii) reimbursement, paid by his attorneys, of actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him directly in connection with prosecution of this action.[BN] EUBA CORP: Class Settlement Approved; Buckles Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Walter H. Rice grants the Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval in the lawsuit titled Mary Buckles, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. EUBA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00355-WHR (S.D. Ohio). Judge Rice approves the Settlement and Release Agreements executed by Mary Buckles, and the terms and conditions therein. The lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own respective court costs, attorney's fees and expenses. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.[CC] FL RETAIL: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FL Retail Operations LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FL Retail Operations LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10624 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. FL Retail Operations LLC is a retail store services specializing in athletic and leisure clothing and footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Faces Dominguez Suit Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker Retail, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10635 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an American sportswear and footwear retailer, with its headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, and operating in 28 countries worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com FOOT LOCKER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foot Locker, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10628 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Foot Locker, Inc. is a leading global retailer of athletically inspired shoes and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com FRANCESCA'S COLLECTION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francesca's Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Francesca's Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06508 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Francesca's Collections Inc. retails apparel products. The Company manages a chain of retail clothing stores where it sells a variety of apparel for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net GENISYS CREDIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Hilary Garcia, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GENISYS CREDIT UNION and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:19-cv-13430-VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from GCU's policy and practice of assessing an overdraft fee or Non-Sufficient Funds Fee on transactions when there was enough money in the checking account to cover, or pay for, the transactions presented for payment. The Defendant GCU wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the Class Members overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds fees, according to the complaint. The charging of such overdraft NSF fees breaches GCU's contracts with its members, including the Plaintiff and the members of the Class. The charging for such overdraft fees also violates federal law. Because GCU failed to describe its actual overdraft service in its Opt-In Agreement by, inter alia, failing to describe accurately in its Opt-In Agreement the actual method by which GCU calculates its overdraft fees, and because GCU also violated or did not fulfill other prerequisites of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, before being allowed to charge overdraft fees, GCU was prohibited from assessing overdraft fees for automated teller machine (ATM) and non-recurring debit card transactions, but GCU did so anyway, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Westland, Michigan and was a member of GCU. GCU is and has been a federally chartered credit union with its headquarters located in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Goodman, Esq. HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO, PLC 801 W. Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 240 Plymouth, MI 48170 Phone: 248-760-2996 Email: PJGoodman1@aol.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com ejk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Phone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint filed in 1MDB Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs in the 1MDB class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have filed a second amended complaint. On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the putative class action related to the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending. The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants in the class action suit related to Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) have sought dismissal of the newly asserted additional misstatement and omission claims in a second amended consolidated complaint. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain former directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus' sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $185 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings, but denied as to the July 2015 and June 2016 offerings. On December 7, 2018, plaintiffs moved for class certification. On February 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On March 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the newly asserted additional misstatement and omission claims in the second amended consolidated complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion to dismiss the suit initiated certain by direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc., is pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2019, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust and state common laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages. Defendants moved to dismiss on July 25, 2019. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Lawsuit over Uber's $8.1 Billion IPO --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) together with Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber), faces a putative securities class action related to Uber's $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 25, 2019 in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.6 billion. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit over Alnylam's Nov. 2017 IPO ------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, together with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action suit related to Alnylam's $805 million November 2017 public offering of common stock. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to the Alnylam IPO. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $322 million. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Ill. State Court Suit over Camping World IPO Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 an Illinois state court action related to Camping World Holdings, Inc.'s $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310 million October 2017 offering has been stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in a similar lawsuit pending in Illinois federal district court. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December 2018. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Camping World Holdings and certain of its officers and directors, as well as certain of its stockholders. As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of Camping World common stock, a $261 million October 2016 initial public offering, a $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310 million October 2017 offering. GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares of common stock in the October 2016 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $94 million, 4,557,286 shares of common stock in the May 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $126 million and 3,525,348 shares of common stock in the October 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $143 million. GS&Co. and the other defendants moved to dismiss the New York state court action on February 28, 2019, the Illinois state court action on April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court action on May 17, 2019. The Illinois state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in the Illinois district court action. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has stayed the proceedings in a securities class action pending an appellate court's decision. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings pending the appellate court's decision. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GRANDVIEW APARTMENTS: To Be Fumigated; Tenants Still Being Evicted ------------------------------------------------------------------ KSBY News reports that city and county officials have ordered the Grandview Apartments in Paso Robles, California, to fumigate for bed bugs and cockroaches. The move comes as dozens of tenants are being evicted from the apartment complex. In May, tenants filed a class action lawsuit against the owners of Grandview Apartments, claiming they were living in units infested with insects, vermin and mold. After the court allowed the owners to inspect the property to see how costly repairs would be, the owners decided to instead shut down their business and sell the property. An attorney representing the tenants says that while the fumigation will be an inconvenience, it will allow the tenants to take their belongings with them when they move out. The city and county are reportedly working on finding temporary housing for the tenants who will be affected during the fumigation process. Grandview's owners have been ordered to pay $1,000 to each unit for having to relocate and return the full security deposit within a week after moving out. [GN] HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Coverage Criteria Too Limiting, Smith Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA SMITH, on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, under her pseudonym, JANE SMITH, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION and MCG HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07162 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from MCG's creation of, and HCSC's adoption and use of, clinical coverage criteria for determining when residential treatment of mental health conditions and/or substance use disorders is medically necessary and, thus, covered by the welfare benefit plans administered by HCSC. Ms. Smith is a participant in the Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Health and Well-Being Plan (the "Smith Plan"), which is sponsored by Ms. Smith's employer. Her daughter, referenced by the pseudonym "Jane Smith," is a beneficiary of the Smith Plan. She has been designated as her daughter's agent pursuant to a Power of Attorney. The Plaintiff and her daughter are residents of Wisconsin. Ms. Smith contends that HCSC should reprocess the claims for residential behavioral health treatment that it previously denied (in whole or in part) under the MCG Acute RTC Guidelines or any other MCG Guidelines containing the same restrictive criteria, pursuant to new guidelines that are consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice. Although purporting to summarize accepted standards of medical practice, the criteria MCG created and HCSC used in administering benefit plans were much more restrictive than those generally accepted standards, Ms. Smith asserts. As such, she points out, they contradicted the Plan's written terms of and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. HCSC is a Mutual Legal Reserve Company that is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. HCSC issues and administers health insurance plans in five states (Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Montana) as a licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. HCSC is the fourth-largest health insurance administrator in the country, with more than 16 million members. As of January 2019, it was responsible for processing mental health claims on behalf of more than 1.7 million members, including more than 727,000 members suffering from depression.