---

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

              Tuesday, January 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 5

                            Headlines

AAY SECURITY: Roberts Seeks Overtime Wages for Security Guards
ABC FINANCIAL: Court Dismiss 2nd Amended McKean Lawsuit
ACCELERATED CLAIMS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar's Bid to Certify FCRA Class Denied
ACTAVIS PHARMA: Generic Drug Purchasers Sue Over Price-rigging

AIRPORT TERMINAL: Mayes Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALCOA USA CORP: Retirees Sue Over Discontinued Life Insurance
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Zurakov Moves for Class Certification
ASC PROFILES: Wicker Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Pliscott Securities Suit Removed to D. Delaware

BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal
BARRINGTON TRUCKING: Norris Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
BIOSENSE MEDICAL: Alan Presswood Seeks to Certify Class
CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Still Pending
CARBONITE INC: Rosenblatt Challenges Acquisition by Open Text

CCK PIZZA: Court OKs $123K Settlement Deal in Westley Labor Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit
CLASSIC CAFE: Servers Sue Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Blackburn Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
COPELAND ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims

COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit
COX AUTOMOTIVE: Kelter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
DC INDUSTRIES: Merschdorf Seeks Reimbursements, Tips, Minimum Wage
DEAN MEILING: Court Dismisses Harris Suit Over Receivership
DEENORA CORP: Panora Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

DEL FRISCO'S: Tipped Staff Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
DIAMOND NAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lu Claims
DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
ELITE LABOR: Court Dismisses Marquez FLSA Suit
FIRSTCOLLECT INC: Rowley Files FDCPA Suit in Del.

FLEETWOOD TRANS: Howard Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Drivers Sue Over Vehicle Defects
GEO GROUP: Marshall Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
GEORGE ADAMSON: Motion to Certify Class in "Ross" Suit Denied
GREEN DOT CORP: Koffsmon Suit Hits Share Price Drop

GSE SYSTEMS: Joyce Class Action Underway in Maryland
HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
HIGHER LEVEL: Alsuliman Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
HIGHMARK INC: Hotel Seeks to Certify Final Settlement Class
HOLMES RICH: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Roman Alleges

INTERVET INC: Sued by Palmieri for Selling Defective Bravecto
IROBOT CORP: Firefighters Fund Securities Row Transferred to Mass.
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Narrows Claims in Robinson Antitrust Lawsuit
JACKSON NATIONAL: Nofsinger Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "O'Boyle"

JENNIFER TIDBALL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Balks at False Marketing of Vanilla Almonds
KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
LIBERTY PROPERTY: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal with Prologis
MANNKIND CORP: Bid to Amend Claim in Tel Aviv Class Suit Pending

MIKE SLAGLE: Court Denies Bid for Class Classification
MILLCOM CABLE: Fernandez Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO: Court Dismisses Hernandez FLSA Suit
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
NOLAN ENTERPRISES: Class of Dancers Conditionally Certified

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson Seeks to Certify Two Subclasses
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klapperich Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Avila Class Action
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
NYU LANGONE: Court Remands Action to State Supreme Court

OCALA, FL: Certification of Homeless Residents Class Sought
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Dismissal Order Pending
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Class Action Dismissed
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Russell Class Action Dismissed
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Scarantino Class Action Suit Dismissed

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Deposition Discovery in SEPTA Suit Stayed
PIZZA PARAMUS: Pereira Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers
PIZZA TO YOU: Waters Moves to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
PK MANAGEMENT: Court Rejects Bid for Class Certification
POPULAR INC: Discovery in Diaz Class Suit to End March 20

POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Potter Suit in Florida
PRETIUM PACKAGING: Moreno Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
REGAL CINEMAS: Amara Hits Illegal SMS Promotional Ad Blasts
RENO, NV: Brooks et al. Sue over Amendments of RMC Chapter 4 & 5
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Amount in Blair Lawsuit Paid

REYNOLDS MACHINE: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Granted
RICH PRODUCTS: Pettigrew Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing
SABRINA DAVIS: Brown's Bid to Certify Class of Inmates Denied
SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
SETERUS, INC: Koepplinger et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Consumer Suit Shelved
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Defends Class Suit in Sherman, Texas
ST LOGISTICS: Barricelli Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
STERLING WIRELESS: Obi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Zhu, et al. Suit Underway
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Ohio
TRG CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Pending
UNIT CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Class Certification Bid

UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ct. Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Condry
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CA: Class of Plan Members Certified in Munro
USAA: Spegele Seeks to Certify Class of Universal Life 3 Owners
VERATIP CORP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Sarikaputar Says

VISITING NURSE: Celznick Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
WAWA INC: Newton Sues Over Failure to Monitor Payment Systems
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Johnson et al Seek to Certify Two Classes
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Continues to Defend Gray Class Action
YRC INC: Court Dismisses Suarez ICCTA Lawsuit

ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid for Summary Judgment in Karl Suit Partly Granted

                            *********

AAY SECURITY: Roberts Seeks Overtime Wages for Security Guards
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ROBERTS and JOSHUA NOVAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AAY Security LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00366 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are current and former Security Guards and
Supervisors employed by AAY Security. They seek to recover overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours during one or more
workweeks for which they, and other similarly situated individuals,
did not receive premium overtime pay at a rate of not less than one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.

According to its Web site, AAY Security is a Port Arthur,
Texas-based armed and unarmed security company that is focused on
providing top-tier, highly trained, professional security officers
to petrochemical, refinery, and maritime facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin J. Phipps, Esq.
          Barry Deacon, Esq.
          PHIPPS DEACON PURNELL PLLC
          The Phipps 102 9th Street
          San Antonio, TX 78215
          Telephone: (210) 340-9877
          Facsimile: (210) 340-9899
          E-mail: mphipps@phppsdeaconpurnell.com
                  bdeacon@phippsdeaconpurnell.com

               - and -

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@Johnsonbecker.com


ABC FINANCIAL: Court Dismiss 2nd Amended McKean Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned JACOB MCKEAN, individually, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., a Arkansas Corporation; THE ARENA MARTIAL ARTS, a business
entity form unknown, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-923-WQH-RBB (S.D.
Cal.).

In July 2015, Plaintiff signed a twenty-four month membership
contract with Defendant The Arena, a training and fitness gym in
San Diego. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant ABC Financial drafted
the Membership Agreement, which at the end of the initial 24
months, automatically rolled over into an open-ended/month-to-month
membership. Plaintiff alleges that the Membership Agreement did not
include a statement printed in a size at least 14-point type or
presented in an equally legible electronic format that discloses
the initial or minimum length of the term of the contract.

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff initiated an action by filing a
Complaint against Defendants ABC Financial Services Inc. and The
Arena Martial Arts.  On October 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the
claims against ABC Financial.  By December 24, 2018, Plaintiff
filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint.  In May 2019, the
Court again dismissed the claims against ABC.   On July 8, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), to
which ABC filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff, individually, and as representative of a putative class
"of all current and former Health Studio consumers who entered into
a (1) Payment-Processing Agreement with ABC FINANCIAL in connection
with a HSMA, (2) HSMA with ARENA and/or ABC FINANCIAL, and/or (3)
HSMA drafted by ABC FINANCIAL for a Health Studio in California[,]"
alleges causes of action against both Defendants for unlawful
contract in violation of California's Contracts for Health Studio
Services Law ("HSSL"), California Civil Code Sec. 1812.80, et seq.,
and for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq. Id.

Plaintiff's HSSL Claim

ABC Financial contends that Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against ABC Financial under the HSSL because ABC Financial was not
a signatory to the Membership Agreement and is not liable for any
violations of the law found in the Membership Agreement. ABC
Financial contends that Plaintiff's assertion that ABC Financial is
a party to the Membership Agreement has already been rejected by
the Court.

With respect to aiding and abetting liability, ABC Financial
asserts that Plaintiff's renewed effort to plead theories of aiding
and abetting is deficient because all conduct that forms the basis
of such allegations remains passive. ABC Financial contends that
Plaintiff's new allegations in paragraph 8 of the SAC are
insufficient to show the type of control and domination needed to
be permitted to proceed with an aiding and abetting case.

ABC Financial contends that Plaintiff's reliance on agency theory
fails because Plaintiff does not allege ABC Financial committed an
independent wrongful act or facts showing ABC Financial's conduct
was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.  

The HSSL governs contracts for health studio services, defined by
the statute as contracts for instruction, training or assistance in
physical culture, body building, exercising, reducing, figure
development, or any other such physical skill, or for the use by an
individual patron of the facilities of a health studio, gymnasium
or other facility used for any of the above purposes.
Health studio services contracts that violate the HSSL are void and
unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The HSSL provides that
any buyer injured by a violation of this title may bring an action
for the recovery of damages.

In this case, ABC Financial may be liable for violations of the
HSSL under an aiding and abetting theory if it knew The Arena's
conduct was unlawful and provided substantial assistance or
encouragement to The Arena's unlawful activities. In the SAC,
Plaintiff re-pleads aiding and abetting allegations from the FAC
that the Court already determined are conclusory.  

These new factual allegations fail to meet the standard for
substantial assistance or encouragement under Arthur Murray, People
v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 47 Cal.Rptr. 700 (Ct. App. 1965). Plaintiff
alleges ABC Financial drafted the Membership Agreement and provided
The Arena with software, recommendations, and trainings. This
passive conduct falls short of the level of tight control that
Arthur Murray exercised over its franchisees.

Moreover, even if Plaintiff adequately alleged a theory of agency
or aiding and abetting liability, Plaintiff must be able to
demonstrate that the statutory violation caused his injury to
recover damages under the HSSL. Plaintiff alleges he suffered
injury when the Membership Agreement automatically renewed and he
was charged membership, cancellation, and late fees, as well as
having to pay $5 to send the cancellation notice via first class
mail.

Plaintiff fails to state facts that, taken as true, show that any
of the injuries he suffered -- the $50 cancellation fee, the $396
in membership fees, the $5 cost of certified mail, the late fee, or
the injury to his credit -- were caused by a violation of the HSSL
that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged.  

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has standing to bring a
claim for damages under the HSSL.

Plaintiff's UCL Claims

Plaintiff's UCL claims are based on and tethered to Plaintiff's
HSSL claims. Plaintiff alleges that "[a]s a direct and proximate
result of the unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business
practices alleged herein, PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have had
money wrongfully collected from them under the terms of illegal
contracts, all to their detriment and all to DEFENDANTS' illegal
economic advantage." PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered
injury in fact and have lost money.

Plaintiff has not stated facts from which the Court could infer
that ABC Financial is liable for aiding and abetting liability or
that Plaintiff's injury was caused by any of the violations of the
HSSL plausibly alleged in the SAC.