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George F. Galland, Jr., Esq. David Baltmanis, Esq. MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C. 325 N. LaSalle St., Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 E-mail: ggalland@lawmbg.com dbaltmanis@lawmbg.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Ave., 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com creynolds@zuckerman.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Edgardo Canez Appointed as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------------- Intelligent Systems Corporation 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 Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit initiated by Michael Skrzeczkoski. On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the company, our executive officers, and each member of the Board of Directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a result of the failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection with his former position with MiMedx, Inc. The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired the company's stock during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged misleading statements. On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead plaintiff on behalf of the putative class. Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. We have not determined the likelihood of loss to be probable nor is any potential loss estimable at this time, therefore we have not recorded any related liability as of September 30, 2019." Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991, is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and processing services to the financial technology and services market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services (FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software, Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross, Georgia. IQVIA INC: Certification of Class Sought in Fischbein TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying this class: All persons and entities who received one or more facsimiles at any time after November 13, 2015 from Quintiles, IMS or IQVIA inviting them to participate in a study in exchange for points in a rewards program. Mr. Fischbein asserts that he files this Motion in conjunction with the filing of his Class Action Complaint in order to avoid any attempt by the Defendant to moot his individual claims. However, he notes, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the Court to determine whether to certify the class he seeks to represent. As a result, he will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable. In his complaint, Mr. Fischbein alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending fax advertisements.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (800) 601-0808 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com david@classlawyers.com tod@classlawyers.com molly@classlawyers.com JOSEPH NASTASI: Faces Galie Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Galie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOSEPH NASTASI, LLC and JOSEPH P. NASTASI, Case No. 2:19-cv-05456-AB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendants' conduct represents the very sort of abusive debt collection practices the FDCPA was enacted to prevent: mainly, misrepresenting the rights of purported debtors, and the steps necessary for them to take to avoid waiving the rights and protections provided to them under the FDCPA, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants violated the FDCPA by: (1) misleading the Plaintiff that he could dispute his debt through a phone call or fax; (2) misrepresenting the amount of time he had to respond to the Letter; (3) misrepresenting the amount of time he had to make a payment; and (4) omitting from the Letter that he must dispute the debt in writing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Pennsylvania. Joseph Nastasi, LLC, dba Nastasi Law, is a law firm and debt collector incorporated in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Matthew Wolfe, Esq. 4256 Regent Square Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: (215) 387-7300 Email: Matthew@Wolfe.org JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Moves to Certify Class of Investigators --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DUSTY LEITZKE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02174-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court for an order granting conditional certification of her collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and notice to similarly situated investigator employees. Chase is a large trillion dollar international bank, which offers customers a variety of banking services. The Defendant employs Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Investigators, Investigator Specialists, and other investigative employees with similar titles (collectively as "Investigators") who perform computer-based production work to the daily production goals the Defendant mandates. Specifically, the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the nationwide FLSA Collective of Investigators that the Defendant employ(ed) in the last three (3) years; (b) requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), e-mail address(es) (including personal e-mail addresses to the extent they are available), and dates of employment for each Investigator; (c) authorizing notice and a consent form to the members of the Investigator FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail and e-mail, and returnable via mail, e-mail, or fax; and (d) authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day notice period.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Sari Alamuddin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 77 West Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60601-5094 Telephone: (312) 324-1158 Facsimile: (312) 324-1001 E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com JUICE GENERATION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juice Generation Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juice Generation Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06506 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Juice Generation is New York's premier juice bar. It promotes health & wellness through antioxidant and nutrient-rich juices, smoothies and acai bowls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net JUST BRANDS: CBD Leads to Failed Drug Test, Trucker Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line Media, reports that Trevor Darrow had been a truck driver for about 10 years. According to his attorney, he had never failed a drug test during that time. Then, earlier this year Darrow failed an employment drug test with a motor carrier because of the presence of THC in his system. "He was shocked because he hadn't ever failed a drug test," said David Fish of the Fish Law Firm in Naperville, Ill. "He had to have a drug test for his driving jobs for some time. He couldn't believe it. He thought it had to be a mistake." However, Darrow said he purchased JustCBD gummies in July from a retailer in Illinois, because he believed the product would help him sleep. According to Darrow, the product was labeled as not containing THC, which is the main psychoactive chemical found in marijuana. On Oct. 28, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrow filed a class action complaint against Just Brands USA, alleging the Florida-based company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by mislabeling their JustCBD products as having "no THC." "It boils down to this," Fish said. "There needs to be federal labeling. Consumers, including truck drivers, need to know what they are getting into before they buy something." According to Fish, it took Darrow a couple of months to regain employment after the failed drug test. "Plaintiff purchased the JustCBD product because he reasonably expected the product would help him sleep and that it did not contain any THC, as defendants had advertised on the product label," the class action complaint stated. "Defendants' 'no THC' representation was false and misleading to plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers." The class is open to any person who within three years of the filing, purchased JustCBD products with the "no THC" label in the state of Illinois. The class is not limited to truck drivers, nor those who failed a drug test as a result. Attempts to reach JustCBD regarding the complaint were unsuccessful on Friday, Nov. 1. [GN] KELLOGG: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $20 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Watson, writing for Food Navigator, reports that Kellogg has agreed to allocate $20 million to a fund to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises some cereals as healthy and nutritious when they are also high in sugar, highlighting the risks facing manufacturers as the Plaintiff's Bar homes in on added sugar. [GN] LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Jan 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, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America. On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Sacramento. Plaintiff alleges that non-exempt employees based in California were not properly paid 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, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, 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. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Counsel Withdraws from Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Landstar System, 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 28, 2019, that the court has granted a motion by counsel for Hany Tanious to withdraw from the class action suit. On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc. The complaint purports to bring this action on behalf of Hany Tanious, as an individual, and "all owner operators who performed work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this action through the present." The complaint asserts claims based on the alleged misclassification of Mr. Tanious as an independent contractor and alleges violations under California law relating to overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse certain expenses, wage statements, waiting time and unfair competition. Mr. Tanious was a truck owner-operator and formerly an independent contractor who was a party to an independent contractor operating agreement with Landstar Ranger, Inc. On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that resulted in the removal of the case from state court to federal court, where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United State District Court for the Central District of California. On August 22, 2019, the Court issued an order (i) granting a motion filed by counsel for Mr. Tanious to withdraw from the case, (ii) striking all class allegations from the complaint and (iii) stating that this matter would proceed as an individual action. Mr. Tanious subsequently retained new counsel. Landstar said, "Due to a number of factors including the preliminary status of this matter, the Company does not believe it is in a position to conclude whether or not there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse outcome in this case or what damages, if any, the plaintiff would be awarded should he prevail on all or any part of his claims. However, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and it intends to assert these defenses vigorously." Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation Logistics and Insurance. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. LANE BRYANT: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Himelda Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LANE BRYANT, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10772 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. Lane Bryant operates multiple retail locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 770-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com LIPOCINE INC: Abady Sues over 71% Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON ABADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIPOCINE INC.; MAHESH V. PATEL; and MORGAN R. BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00906-PMW (D. Utah, Nov. 14, 2019) is a federal securities class action consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Licopine securities between March 27, 2019 and November 8, 2019, seeking to recover damages against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company's lead product candidate is TLANDO (LPCN 1021), an oral testosterone replacement therapy. The Company has previously submitted New Drug Applications ("NDA") for TLANDO twice and, bot times, received Complete Response Letters ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") rejecting the NDAs. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies. The Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the results from Licopine's clinical studies of TLANDO were insufficient to demonstrate the drug's efficacy; (ii) Licopine's third NDA for TLANDO was highly likely to be found deficient by the FDA; (iii) the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading. On November 11, 2019, Licopine issued a press release announcing receipt of a CRL from the FDA regarding its NDA for TLANDO. In the press release, Licopine advised investors that the FDA had again rejected the NDA for TLANDO, this time because an efficacy trial had not met three of its secondary endpoints. On this news, Licopine's stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 70.7%, to close at $.80 per share on November 11, 2019. Lipocine, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company. The Company improves therapeutic performance of established drugs by solving drug delivery problems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Tel: (801) 322-2002 Fax: (801) 912-0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyer.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com LJM FUNDS: Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set for June 3 in Sokolow Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY STATE OF ILLINOIS SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from February 28, 2015 through February 7, 2018, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund, whether or not those shares were Class A, Class C or Class I (the "Settlement Class") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, that the Plaintiff and Defendants LJM Funds Management, Ltd. and Anthony Caine (the "LJM Defendants") in Sokolow v. LJM Funds Management, Ltd., Case No. 18-CH-11880 (the "Action") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,225,000 in cash, as well as an assignment of twenty percent of any recovery by Mr. Caine in any future case that is brought on behalf of LJM Funds Management, Ltd. (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims against the LJM Defendants in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Raymond Mitchell at Courtroom 2601 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 50 W. Washington Street, Chicago, IL 60602, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the LJM Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Settlement Agreement should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (4) Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund and payment of litigation expenses of up to $25,000 from the Settlement Fund; (5) Class Counsel's motion for a service award for Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000; and (6) any other matter related to the Settlement that the Court deems appropriate. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Long-Form Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: Sokolow LJM Funds State Action, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173057, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-234-6578. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Settlement Administrator, LJMFundStateLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form so that is received by the Settlement Administrator no later than April 30, 2020. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 13, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or Class Counsel's request for a service award for the Plaintiff must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel such that they are received no later than March 2, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice. If you have questions regarding this publication notice, please do not contact the Court. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator. Requests for the Long-Form Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Sokolow LJM Funds State Action, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173057, Milwaukee, WI 53217; (877) 234-6578 toll free; or LJMFundStateLitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Class Counsel: Michael E. Criden, Esq., Criden & Love, P.A., 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515, South Miami, FL 33143; (305) 357-9000. Dated: October 23, 2019 By Order of the Court Circuit Court of Cook County State of Illinois [GN] LOAD TRAIL: Cheated Undocumented Workers of Overtime, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Eiserer and Mark Smith, writing for WFAA.com, report that one of the nation's largest trailer manufacturers hit last year with a major immigration bust now faces a class-action lawsuit by former undocumented employees. More than 60 former workers of Sumner, Texas-based Load Trail claim they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week but were not paid all their overtime. The workers were mostly welders and other manual laborers. "We (were) working there 55 hours on average," said Salvador Leon, who told WFAA he used to work at Load Trail as a welder. The lawsuit claims that Load Trail, located on a 100-acre complex about a two-hour drive northeast of Dallas, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. It also claims workers were paid in different pay schemes "to avoid paying" overtime. Federal labor law requires employers to pay overtime to manual workers, whether they're documented or undocumented, according to the lawsuit. An attorney for Load Trail declined to comment but has denied any wrongdoing. The former workers also claim the company withheld several thousand dollars of their pay on the promise that it would go towards getting their immigration statuses legalized, but that never happened. "We cannot complain because they told us, 'Over there is the door,'" said Miguel Oliva, another former Load Trail welder. In 2014, Load Trail agreed to pay a $444,993 fine for "knowingly hiring and continuing to employ unauthorized workers," according to a federal report. As part of the agreement, the company pledged to get rid of undocumented workers and to ensure any new hires were legally eligible to work. However, last year, when federal agents returned to make a surprise visit, they found and detained 160 undocumented workers. At that time, the company's attorney denied Load Trail knew the detained workers were undocumented. Load Trail has remained open while a federal criminal investigation has continued. "You can call it greed . . . The fact of the matter is they had a workforce they could abuse and underpay," said Dallas attorney Allen Vaught, Esq., who represents the workers. Oliva and Leon were working when federal agents descended and surrounded the Load Trail complex in 2018. "I saw a helicopter really close," Oliva recalled. "I told my partner, immigration is here." The former workers claim Load Trail kept them on the payroll despite the 2014 agreement. "They knew that we was undocumented," said Oliva, whose records indicate he worked as a Load Trail welder from 2013 until the 2018 raid. "They came to us and they told us you don't need to worry, we're going to pay the fine and you can continue working," added Ramirez, whose records indicate he began working for Load Trail in 2009. A former company insider, who spoke exclusively to WFAA last year, also claimed Load Trail found ways to get around the 2014 agreement. "They were a very successful company and could have been very successful just where they were, not hiring any illegals, but that wasn't enough," the insider told WFAA. In the 2014 agreement, Load Trail was ordered to E-Verify all new hires to make sure they could legally work. E-Verify allows an employer to compare records provided by a worker with actual government records. But the insider, who agreed to speak to WFAA without being identified, said the company found ways around E-Verify. "We were under a court order," the company insider said. "I would have to take the information and enter it into E-Verify. If it kicked it back, then they would have me hire them under their other company that was not under court order to E-Verify. I knew it was wrong. I knew what they were trying to do." Leon said he saw first-hand how Load Trail allegedly circumvented their agreement. He told WFAA that undocumented workers were hired under a second company known as "4T." "And they hired illegal people, and they transferred to Load Trail after that," Leon said. Leon and others also claimed they were misled into believing Load Trail was working to get them permits to work legally. Payment records show the company deducted a total of $2,000 from their paychecks in $200 increments. "We filled out papers, and we paid $2,000 and never get a permit," Leon told WFAA. Ramirez told WFAA that Load Trail blocked employees from leaving their company to work at nearby trailer factories, and they were even required to sign "confidentiality" agreements. "When we arrived to the other company that we was trying to join, they told us Load Trail already called them (and) don't hire them," Ramirez said. According to the suit, while employees used time cards to clock in, their supervisors were able to manually change the times, creating an "inaccurate and unreliable tracking and payment of actual hours worked." Vaught said hiring undocumented workers can have broad effects. "The reason a U.S. citizen should care about undocumented workers being overly worked and not being paid overtime wages is because it suppresses other people's wages," Vaught said. "When they drive down the cost of labor for that targeted workforce that is being abused, it actually drives down the cost of labor for U.S. citizens, too." Load Trail referred WFAA's questions to an attorney, who declined comment, citing the pending lawsuit and an ongoing criminal investigation. However, in a prior interview, Gene Besen, Esq., an attorney for Load Trail, told WFAA that the company promises to cooperate with federal investigators. "There was nobody exploited," Besen said. "The important thing that everybody needs to understand is that these undocumented workers were not taking American jobs." He said Load Trail was continuously hiring and there was a shortage of labor in that area. North Texas has been a flashpoint for immigration enforcement action. The past year, North Texas led the nation in immigration arrests and detentions, with major one-site busts ⁠— first at Load Trail and then at a cellphone repair business in Allen. A Pew Research Center study found that the biggest percentage increases in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests were in Florida, northern Texas and Oklahoma. The Dallas area had a 71 percent spike in ICE arrests for fiscal 2017. Also, two of the nation's biggest workplace busts occurred in the Dallas area, including Load Trail in August 2018 and at Allen Technology in April 2019. During the Allen raid, 280 workers were taken into custody. Former