Accordingly, ABC Financial's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED, Judge Hayes rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y39ech6o from Leagle.com

Jacob McKean, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Shinoff  -
dshinoffcmas7law.com - Artiano Shinoff, Gil Abed - gabed@as7law.com
- Artiano Shinoff, Paul Vincent Carelli, IV - pcarelli@as7law.com -
Artiano Shinoff & Sheldon A. Ostroff - sostrofflaw@aol.com - Law
Offices of Sheldon A Ostroff.

ABC Financial Services, Inc., a Arkansas corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aneiko L. Hickerson - ahickerson@jgn.com - Jenkins
Goodman Neuman & Hamilton LLP, Robert M. Bodzin -
rbodzin@burnhambrown.com - Burnham Brown & Veepee De Vera -
vdevera@burnhambrown.com - Burnham and Brown.


ACCELERATED CLAIMS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffredia Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACCELERATED CLAIMS, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00710 (W.D.N.C., Dec. 27, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
knowingly suffering and/or permitting her and the putative
Collective members to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
properly compensating them at an overtime premium rate for these
overtime hours.

Plaintiff Mitchell began her employment in April 20, 2015, with the
Defendant as a Patient Counselor I and was promoted to a Patient
Counselor II approximately 6 months thereafter.

Accelerated is a foreign business corporation registered and in
good standing in the State of North Carolina since 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Phone: 704-612-0038
          Email: jason@gibbonsleis.com
                 phil@gibbonsleis.com
                 craig@gibbonsleis.com


ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar's Bid to Certify FCRA Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled KIRAN KUMAR CHANDRA SHEKAR, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACCURATE
BACKGROUND, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00585-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

Plaintiff Kiran Kumar Chandra Shekar alleges that the Defendant,
Accurate Background, Inc., furnished a consumer report to his
potential employer without complying with certain procedural
requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  He seeks to certify
a class of individuals on whom Accurate furnished background
reports for employment purposes.  He proposed this class
definition:

     All individuals about whom Defendant's "AccurateNow"
     division (including its corporate predecessor) furnished a
     background report for employment purposes to a prospective
     employer that contained an item of public record information
     between April 25, 2012 and the present and to whom it did
     not send any notice under FCRA section 1681k(a)(1) at the
     time it prepared the report.

Mr. Shekar represents that discovery has shown that this class
definition encompasses 106,864 individuals.

In his Decision and Order, Judge Adelman opines that the class that
Mr. Shekar has proposed to certify is overbroad, in that it "sweeps
within it persons who could not have been injured by the
defendant's conduct," citing Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 571
F.3d 672, 678 (7th Cir. 2009).

The Court also ruled that the parties' motions to restrict various
materials relating to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in a manner that restricts them from public view are
granted to the extent described in the Decision and Order.

Judge Adelman notes that the documents themselves were irrelevant
to his decision on the motion for class certification, and that he
did not review them.  For this reason, they may remain restricted.

"However, if these documents become relevant to a judicial decision
in the future, I will make them publicly available unless the
defendant shows that they contain trade secrets--which means making
a complete legal argument supported by citations to legal authority
and to evidence in the record establishing that the information in
the documents are bona fide trade secrets rather than simply
matters that Accurate would prefer to keep private," Judge Adelman
explains.[CC]


ACTAVIS PHARMA: Generic Drug Purchasers Sue Over Price-rigging
--------------------------------------------------------------
1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit
Fund, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers,
1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District
Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Louisiana Health Service and
Indemnity Company D/B/A Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and
HMO Louisiana, Inc., Self-Insured Schools of California, and
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Pharma,
Inc., Akorn Inc., Akorn Sales, Inc., Alvogen Inc., Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Apotex Corp.,
Ascend Laboratories, LLC, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Barr
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Bausch Health Americas, Inc., Bausch Health
US LLC, Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camber Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Citron Pharma LLC, Dava Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Dr. Reddy’s
Laboratories, Inc., Epic Pharma LLC, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Generics BIDCO I, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Greenstone,
LLC, G&W Laboratories, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hikma
Labs, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.,
Inc., Impax Laboratories, LLC, Jubilant Cadista Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Lannett Company, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Mallinckrodt Inc., Mayne Pharma Inc., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Perrigo New York, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Pliva,
Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teligent Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Torrent Pharma Inc., Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC,
Versapharm, Inc., West-Ward Columbus, Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, and, Zydus Pharmaceuticals
(USA), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01234 (N.C. Super.,
December 18, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of
End-Payer Purchasers of generic pharmaceutical drugs and to recoup
alleged overcharges resulting from unjust enrichment and for
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and for violation
of state antitrust statutes.