Load Trail workers like Leon said he prays for justice and doesn't flinch about filing the lawsuit against Load Trail. "When you say the truth, you have nothing to lose," he said. Leon faces an immigration hearing later this year. He said he hasn't given up hope that he'll be able to stay in the United States. "I wish I can stay in this country forever," he said. Vaught said employers who gain an unfair advantage over other competitors need to face stiff punishment for violating labor laws. "If the worst thing that happens is a slap on the wrist--and it is not the managers and owners that are getting walked away in handcuffs, but it's the workers--it's the cost of doing business," Vaught said. "And there is zero deterrent unless ICE wants to focus on the employers who are asking these workers to come here and work." [GN] MARSHALLS OF MA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marshalls of MA, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10626 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marshalls of MA, Inc. operates a chain of department stores. The Company manages a number of stores retailing clothing, furnishings, luggage, cosmetics, and accessories for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com MDL 2804: Village of Great Neck Opts Out of Opioid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Pelaez, writing for the islandnow, reports that the Village of Great Neck Board of Trustees on Oct. 22 elected to opt out of a nationwide class-action lawsuit over opioids and pursue a separate suit. The class-action lawsuit was filed against the distributors and manufacturers of opioids on behalf of government municipalities that have suffered financial and health impacts as a result of the opioid crisis. A recent report by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that this crisis caused $8.2 billion in economic damage to Long Island in 2017. A total of 617 opioid-related deaths occurred on Long Island that year, which is the highest on record, according to the report. According to village Attorney Peter A. Bee, most local municipalities on Long Island have received notice of a proposed class-action settlement, with the option to opt out and file a separate claim or to remain in the litigation. "Virtually every municipality in the country is listed as a class-action member in litigation against the manufacturers and distributors of opioids," Bee explained. He added that there is no guarantee that a settlement would be reached or what the amount of the settlement would be. Under a sample billion-dollar settlement, the Village of Great Neck would receive $1,800. "Based on the advice that I gave this board, I believe this board would entertain a motion to opt out of this class-action to retain special counsel from the law firm of Tate, Grossman, Kelly & Iaccarino," Bee said. After unanimous approval, the firm will file a case in federal court in the Eastern District of New York. The case will then automatically transfer to the Northern District of Ohio, where all opioid cases have been consolidated under Judge Dan A. Polster. Polster announced a $260 million settlement between two Ohio counties and three major drug distributors and an opioid manufacturer on Oct. 21, according to The New York Times. The deal is a combination of cash payouts and donations for addiction treatments, according to The Times. The firm said it believes the case can be settled within the next two years. If a settlement is reached, the firm will collect 25% of the amount, which is lower than the customary 33% that firms charge for related cases. [GN] MITCHELL SIMONE: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitchell Simone, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mitchell Simone, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10607 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitchell Simone partners with global brands to provide a complete ecommerce solution for the brand's website. It is in the Women's Clothing Stores business.[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 MYER: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Judgment in Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that shareholders have won the first class action lawsuit to go all the way to judgment in Australia -- but are unlikely to see a cent from defendant Myer because the stock market didn't believe inflated profit forecasts made by the retailer's chief executive, a judge has found. The landmark judgment, handed down on Oct. 24 by the federal court, is likely to be of more help to shareholders in future lawsuits, because Judge Jonathan Beach accepted that it was not necessary to prove Myer misled every investor individually. Instead, drawing on a journal article he wrote while a barrister, Beach found that it was enough to show the market at large was misled. Shareholders in the case, which was organised by the Melbourne solicitor Mark Elliott, alleged Myer misled the market in September 2014 when its then CEO, Bernie Brookes, told analysts and journalists the company's profit would be higher in the 2015 financial year than the $98.5 million posted in 2014. But in March the following year, the company admitted profits for the 2015 financial year would probably be down on the previous year, at between $75 million and $80 million, because of stagnant sales and soaring costs. Myer's share price immediately fell more than 10%. Beach found Myer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by failing to correct Brookes's statement on multiple occasions between September 2014 and March 2015. But the judge said he was "not convinced that the applicant and group members have suffered any loss flowing from such contraventions" because Myer's share price "already factored in an NPAT [net profit after tax] well south of Mr Brookes's rosy picture painted on 11 September 2014". "In other words, the hard-edged scepticism of market analysts and market makers at the time of the contraventions had already deflated Mr Brookes's inflated views," Beach said. "So any required corrective statement that should have been made at the time of the contraventions, if it had been made, is likely to have had no or no material effect on the market price." However, Elliott told Guardian Australia he would now ask for access to the Myer share register so that he could write to shareholders "and invite them to individually prove their loss". "That's the upshot of the decision and it's a slog but very doable," he said. "We have registered 1,200 [shareholders] already and expect double that easily." In a victory for class action lawyers and potential plaintiffs, Beach said he accepted the theory of "market-based" or indirect causation, where harm is done to investors because the price of securities they buy is inflated by incorrect information. This is significantly easier to prove than showing that an investor directly relied on the misleading statements made by the company when deciding to buy shares. The rosy picture painted by Brookes evaporated within weeks, evidence before the court shows. By October 20, 2014, internal Myer forecasts predicted profit would be at most $95 million, and could be as little as $84 million. And a few days later, on November 2, 2014, Brookes sent an email to the board titled "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" in which he said that despite good recent sales figures, the overall picture was "'ugly' and even with $6 million of cost reduction we will need the 'sales start' to the quarter to continue". By this time, Myer's internal profit forecasts were 5% more than those of analysts, Beach said. "But instead of announcing anything to the market, despite all of the negative news in the first quarter of FY15 and its internal profit projections showing the unlikelihood of FY15 NPAT above $90m, Myer appears to have thereafter created a series of internal profit projections which 'targeted' profit figures at the same level as the budget had originally proposed in July 2014," he said. Myer's share price has continued to fall since 2015 amid continuing consumer gloom. Shares that changed hands for about $1.70 in mid-2015 closed at 10c on Oct. 24. "As this matter relates to historical events and may be appealed, Myer will not provide any further comment on the judgment," the company said in a statement to the ASX. [GN] NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT: Teran Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES EMETERIO TERAN, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT CORP., and RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10134 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In September 2011, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a food runner for their restaurant business located at 85 2nd Avenue, in New York City. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. Specifically, he was scheduled to work for 7.5 hours on Monday and Wednesday, 9.5 hours on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and 6 hours on Sunday. However, the Plaintiff contends he had to work during lunch break. He was also required to open the door for the restaurant and accept deliveries off the working hours. As a result, he asserts he had to work approximately two hours off the schedule. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hart Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jared Hart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04596-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Nov. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski's Bid for Class Certification Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jorge L. Alonso denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Paul Calusinski, et al. v. National Vehicle Protection Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-05680 (N.D. Ill.). According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling at a later date. The minute entry also states that the Parties' MIDP disclosures shall be served by December 2, 2019, and that all fact discovery shall be noticed in time to be completed by June 30, 2020. The case is referred to the magistrate judge for discovery supervision, with authority to modify, set and extend deadlines, and a settlement conference.[CC] NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navient Corporation 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's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2019 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in April 2019. The Company has denied the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides asset management and business processing services to education, healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation 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 defnd a class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants' motion to dismiss. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides asset management and business processing services to education, healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation 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 class action suits over alleged violations of consumer protection laws. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state consumer protection laws. In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws. In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a civil action against Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC ("Solutions"), containing similar alleged violations of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Additionally, in 2018 the Attorneys General for the States of California and Mississippi initiated similar actions against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws. We refer to the Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, and Mississippi Attorneys General collectively as the "State Attorneys General." In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and the State Attorneys General. Navient said, "As the Company has previously stated, we believe the suits improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new, unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively only against one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have denied these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in each of these cases." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides asset management and business processing services to education, healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. OHIO: Settles Suit Over 'Needlessly Institutionalized' Patients --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kasler, writing for WKSU News, reports that a disability rights group has settled the class action lawsuit it filed against the state of Ohio four years ago over its claims that people are being needlessly institutionalized in state and private run facilities. The settlement expands access to 700 state-funded waivers that allow people with disabilities and their families to choose to receive services in the community or in institutions. Disability Rights Ohio filed the suit in federal court in 2016. Its executive director Michael Kirkman says this affects the six original plaintiffs, and since it's a class action, there are potentially 3,000 more. "These folks are generally very pleased because they have been expressing a desire to move to the community for some time and have not been able to get services." The state will spend $24 million in the next year on housing assistance, and the settlement also expands employment and day services. The Department of Developmental Disabilities said in a statement the settlement is "fair and reasonable". [GN] ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Class Action Concluded ------------------------------------------------- OneMain Holdings, 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 class action suit entitled, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., has been concluded. On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain Acquisition in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint sought an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On April 23, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which received final approval from the Court on August 9, 2019. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the action was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement contained no admission of liability by the Company and the other defendants. OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides consumer finance and insurance products and services. The company operates in two segments, Consumer and Insurance, and Acquisitions and Servicing. OneMain Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1920 and is based in Evansville, Indiana. OZARK PIZZA: Kindle Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Kindle, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OZARK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2019CH13419 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail their unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data. The Defendant's employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff to collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from Plaintiff to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by BIPA. Plaintiff Sean Kindle Jr. is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois. Ozark Pizza Company, LLC is a franchisee of Papa John's Pizza. The Defendant owns and operates multiple Papa John's Pizza locations throughout Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com PACIFIC GAS: Investors File Class Action Following Power Outages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that amid power outages affecting 179,000 customers--and another one coming that could affect nearly 900,000--Pacific Gas and Electric executives were hit with a federal class action on Oct. 25 claiming they misled investors about the company's preparedness for pre-emptive blackouts. The complaint accuses PG&E CEO William "Bill" Johnson and three former and current executives of making false and misleading statements about the company's wildfire safety efforts and readiness for fire-prevention power cuts. "PG&E's purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly designed," the 33-page complaint states. "As a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the company implemented to minimize wildfire risk." According to the lawsuit, the "truth emerged" on Oct. 12 after a New York Times expose revealed new details of PG&E's ill preparedness for widespread power outages affecting 738,000 customers in 35 counties between Oct. 9 and 10. The company faced tough questions from state regulators over the blackout blunders. PG&E's top executives and board members faced complaints of poor planning, insufficient coordination with local governments, a downed website, an overwhelmed call center and a failure to set up emergency resource centers in affected communities, among other problems. The company's stock price tanked $0.35, or 4.4%, on Oct. 12, followed by a $1.00, or 12.2%, tumble on Oct. 24 after the company announced plans to cut power to 179,000 homes and businesses. Other defendants named in the lawsuit include former CEO Geisha Williams, who left the company in January 2019, and former interim CEO John R. Simon, who served from January to May 2019. PG&E's current chief financial officer, Jason Wells, is also named as a defendant. "The individual defendants possessed the power and authority to control the contents of PG&E's SEC filings, press releases, and other market communications," the complaint states. The complaint cites 14 press releases issued between Dec. 11, 2018, and Oct. 11, 2019, that contained "materially false and misleading" statements about the company's safety protocols and preparedness for power outages. Lead plaintiff Christopher Vataj seeks class certification, damages and attorneys' fees. He is represented by Jennifer Pafiti of Pomerantz LLP in Los Angeles. PG&E did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on Oct. 25. On Oct. 25, the utility announced another round of dry windy weather forecast to blow into Northern California beginning on Oct. 26 could mean more pre-emptive blackouts to about 850,000 customers in 36 of California's 58 counties. If it occurs, it would be PG&E's largest planned shutoff so far. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/WgFofp PARETEUM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Pareteum Corporation (TEUM) from December 14, 2017 and October 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important December 23, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Pareteum investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Pareteum class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1701.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) it was not true that Pareteum's purported success was the result of hyper-demand for Pareteum's unique products or exceptional service, or the Company's competent management; but, in fact, defendants had propped up Pareteum's results by manipulating Pareteum's accounting for revenues, income, and the important Backlog metric; (b) defendants had materially overstated Pareteum's profitability by failing to account properly for the Company's results of operations and by artificially inflating the Company's financial results; (c) it was not true that Pareteum contained even the most minimally adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls necessary to assure that Pareteum's reported financial statements were true, accurate, and/or reliable; (d) it was not true that the Company's financial statements and reports were prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (e) as a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Pareteum was operating according to plan, or that Pareteum could achieve the guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants. 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-1701.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PARETEUM CORP: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Breach Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Pareteum Corp. (NASDAQ:TEUM) for violations of the securities laws. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Pareteum disclosed on October 21, 2019, that it would restate its financial statements for the full year ending December 31, 2018, as well as the interim periods ending March 31, 2019, and June 30, 2019. The Company admitted that, "The decision to restate these financial statements is based on the Company's conclusion that certain revenues recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not have been recorded during that period. For certain customer transactions, the Company may have prematurely or inaccurately recognized revenue." Based on this news, shares of Pareteum traded down sharply on October 22, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Website: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ RE/MAX Holdings, 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 two putative class action suits over alleged violations of federal antitrust law. In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois. The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District of Illinois. These two actions have now been consolidated. A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri. The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar relief. The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in violation of federal antitrust law. They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation of federal antitrust law. Amended complaints add allegations regarding buyer steering and non-disclosure of buyer-broker compensation to the buyer. Additionally, plaintiffs in the action filed by Sitzer et al allege violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. By agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as defendant in the actions. Among other requested relief, plaintiffs seek damages against the defendants and an injunction enjoining defendants from requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000 agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. S-L DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Maranzano for Diverting IBOs' Earnings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Maranzano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01997-JEJ (M.D. Pa., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff works for the Defendant, who refers to the workers as "IBOs." The Plaintiff uses vehicles to transport the products from the Defendant's warehouses to the customers. The Defendant diverts the earnings of the Plaintiff and other IBOs by requiring them to personally pay for work-related expenses such, inter alia, gas expenses, vehicle maintenance/repair expenses, and insurance expenses, the Plaintiff alleges. He estimates that during the past 6 years, the Defendant has subjected him to pay withholdings and diversions far exceeding $100,000. The Defendant, according to its Web site, "is a wholesale distributor of various snack food products manufactured by subsidiaries and affiliates of Snyder's-Lance, Inc."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Chad Hatmaker, Esq. J. Keith Coates, Esq. WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC Post Office Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37901 Phone: (865) 215-1000 SABER GRILLS: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Action in NY ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saber Grills, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saber Grills, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10611 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saber Grills, LLC manufactures compact grills with full-size cooking capacity and a side burner.