Plaintiffs are purchasers of generic drugs who feel that they are
victims of an unlawful agreement among Defendant Pharmaceuticals to
allocate customers, rig bids, fix, raise and/or stabilize the
prices of 135 generic pharmaceutical drugs beginning at least as
early as July 2009 and accuse them of participating in an
overarching conspiracy to raise prices and minimize competition in
the generic drug industry for numerous generic drugs. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23 Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

             - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com

             - and -

      Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 577-0040
      Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

             - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Email: ecabraser@Ichb.com

             - and -

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Tel: (886) 849-7545
      Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1835 Market Street, 27th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 314-7980
      Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com

             - and -

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 500-6800
      Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

             - and -

      Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
      GIRARD SHARP LLP
      601 California Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 981-4800
      Email: chc@girardsharp.com

             - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Email: hmsilton @locklaw.com

             - and -

      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com

             - and -

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esquire
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Audrey A. Browne, Esq.
      American Federation of State, County and
      Municipal Employees District Council 37
      Health & Security Plan
      125 Barclay Street, Room 313
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 815-1304
      Email: abrowne@dc37.net

             - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5960
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 201-2845
      Email: PSafirstein@SafirsteinMetcalf.com
             EMetcalf@SafirsteinMetcalf.com

             - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      41 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10010
      Tel: (212) 223-3900
      Email: ddrachler @ zsz.com

             - and -

      Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
      Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
      AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
      17 East Main Street, Suite 200
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Tel: (850) 202-1010
      Email: BAylstock@awkolaw.com
             JWitkin@awkolaw.com


AIRPORT TERMINAL: Mayes Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Darius Mayes, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., a
Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV41870, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10914 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges ten causes of action against Defendant: (1)
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for all hours worked; (2) Failure
to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code; (3) Meal Period
Liability Under Labor Code; (4) Rest-Break Liability Under Labor
Code; (5) Violation of Labor Code 226(a); (6) Violation of Labor
Code 221 for unlawful kickbacks from wages; (7) Violation of Labor
Code 204 for untimely payment of wages during employment; (8)
Violation of Labor Code 203 for untimely payment of wages upon
termination; (9) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses
under Labor Code 2802; and (10) Violation of Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron R. Lubeley, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          Email: alubeley@seyfarth.com
                 syang@seyfarth.com


ALCOA USA CORP: Retirees Sue Over Discontinued Life Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond M. Butch, Charles R. Wyatt and Martin L. Ellison, on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, United
Steel, Paper And Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial And Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC,
and Aluminum Trades Council of Wenatchee, Washington AFL-CIO,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCOA USA Corp. and Retirees Group Benefit Plan for
Certain Hourly Employees of ALCOA USA Corp. Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00258, (S.D. Ind., December 19, 2019), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from terminating or modifying the retiree life insurance
coverage provided to the Plaintiffs.

Alcoa announced the termination of retirees' life insurance
coverage, to be effective January 1, 2020 despite Unions and Alcoa
having negotiated that retirees are entitled to company-paid life
insurance. Plaintiffs contest that the retiree life insurance
provided by the collective bargaining agreements cannot be
unilaterally terminated or modified by Defendants.

Alcoa operates an aluminum smelter and rolling mill at its Warrick
Operations facility in Newburgh, Indiana. The rolling mill produces
aluminum sheet primarily sold directly to customers in the
packaging end market for the production of aluminum cans. Retirees
Group Benefit Plan for Certain Hourly Employees is a benefit plan
that provides welfare benefits, including life insurance, to
members of the retiree class. Alcoa USA Corp. is the plan sponsor
and administrator of this plan. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Barry A. Macey, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq.
     MACEY SWANSON LLP
     445 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 637-2345
     Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
     Email: bmacey@maceylaw.com
            jmacey@maceylaw.com

            - and -

     William T. Payne, Esq.
     Pamina Ewing, Esq.
     Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
     FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
     429 Fourth Avenue
     Law and Finance Building, Suite 1300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: (412) 281-8400
     Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
     Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
            pewing@fdpklaw.com
            jhurt@fdpklaw.com
            rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

            - and -

     David R. Jury, Esq.
     General Counsel for United Steelworkers
     60 Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 562-2549
     Facsimile: (412) 562-2574
     Email: djury@usw.org


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Zurakov Moves for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Zurakov moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MGMT., INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01887 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


ASC PROFILES: Wicker Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASC PROFILES LLC, et al., removed the case captioned as KIJANA
WICKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC PROFILES LLC, a
Delaware company; STEELSCAPE, LLC, a California company; BLUESCOPE
BUILDINGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2019-00267971-CU-OE-GDS (Filed
Oct. 30, 2019), from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec.
5, 2019.

The Plaintiff and others are hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
employed by Defendants within the State of California at any time
during the period from four years preceding the filing of the
Complaint to final judgment.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants on behalf of
the Plaintiff and the putative class for unpaid overtime, unpaid
meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum
wages, final wages not timely paid, and non-compliant wage, in
violation of the California Labor Code.

ASC Profiles distributes and supplies metal roofing, siding,
structural steel deck, and other related building products.
Steelscape is a national supplier of metallic-coated and
pre-painted steel in a number of colors, textures and prints.
Buildings North America offers engineered building solutions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5994
          Telephone: 415 882 8200
          Facsimile: 415 882 8220
          E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com
                  matthew.ball@klgates.com


AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Pliscott Securities Suit Removed to D. Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua R. Disbrow, et al., removed the case captioned as CARL
PLISCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
stockholders of AYTU BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff v. JOSHUA R.
DISBROW, STEVEN BOYD, GARY CANTRELL, CARL C. DOCKERY, JOHN
DONOFRIO, MICHAEL MACALUSO AND KETAN MEHTA, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0933-AGB (Filed Nov. 20, 2019), from the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware on Dec. 5, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who are each members of
the board of directors of Aytu Bioscience, Inc., breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly omitting certain information from a
proxy statement filed by Aytu.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty
that the Plaintiff claims have harmed shares of Aytu common stock
outstanding.