[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 SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued by Jones for Violating Interest Rate Cap ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda M. Jones, individually and on behalf of all Arkansans similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00811-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought for declaratory judgment under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from the Defendant's violation of the Arkansas Constitution's interest rate cap of 17%. The Defendant acquired through written assignment a Simple Finance Charge Agreement (hereinafter the "Financing Agreement") between the Plaintiff and the Arkansas limited liability company, who at the time was doing business as Landers Chrysler Jeep Dodge, in Benton Arkansas and that hereafter, along with its predecessors and successors in interest, and irrespective of the various registered Arkansas fictitious named utilized by any of the foregoing, constitutes the entity/ies referred to herein as "LANDERS." On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Dodge Avenger from LANDERS. As part of this transaction between the Plaintiff and LANDERS, they also entered into the Financing Agreement. The annual percentage rate of the Financing Agreement between the Plaintiff and LANDERS, an Arkansas LLC indisputably subject to the Arkansas Constitution, was 19.55% per annum, reflecting an interest rate exceeding the mandatory constitutional interest threshold of 17% per annum. LANDERS proceeded to sell and assign the Financing Agreement between LANDERS and the Plaintiff to the Defendant Santander, who remains the current owner of the Financing Agreement. The Defendant immediately began to, and to this day continues to, demand and collect principal and interest payments from the Plaintiff on a monthly basis under the terms of the Financing Agreement in violation of the unambiguous usury prohibitions of the Arkansas Constitution, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of this violation of the Arkansas Constitution, the Plaintiff and the Class seek an Order declaring the principal and interest provisions of their Financing Agreements held by the Defendant to be void and awarding them judgment against the Defendant in an amount equal to the amount of such principal and interest payments collected by the Defendant in violation of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Arkansas. Santander is a foreign for profit corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: James@StreettLaw.com - and - Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com SCHOOL OUTFITTERS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against School Outfitters LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. School Outfitters LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10618 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. School Outfitters is an online retailer of school furniture and equipment.[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 SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton Suit Alleging RICO Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ella Clinton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-24803-PCH (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2019), seeks to halt and remedy Security Benefit's scheme to use certain indices to induce the sale of annuities to United States residents in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. An equity-indexed deferred annuity ("EIA") is a type of fixed annuity that is distinguished by the interest yield return being partially based on an equities index, typically the S&P 500. The general appeal of EIAs is to moderately conservative investors who like having some opportunity to earn a higher investment return than what's available from traditional fixed-rate annuities, while still having some protection against downside risk. An annuity is essentially an investment contract with an insurance company, traditionally used for retirement purposes. Instead of utilizing a reputable index, such as Standard & Poor 500, Security Benefit's fraudulent scheme included the development and marketing of a series of misleading and deceptive EIAs purporting to provide above-market returns through purported "uncapped" 100% participation in the gains in certain "proprietary" indices artificially engineered specifically for use in these new EIAs. The Plaintiff contends that Security Benefit's marketing of "uncapped" and "100% participation" in the returns on these proprietary indices was false and misleading without a clear statement that they were in fact designed to have much lower returns than the stock indices traditionally used in EIAs. This fraudulent scheme could only be accomplished with the assistance of third parties, such as Advisors Excel. Through this fraudulent racketeering scheme, Security Benefit wrongfully induced the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated individuals to purchase the Annuities through materially false and misleading representations and half-truths, says the complaint. Security Benefit's perpetration of this overarching scheme was conducted as part of an enterprise that has committed and is committing an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity such that their conduct violates the RICO act, alleges the Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the state of Florida. Security Benefit is a life insurance company organized under Kansas law, with its principal place of business located at Topeka, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Tabat Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA TABAT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. d/b/a SPS, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01264-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2019), alleges breach of contract and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, borrowers nationwide struggle enough to make their regular mortgage payments without getting charged extra, illegal fees when they try to pay by phone or online ("Pay-to-Pay fees"). Federal and state debt collection laws strictly prohibit these charges unless expressly agreed by the borrower, but these Pay-to-Pay fees are found nowhere in the standard Mortgage Agreement. SPS pays a third party to process these Pay-to-Pay transactions at a cost of about $0.20 each. Despite this low cost, SPS charges homeowners an excessive $5.00 to $20.00 Pay-to-Pay fee for each online or pay-by-phone mortgage payment transaction, pocketing the difference as profit, the Plaintiff contends. She argues that SPS must be held accountable for its actions. SPS has long known these fees are illegal, but charges them anyway, violating the FDCPA and Florida law by demanding excessive Pay-to-Pay fees, and violating its mortgage contract by charging fees not expressly allowed under the uniform contractual obligations contained in standard form mortgage loan agreements, the lawsuit says. SPS services mortgages throughout the United States, including Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California ruled in favor of the Service Employees International Union Local 1000 in a class action dispute relating to "fair-share" fees, finding that the union collected the fees in good faith before the Supreme Court's recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME. A copy of the Memorandum and Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Motion to Decertify the Class, and Motion to Amend Class Certification Order is available at: https://is.gd/Eq8mDG SKINNYCORP LLC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skinnycorp, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Skinnycorp, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10605 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. skinnyCorp, LLC, doing business as Threadless, provides online technology that allows user-submitted designs. The Company specializes in printing the user-submitted arts on apparels, pillows, smart phone cases, bags, and other items.[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 SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Blackburn Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against officers of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The case is styled as Sherry Blackburn, Isabel Deleon, Jonathan Armstrong, Whitney Bedwell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Garland McGeshick Chairman of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Arlyn Ackley, Jr. Vice Chairman of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Vicki Ackley Treasurer of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Carmen McGeshick Councilman I of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Kenneth Vanzile Councilman II Councilman I of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Ronald Quade Secretary of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Jimmy Landru, Jr. Chief Executive Officer of Sokaogon Finance, Inc., John Doe Nos. 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00847-MHL (E.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Sokaogon Chippewa Community, or the Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, is a band of the Lake Superior Chippewa, many of whom reside on the Mole Lake Indian Reservation, located in the Town of Nashville, in Forest County, Wisconsin. The reservation is located partly in the community of Mole Lake, Wisconsin, which lies southwest of the city of Crandon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENN.: $3-Mil. Lawsuit Filed Over Inmate Assault ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lurah Lowery, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that a $3 million class-action federal lawsuit has been filed against Sullivan County, Sheriff Jeff Cassidy, Chief Jail Administrator Lee Carswell, former corrections officer Christopher Sabo and other unnamed Sheriff's Office employees over the assault of an inmate last year. Sabo was charged with assaulting Travis Bellew on Oct. 29, 2018. A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Greeneville earlier this week claims Sabo "without warning or provocation" violently knocked Bellew to the floor and into a closet, out of camera view. During the altercation, Bellew hit his head on a mop bucket and Sabo beat him "about the head and body with his closed fists," according to the suit. Sabo pleaded guilty to the assault charge, according to the lawsuit. Online court records indicate he was placed on pretrial diversion. Sabo's conduct was largely due to the "violent culture created by decrepit jail conditions," the suit states. Overcrowded conditions, understaffing, untrained officers, the absence of an inmate classification system to separate violent and nonviolent inmates as well as a poorly designed and unsafe jail are listed as issues that "cause corrections officers to unreasonably react violently to inmates, even when presented with no real threat," the suit states. All the men and women who have been incarcerated in the jail since 2014, those currently incarcerated and those who will be in the future are at "substantial risk of serious harm" and are listed as plaintiffs in the suit. The suit accuses Sabo of violating Bellew's civil rights by using excessive force, assault and battery and violating Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act by causing false imprisonment through restraining Bellew. Sabo will be back in Bristol General Sessions Court for a status hearing in January. All of the defendants are being accused of violating federal civil rights laws by failing to protect Bellew while he was in custody, violating Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act by not providing a safe environment for him and for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sullivan County is being sued for failing to train and supervise officers, for unsafe jail conditions and false imprisonment. Sheriff Jeff Cassidy said he was advised to decline comment on the lawsuit by County Attorney Dan Street. The suit requests a jury trial, a declaration that the county is violating federal and state law and an injunction compelling it to provide inmates with protection from violence by corrections officers and other inmates. The suit's request for injunctive relief would have a greater effect on the county than the $3 million being sought, Street said. "The court would have the power to order certain things; for us to take certain action," he said. "Other than that, it's just monetary damages and attorney fees should they win."