Aytu BioScience is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
delivering novel therapeutics to improve the health of
patients.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alessandra Glorioso, Esq.
          Eric Lopez Schnabel, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY (DELAWARE) LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1010
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 425-7171
          Facsimile: (302) 425-7177
          E-mail: schnabel.eric@dorsey.com
                  glorioso.alessandra@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Milo Steven Marsden, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          111 S. Main Street, Suite 2100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 933-7360
          Facsimile: (801) 933-7373
          E-mail: marsden.steve@dorsey.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned IRMA FRAUSTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01983-LB, (N.D. Cal.).

Irma Frausto sued her former employer, Bank of America, for
state-law wage-and-hour violations, raising six class claims and
one representative claim under California's Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

Ms. Frausto worked at Bank of America as a Treasury Services
Advisor from September 1999 until August 11, 2017, when Bank of
America terminated her.

Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the claims on certain
grounds.

* Claim One: Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation

In claim one, Plaintiff claimed that the wages used to calculate
overtime pay necessarily include the Global Recognition Program
bonuses.  The Global Recognition Program was launched by Bank of
America in 2010 as a way for employees to acknowledge their
co-workers' achievements.

Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the ground that the
bonuses are discretionary bonuses. Non-discretionary bonuses are
part of the regular rate of pay and discretionary bonuses are not.
The Court grants the motion because the bonuses were
discretionary.

The court grants Bank of America summary judgment on claim one and
on claims four, six, and seven to the extent that they are
predicated on claim one.

* Claims Two and Three: Meal-and-Rest Breaks

In claims two and three, Plaintiff claimed that Bank of America did
not allow her to take meal-and-rest breaks. Bank of America moved
for summary judgment on the grounds that it complied with the law
by requiring the breaks and there is no evidence that it forced the
plaintiff to miss breaks.

There are genuine issues of material fact about whether the Bank
denied Ms. Frausto meal-and-rest breaks.  The Court denies the
Bank's motion for summary judgment on claims three and four.

* Claim Four: Failure to Pay Final Wages on Time

In claim four, Plaintiff claimed that Bank of America willfully
failed to pay her final wages when it terminated her, in violation
of Cal. Labor Code Sections 201-203.

Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1)
the plaintiff's final paycheck included waiting-time penalties for
the four-day gap between her termination and the final payment,
which she now concedes were fully paid, and (2) the plaintiff has
not produced admissible evidence that Bank of America acted
willfully when it did not pay her for meal-and-rest breaks because
the Bank had a good-faith dispute as to whether missed
meal-and-rest-break premiums were wages earned under the California
Labor Code.

The Court grants the motion in part to the extent that the claim is
predicated on the discretionary-bonuses claim (claim one) and the
four days of penalties that Bank of America paid.  The Court
otherwise denies the motion.

* Claim Five: Inaccurate Wage Statements

In claim five, Plaintiff claimed that Bank of America did not
provide an accurate itemized statement for each pay period that
reflected actual hours worked, in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 226.

Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1)
the plaintiff did not suffer injury, (2) the wage statements were
accurate, and (3) there are no issues of material fact that it
knowingly and intentionally failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.

The Court denies the motion (except it grants it to the extent that
the claim is predicated on claim one).

* Claims Six and Seven: UCL and PAGA

Liability under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is generally
derivative of liability under another statutory violation. A
California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim is a
statutory action in which the penalties available are measured by
the number of Labor Code violations committed by the employer.

The Court grants the motion in part to the extent that it is
predicated on claim one. The Court otherwise denies the
summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff's UCL and PAGA claims
survive to the extent that they are predicated on the meal-and-rest
breaks claims.

In sum, Judge Beeler grants Bank of America's motion for summary
judgment on claim one and on claims four through seven to the
extent that they are predicated on claim one.  The Judge otherwise
denies the motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4fm3fwq from Leagle.com

Irma Frausto, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin F. Marquez  -
justin@wilshirelawfirm.com - Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, Thiago Merlini
Coelho- thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - Wilshire Law Firm, B. Bobby
Saadian - bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com - Wilshire Law Firm, Nicol Elia
Hajjar - Nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com - & Robert James Dart -
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com - Wilshire Law Firm.

Arianna Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Justin F. Marquez ,
Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, George L. Lin , ILG Legal Office, PC,
Robert James Dart , Wilshire Law Firm & Stephen Noel Ilg , ILG
Legal Office, PC.

Andrea Harrison, Intervenor Pla, represented by Andrew Hampton Haas
- ahh@quintlaw.com - & George Andrew Aloupas , Quintilone and
Associates.

Bank of America, National Association, a business entity, form
unknown, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Jihae Kim -
skim@mcguirewoods.com - McGuire Woods LLP, Kerri H. Sakaue -
ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP & Michael David Mandel
- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP.

Cindy Castillo, Interested Party, represented by Gregory Mauro -
greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com - Hames Hawkins APLC.


BARRINGTON TRUCKING: Norris Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Norris, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHARON BARRINGTON D/B/A BARRINGTON TRUCKING, Case No.
6:19-cv-00617-JCB (E.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks to recover for
drivers unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and
attorney's fees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, but were not paid time and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek by any the Defendant in this lawsuit, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Barrington Trucking performing driving
services on behalf of the Company.

Barrington Trucking is a company offering freight shipping and a
trucking company running freight hauling business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Phone: 903-596-7100
          Facsimile: 469-533-1618


BIOSENSE MEDICAL: Alan Presswood Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. BIOSENSE MEDICAL DEVICES, LLC, & SCOTT ANTHONY
CLIMES, PATRICIA A. CLIMES, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-03303-RLW (Mo. Cir., St. Louis), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent by or on behalf of
      Defendants any telephone facsimile transmissions of material

      making known the commercial existence of, or making
      qualitative statements regarding any property, goods, or
      services (3) with respect to whom Defendants cannot provide
      evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the
      sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants does not
      have an established business relationship or (5) which were
      sent an advertisement by fax which did not display a proper
      opt out notice";

   2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

BioSense Medical operates as a medical device and healthcare data
management company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          E-mail: MaxMareulis@MargulisLaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          370 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re
Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending.

On April 5, 2018 and April 12, 2018, purported stockholders of the
Company filed nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the
Company, Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman,
captioned Ben Phetteplace v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al., No.
2:18-cv-05612 and Ruo Fen Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:18-06353, respectively.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the company's business, operational, and financial results.

The lawsuits sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages in connection with purchases of the company's stock between
March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018, as well as interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions in one
action captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation
and appointed shareholder Randy Clark as the lead plaintiff.

On October 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding Edward Sitar as a defendant and seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages in connection with purchases of CGI stock
between March 10, 2016 and April 2, 2018.

On December 31, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On March 1, 2019, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion
to dismiss. On April 15, 2019, defendants filed their reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion
remains pending before the Court.

Cancer Genetics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of the Securities Litigation and therefore cannot
estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides
molecular and biomarker-based tests and services in the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Cancer Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1999
and is based in Rutherford, New Jersey.


CARBONITE INC: Rosenblatt Challenges Acquisition by Open Text
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CARBONITE, INC., STEVE MUNFORD,
LINDA CONNLY, SCOTT DANIELS, DAVID FRIEND, CHARLES KANE, TODD
KRASNOW, MARINA LEVINSON, OPEN TEXT CORPORATION, and CORAL MERGER
SUB INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02234-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 5,
2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Carbonite will be acquired by Open Text and Violet Coral.

On November 10, 2019, Carbonite's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Open
Text. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Carbonite's outstanding
common stock for $23.00 in cash per share. The Tender Offer was set
to expire on December 23, 2019.

On November 25, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff contends that the Solicitation Statement fails to
disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to
calculate (a) Adjusted EBITDA and (b) unlevered free cash flow; and
(ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Carbonite common stock. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement. Because of the false and misleading
statements in the Solicitation Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

Carbonite provides a Data Protection Platform for businesses,
including backup, disaster recovery, high availability, and
workload migration technology. The Carbonite Data Protection
Platform supports businesses on a global scale with secure cloud
infrastructure.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CCK PIZZA: Court OKs $123K Settlement Deal in Westley Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan has granted approval of the collective action
settlement proposed in the case captioned PAUL WESTLEY,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. CCK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC and CHRIS SCHLOEMANN,
Defendant, Case No. 18-13627. (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Paul Westley filed a complaint against Defendants CCK
Pizza Company, LLC and Chris Schloemann, alleging that Defendants
have failed to adequately reimburse Defendants' employees for their
labor in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Michigan Wage Law.  

The parties' settlement agreement provides that Defendants will pay
Plaintiffs a maximum of $123,000, the gross settlement amount.  

Plaintiff posits that the settlement agreement is reasonable due to
the risks that Plaintiff faces should he continue to litigate.

In this case, while Plaintiff contends that he and the Eligible
Collective Members were not adequately reimbursed, Defendants argue
that their reimbursement rate was reasonable. Defendants also
maintains that collective action treatment of the Plaintiff's
claims is not appropriate and would seek decertification if this
case proceeded. Thus, the ultimate result of this litigation is far
from certain.

Plaintiff assures that settlement was reached as a result of arm's
length negotiations. This is supported by the fact that the parties
engaged in mediation. Though they did not reach a settlement during
their initial conference, they subsequently negotiated the current
Agreement.

The Settlement provides for an incentive award of $5,000 for the
complaint's named plaintiff, Paul Westley.  

The Agreement also provides Plaintiff's attorneys with attorney's
fees of up to $33,000 (approximately 26.83% of the gross settlement
amount) and costs and expenses of up to $5,000.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for approval of the
settlement agreement is GRANTED, Judge Ludington rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y433lt7z from Leagle.com

Paul Westley, Plaintiff, represented by Frances J. Hollander -
hollander@bwlawonline.com - Blanchard & Walker, PLLC, Jesse
Hamilton Forester - jay@foresterhaynie.com - Forester Haynie PLLC &
David M. Blanchard - blanchard@bwlawonline.com - Blanchard &
Walker, PLLC.

CCK Pizza Company, LLC & Chris Schloemann, Defendants, represented
by James M. Reid, IV  - JReid@maddinhauser.com - Maddin, Hauser &
R.J. Cronkhite - rcronkhite@maddinhauser.com - Maddin, Hauser, Roth
& Heller, P.C..


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2019, that a
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled,
Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.;
Case No. BC603620).

On July 29, 2016, the company filed a response to the complaint. On
March 7, 2019, the parties participated in voluntary mediation,
which concluded without the parties reaching a resolution.

On June 4, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they reached a
tentative agreement to settle this case. The settlement agreement
is subject to documentation and court approval.

The Cheesecake Factory said, "Based on the current status of this
matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of
settlement."  