[GN] SUNDIAL GROWERS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL) Class Period: securities issued either in or after the August 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 25, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sndl/ Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) Class Period: 2/8/2019 - 8/12/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cvet/ 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 KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Aquapan Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL AQUAPAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS & GLASS, INC.; and SLIM SIEW SENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06446 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Aquapan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Sunshine 39 Windows & Glass, Inc., a New York Corporation, engage as a window and door company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Duffy, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 679-5000 Fax: (212) 679-5005 SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alfaro Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81554-RAR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company develops and markets proprietary drugs for the treatment of central nervous system diseases and disorders. Supernus Pharmaceuticals offers portfolio of clinical stage drugs to address neurological and psychological problems such as epilepsy, conduct disorder, Parkinson's disease, ADHD, and depression. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Steven N. Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Tel: (954) 889-3359 Fax: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com SURESCRIPTS: Falconer Pharmacy Files Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Falconer Pharmacy filed an federal antitrust class action against Surescripts, RelayHealth and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, claiming they conspired to monopolize the markets for electronic prescription routing and eligibility, inflating prices. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/lzBnev T.E.H. REALTY: Northwinds Apartments Residents Seek Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Bogan, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that two residents of Northwinds Apartments in Ferguson are asking a judge to grant class-action status to a lawsuit that alleges affiliates of T.E.H. Realty have refused to make repairs to the 438-unit complex. "The clients aren't asking for a bunch of money in this lawsuit," said Lee Camp, one of the attorneys handling the case at public interest firm ArchCity Defenders. "They are essentially asking for a court order to force their landlord to deliver habitable housing that complies with the law in the state of Missouri." In documents sent to St. Louis County Circuit Court on Oct. 23, Tahata Brooks and Destani Matthews allege that they have been "plagued by unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that are the result of Defendants' failure to maintain and repair the homes in the complex, as well as the apartment grounds," including ceiling collapse, flooding and mold. T.E.H. Realty is a major provider of affordable housing, but many of its local properties are in bad shape. Here's coverage of those conditions. T.E.H. Realty and its affiliates have come under fire in recent years regarding living conditions at several of its properties in the St. Louis region, which are mainly occupied by low-income tenants. On Oct. 23, a reporter's phone call to Northwinds went to an overloaded voicemail system. An investor in the company wasn't aware of the filing yet. The lawsuit seeks to include hundreds of other Northwinds residents because they have allegedly "suffered a similar injury, being forced to live in unconscionable conditions that create a risk to their life, health, and safety." [GN] TAPPAN GOLF: Garzon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Mardonio Salazar Garzon, Genaro Carbajal, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TAPPAN GOLF PRO SHOP INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-10780 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law for its failure to compensate the Plaintiffs an overtime premium, to pay a minimum wage, and to pay wages due and owed for hours employees were required to report to work, ready to perform work and actually performed work duties. The Plaintiffs allege they were required to work 60-80 hours a week but they were never paid time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 each week. Due to the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage to which they are entitled and the overtime premium for hours over 40, they have lost significant income during their employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as general laborers. TAPPAN GOLF PRO SHOP INC. is a Domestic Limited Liability Company duly authorized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse C. Rose, Esq. THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC 3109 Newtown Avenue Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: (718) 989-1864 Fax: (917) 831-4595 Email: Jrose@theroselawgroup.com TARGET CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00999-C (W.D. Okla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks compensation for the Defendant's violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a Senior Team Leader for Target Corporation at a Target store in Yukon, Oklahoma. While working as an hourly Senior Team Leader, the Plaintiff periodically acted in the capacity of the store's Leader on Duty (LOD), in which case he would be the senior store manager on duty. In the LOD capacity, the Plaintiff was required to be continually on duty, in order to meet any need that might arise. He was the senior-most Target employee in the store. Despite being always on duty while in the LOD capacity, the Plaintiff alleges that Target subtracted 30 minutes from his daily pay for meal breaks when he was acting in the LOD capacity. The subtraction of 30 minutes from daily pay constituted an illegal reduction of pay under the FLSA, which requires payment of wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages when appropriate, the lawsuit says. Target Corporation is a massive U.S. Retailer with its headquarters in Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristopher E. Koepsel, Esq. RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS, PC 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 587-3161 E-mail: kkoepsel@riggsabney.com - and - Brian Murray, Esq. Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com kruf@glancylaw.com TEREX CORP: Ace Tree Appeals N.D. Georgia Ruling to 11th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ace Tree Surgery, Inc. and Brown's Tree Service, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in entered in their lawsuit styled Ace Tree Surgery, Inc., et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00775-SCJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01120. The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The case asserts product liability-claims. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing lifting and material handling solutions for a variety of industries, including construction, infrastructure, quarrying, recycling, energy, mining, shipping, transportation, refining and utilities. The appellate case is captioned as Ace Tree Surgery, Inc., et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-90018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ACE TREE SURGERY, INC., and BROWN'S TREE SERVICE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC P.O. Box 4160 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com - and - Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-8900 Facsimile: (404) 881-3007 E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com - and - Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER, LLC 10 N Dearborn St., 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com alevitt@dicellolevitt.com Defendants-Respondents TEREX CORPORATION, TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. and TEREX UTILITIES, INC., are represented by: Jennifer A. Adler, Esq. Frederick Lamback Cooper, IV, Esq. Mark R. Johnson, Esq. Frederick N. Sager, Jr., Esq. Gary J. Toman, Esq. Clare Tian Zhang, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC 3344 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 832-9523 E-mail: jadler@wwhgd.com dcooper@wwhgd.com mjohnson@wwhgd.com rsager@wwhgd.com gtoman@wwhgd.com TORRID LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrid LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Torrid LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10594 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Torrid LLC is an American women's retail chain formerly owned by Hot Topic. While it is still owned by Sycamore Partners, owners of Hot Topic, in 2015 the company branched off to become Torrid, LLC. The store offers plus-size clothing and accessories for women size 10-30.[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 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kudatsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Kudatsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tyler Technologies, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to remedy its failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation, to pay waiting penalties, and to provide accurate wage statements, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered and permitted the Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week, and over eight hours per day without overtime pay. The Defendant has been aware, or should have been aware, that the Plaintiff and the other Implementation Reps performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime compensation. The Plaintiff asserts that he complained to his managers about working overtime hours. In response, his managers were either dismissive or informed the Plaintiff that he needed to work overtime hours in order to complete all of his work and meet the deadlines, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Implementation Consultant from July 2016 to March 2019. Tyler is a Delaware corporation that specializes in creating software solutions and providing related services, generally to the public sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 Email: helland@nka.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 - and - Benjamin L. Davis, Esq. Michael Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (443) 320-7417 Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com mbrown@nicholllaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Must Face Drivers' Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a meritorious affirmative defense can't stop a proposed class action against United Parcel Service Inc., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled. Delivery drivers Todd A. Szewcyzyk and Juan Dones-Cruz and driver helper Kimberly Rucker sought to represent themselves and other UPS workers in a class and collective action, alleging overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. UPS argued that the FLSA and PMWA claims were barred by the Motor Carrier Act's FLSA overtime exemption, which has an identical counterpart in the PMWA. [GN] UNITI GROUP: 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 Uniti Group Inc. (NASDAQ: UNIT) between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Uniti investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Uniti class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1707.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) Uniti's financial results were not sustainable because its customer Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Uniti's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 30, 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-1707.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] UNITI GROUP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Uniti Group Inc. (NASDAQ:UNIT) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 30, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Uniti's customer, Windstream, defaulted on unsecured notes, rendering the Company's financial results unsustainable. Based on this fact, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Uniti, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Website: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] URBAN ONE: Lucas Seeks OT Wages; Alleges Pay Bias and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Desiree Lucas and Dominique Hinton, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. URBAN ONE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-05271-SCJ-JSA (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages owed to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's willful failure to pay them the overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked above 40 hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiffs also challenge the Defendant's failure to pay them commensurate with similarly situated male employees. In addition, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's retaliation against them, after they complained of a sexual harassment in the workplace. The Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to recover overtime wages, back pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs were hired to work as a production assistant and as a board operator for the Defendant. Urban One is a media conglomerate and broadcasting company that operates over 50 radio stations throughout the United States, a cable television network, and an online portfolio of digital brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward D. Buckley, Esq. BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 781-1100 Facsimile: (404) 781-1101 Email: edbuckley@buckleybeal.com VICTORIA SECRET: Cortes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Elia Cortes, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. VICTORIA SECRET STORES, LLC; a Delaware limited liability company, L BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; LIMITED BRANDS SOURCING, INC., a Delaware corporation; LIMITED BRANDS DIRECT HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV355810, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 20, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-07639 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for: (a) an alleged failure to provide meal periods; (b) an alleged failure to provide rest breaks; (c) an alleged failure to pay hourly wages, including overtime; (d) an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (e) an alleged failure to timely pay all final wages. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq. Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq. Jeff R. R. Nelson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 Email: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com khornbeck@HuntonAK.com jnelson@HuntonAK.com WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Faces Makeen Suing Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akeem Makeen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. THE WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT APARTMENTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03277 (D. Colo., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Makeen stayed at the Waterford on Piedmont Apartments while staying in Atlanta. He parked on the handicap parking space and placed his valid handicap platter hanging from the rear view mirror and went up to his room. When the Plaintiff returned later that day, the car rental was not there. The Plaintiff later found out that the car was towed because it was in the handicap parking space for "Ms. Parker," and that the security guard on duty was the one who had it towed. The Plaintiff asked the security guard why he had it towed and only said it was reserved space even though it was reserved for all ADA persons that have valid handicap parking permit, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff has testing to do the next day for an organ transplant and has no means on getting there, because the testing started early in the morning and the towing company had informed the Plaintiff that it would need a release letter from the car rental company and that it couldn't get the Plaintiff one until the next day. The Plaintiff contends that he has sustained severe emotional trauma, distress and harm as a result of the Defendant's negligence. He argues that the Defendant has acted intentionally and/or recklessly with its conduct that violated the ADA. Mr. Makeen is an African American that is a person protected under the ADA, who has been classified as a person with a qualified disability. The Defendant is incorporated under the laws of Georgia.[BN] WESTBRAE NATURAL: Barreto Sues Over False Vanilla Soymilk Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westbrae Natural, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-09677-CS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2019), arises from the Defendant's misrepresentation of its "Vanilla" soymilk products. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells unsweetened soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under their Westsoy brand ("Products"). The Products are available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties. The Products' front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by the word "Vanilla" and/or vignette. During the class period, the Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use. The Plaintiff contends that the unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain flavoring other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Vanilla Flavor With Other Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com WHOLE FOODS: Burke Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Soymilk Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Walleta Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-05913 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendant's misrepresentation of its soymilk beverages with respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, vanilla. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under the 365 Everyday Value brand ("Products"). The Products are sold in sizes, including 64 and 32 ounces, and their front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette. During the class period, the Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use, consumption or application based on the Defendant's representations. The Plaintiff alleges that the unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain flavoring other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Flavor" and "Organic Natural Flavor" on the ingredient lists. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, 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 defendants are awaiting a court ruling on the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in New York related to the company's initial public offering. In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"), and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to Dismiss for which a hearing was held by the court on July 10, 2019. A decision by the court on the Motion to Dismiss is not expected for at least several months. WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and digital telephony services to residential and business services customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc. in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WORLDWIND SERVICES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WORLDWIND SERVICES, LLC. The case is styled as Alejandro Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIND SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability Company, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103236 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 18, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". World Wind Services LLC operates as a renewable energy maintenance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by EDWIN AIWAZIAN, ESQ. YNAP CORPORATION: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against YNAP CORPORATION. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YNAP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10613 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. YNAP CORPORATION a/k/a YOOX NET-A-PORTER Group is an Italian online fashion retailer created in October 2015 after the merger between Yoox GROUP and THE NET-A-PORTER GROUP.[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 [*] Class Actions in Canadian Cannabis Industry Expected to Rise ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Clark, writing for Law.com, reports that even small cannabis companies in Canada should begin building an internal compliance regime to avoid increasing regulatory enforcement and securities class action suits, according to the Canadian Securities Litigation Outlook report published on Oct. 23 by Cassels Brock & Blackwell. Wendy Berman, a Cassels partner in Toronto who co-authored the report with fellow partner Lara Jackson and lawyers across the firm's national securities litigation group, said in an interview on Oct. 23 that there will be a greater focus from Canadian securities regulators. "There is a lot of interest and a lot of investment [in the cannabis industry]," Berman said. In September, Health Canada suspended CannTrust's license to produce its own cannabis products. Since then, the company has faced class action suits, and the Ontario Securities Commission indicated it began an enforcement investigation relating to CannTrust's disclosure. Berman said before the CannTrust enforcement investigation, the commission put out a report finding the majority of cannabis companies' disclosures to be weak. In light of these developments, Berman said, now is the time for smaller companies without the resources to begin looking at building a compliance program. "You have to make sure you're complying with a number of regimes," Berman said. She said the compliance effort should begin with an enterprise risk assessment and in-house counsel need to make sure their company's quarterly disclosures are in order. Because of how new the industry is, compliance may not be immediately feasible. "It's difficult," Berman said. "[The companies are] not generating revenue and as a result, they have to be wise on how they spend their dollars. You're going to have companies that don't comply because they don't have the resources to direct toward compliance." The problem with not working toward compliance, Berman said, is it taints the newly legalized industry, Berman said. Another issue outlined in the report surrounding disclosures is that a handful of securities class action suits are being filed against cannabis companies in Canada. "Almost immediately following CannTrust's stock tumbling, four Canadian law firms and as many as 14 U.S. law firms launched class action lawsuits against the company and certain directors and officers alleging misleading and inaccurate disclosure by the company regarding its operations and financial position," the report says. Berman said companies and their counsel should be making sure their disclosures are truthful and not misleading. Much of the work to become compliant with Canadian federal securities law will help companies mitigate the risk of a securities class action suit. [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 ***