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, incorporated on February 13,
1992, is engaged in the restaurant and bakery business. As of March
2, 2017, the Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194
under The Cheesecake Factory mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark
and one under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen mark. The Company's
segments include The Cheesecake Factory restaurants, and other. It
also operates bakery production facilities, which produce desserts
for its restaurants, international licensees and third-party bakery
customers. The company is based in Calabasas Hills, California.


CLASSIC CAFE: Servers Sue Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Guarriello and Valerie Holloway on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs, v. Yashna Asnani and Jane Doe Asnani, Renu Verma and
John Doe Verma, Classic Cafe Cuisine, LLC, Barreras Enterprises,
Inc., New Mexico's Best Diner, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01184, (D. N.M., December 18, 2019), seeks unpaid wages for
overtime compensation due, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the NMSA Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendants operate a chain of "Denny's" restaurants where
Guarriello and Holloway worked as servers. Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants illegally took out a tip credit using an onerous
computation that exceeded state labor laws.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85018
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Facsimile: (602) 956-1409
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
             chris@bendaulaw.com


CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Blackburn Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Blackburn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Conduent Commercial Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01229 (W.D. Tex., December 19,
2019), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and Texas Common Law.

Conduent is a multinational customer solutions services company.
Blackburn worked as a call center agent who provides customer
support to customers. He claims to have been denied overtime for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com


COPELAND ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORDELL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COPELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., 970 WEST
CHESTNUT STREET, LLC, J. TODD COPELAND, JR., and DAVID F. TURNER,
JR., Defendants, Case No. 19-1535 (Mass. Super., Dec. 2, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday
Premium Pay as required by the Massachusetts law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members are former and current employees of the Defendants engaged
in the sale of automobiles and related products. The Plaintiff and
putative class members work on Sundays and in excess of 40 hours
per week, but are not paid overtime for their overtime hours nor
Sunday Premium Pay for their work on Sundays, the lawsuit says.

Copeland Enterprises was founded in 1936. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of concrete products from a
combination of cement and aggregate.

J. Todd Copeland, Jr. has served as the president of Copeland
Enterprises and manager of 970 West. David F. Turner, Jr. is the
treasurer of Copeland Enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a
company subsidiary remains a defendant in the class action suit
initiated by Richard Tabizon.

The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. is a defendant in
a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California.  

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action. The complaint asserts that the time
period covered by the lawsuit is from October 31, 2014 to the
present and alleges claims for failure to properly pay for rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and/or
reimbursement of business related expenses, unlawful deduction of
wages, failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages,
failure to provide all wages due at termination, and other related
wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code.  

Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.

Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of September
30, 2019."   

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage
services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant
Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.




COX AUTOMOTIVE: Kelter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dustin Kelter, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cox Automotive
Corporate Services, LLC, Manheim Remarketing, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02447, (Cal. Super.,
October 24, 2019) was removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on December 18, 2019, under
Case No. 19-cv-02447.

Kelter claims for relief for Cox Auto's alleged failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to pay final wages and unfair competition.

Defendants cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member
requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal.
[BN]

Cox is represented by:

      Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq.
      Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
      Steven P. Gallagher, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
      Telephone: (310) 228-3700
      Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
      Email: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com
             pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
             sgallagher@sheppardmullin.com


DC INDUSTRIES: Merschdorf Seeks Reimbursements, Tips, Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Merschdorf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DC Industries Inc. and Daniel Cahee,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01037 (W.D. Wisc., December 18, 2019),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any
such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

DC Industries owns, operates, and manages Domino's Pizza franchises
in the State of Wisconsin where Merschdorf worked from their
Domino's Pizza location at 623 Lincoln St, Rhinelander, Wisconsin
as a delivery driver. Drivers are required to use their own
vehicles when delivering pizza and other food items to customers.
Merschdorf alleges that DC failed to reimburse him for the costs of
the use of their vehicles, such as gas, maintenance and insurance,
compensating him at an effective hourly rate of less than $7.25 per
hour when performing in-store duties, such as making pizzas and
other food items and assisting customers, taking a tip credit on a
pay period basis, but failing to have a tip declaration
acknowledged. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


DEAN MEILING: Court Dismisses Harris Suit Over Receivership
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Miranda Du of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada dismissed the class action complaint MARC HARRIS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DEAN MEILING, et al., Defendants. AND ALL RELATED
CASES. Case No. 3:19-cv-00339-MMD-CBC. (D. Nev.).

Plaintiff Marc Harris sought to represent a class of investors who
lost money after investing in Metalast International LLC against
the "Chemeon Defendants" and Defendants Janet Chubb, Tiffany
Schwartz, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, and Kaempfer Crowell, Ltd.
(Attorney Defendants).  The Chemeon Defendants refer to Chemeon
Surface Technology LLC ("Chemeon"), DSM P GP LLC, DSM Partners, LP,
Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, Meridian Advantage, James Proctor,
and Suite B LLC.  

Plaintiff basically alleges that Defendants conspired to improperly
take Metalast through a state receivership proceeding resulting in
the Meiling family taking control of Metalast at a discount.

Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) financial elder abuse in violation
of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.30, (2)
breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4) intentional
misrepresentation, (5) professional negligence, (6) constructive
trust, (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, (8) misappropriation, and (9) conversion.

Before the Court are a number of motions, but the Court primarily
focuses on the Chemeon Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, or alternatively for a stay of the proceedings.

The Court primarily addresses Defendants' statute of limitations
argument because the Court finds that argument dispositive of
Plaintiff's claims.  

The parties agree the longest period for filing any of Plaintiff's
claims under either California or Nevada's applicable statutes of
limitations is four years.  The only dispute between the parties is
when the limitations period began running.  The Chemeon Defendants
argue it began running on October 28, 2013, when Plaintiff filed
the Receivership Opposition, or more than four years before he
filed suit.

Plaintiff, apparently relying on the discovery rule, counters that
the limitations period did not begin running until late 2016 during
the deposition of Defendant James Proctor, or less than four years
before he filed suit.   

The Court agrees with the Chemeon Defendants on this key point.

In both Nevada and California, the statute of limitations begins to
run as soon as the cause of action accrues.  The general rule
concerning statutes of limitation is that a cause of action accrues
when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries for which
relief could be sought.

Even applying the longest possible limitations period of four
years, Plaintiff filed his case several years too late, the Court
finds. The Fraudulent Scheme provides the factual basis for
Plaintiff's operative, but the Receivership Opposition shows
Plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware of, the alleged
Fraudulent Scheme on October 28, 2013, more than four years before
he filed the case.

Plaintiff did not file this case until March 18, 2019, even though
Plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of the factual
basis for this case on October 28, 2013, and agrees the longest
possible limitations period that could apply here is four years.
The Court will thus grant the Chemeon Defendants' Motion because
all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations.  

Chemeon Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted
as to all claims Plaintiff asserts in his operative complaint
because they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations,
Judge Du rules.

A full-text copy of Judge Du's October 31, 2019 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y42gq9hb from Leagle.com

Marc Harris, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Y. Lazo -
mlazo@kllawgroup.com - K&L Law Group, pro hac vice & Grace M. Kim ,
The Kim Law Firm, 4309 Yoakum Blvd Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77006.

Dean Meiling, an individual, Madylon Meiling, an individual,
Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company;, DSM Partners, LP, a Nevada Limited Partnership, DSM P GP
LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company & Suite B LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, represented by Teague I.
Donahey – tidonahey@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart, Joshua
Michael Halen - jmhalen@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP,
Robert C. Ryan - rcryan@hollandhart.com Holland & Hart LLP &
Timothy A. Lukas - talukas@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP.
James Proctor, an individual & Meridian Advantage, and unknown
entity, Defendants, represented by Robert C. Ryan , Holland & Hart
LLP.

Janet Chubb, an individual, Tiffany Schwartz, an individual &
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, a Missouri Limited Liability Partnership,
Defendants, represented by Nicholas J. Santoro -
nsantoro@santoroneva - Santoro Whitmire & Oliver J. Pancheri -
opancheri@santoronevada.com - Santoro Whitmire.

Kaempfer Crowell, LTD, a Nevada Professional Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Joseph P. Garin -JGARIN@LIPSONNEILSON.COM
- Lipson Neilson P.C.

Madylon Meiling, an individual, Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company;, DSM P GP LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company, Dean Meiling, an individual, DSM Partners, LP, a
Nevada Limited Partnership & Suite B LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company, Counter Claimants, represented by Teague I.
Donahey , Holland & Hart, Robert C. Ryan , Holland & Hart LLP &
Timothy A. Lukas , Holland & Hart LLP.

Marc Harris, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Marc Y. Lazo
, K&L Law Group, pro hac vice & Grace M. Kim , The Kim Law Firm.


DEENORA CORP: Panora Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Panora, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DEENORA CORP d/b/a Dee's; DEE'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA, INC
d/b/a Dee's; and DEERAN ARABIAN a/k/a Dee Arabian, Case No.
1:19-cv-07267 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law, arising from the Defendants' various
willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and
practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, who was hired as a
dishwasher.

DEENORA CORP d/b/a Dee's is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEL FRISCO'S: Tipped Staff Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Guzman, Xavier Asitimbay and Pablo Zempoalteca, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. Del
Frisco's of New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 617666/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., December 19, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Del Frisco operates Double Eagle Steakhouse located in New York
where Plaintiffs are tipped workers. They generally worked over 40
hours per week without overtime pay and were required to engage in
a tip distribution scheme wherein they must share a daily portion
of their total tips with tip-ineligible employees, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375

Defendant is represented by:

      Johnathan C. Wilson, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
      Dallas, TX 75225
      Tel: (214) 987-3996
      Email: jonathan.wilson@ogletree.com


DIAMOND NAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lu Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shangming Lu, Maria Olga Lliguicota, on their behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. DIAMOND NAIL SALON, LLC d/b/a
Diamond Nail & Spa; GUI BIAO QI a/k/a Leo Qi, ELAINE BAO a/k/a
Helen Bao a/k/a Ellen Bao, and JOSE ROJAS, Case No. 3:19-cv-02017
(D. Conn., Dec. 29, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and CMWA by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as a company
transportation van driver and nail saloon worker, and a nail salon
manicurist.

Diamond Nail Saloon LLC, doing business as Diamond Nail & Spa, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACOB McGRATH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
DOORDASH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05279-EMC (N.D.
Cal., Filed Aug. 23, 2019), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
Jan. 30, 2020, for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective action on behalf of:

      "similarly situated current and former delivery drivers
      (also known as "dashers") who worked for Defendant across
      the nation from three years prior to an order granting
      conditional certification to the date this case resolves
      pursuant to the FLSA";

   2. directing dissemination of notice of the pendency of the
      action by mail, email, text message, and through various
      social media postings using the Plaintiff's proposed
      Notice; and

   3. directing Defendants to produce the names and contact
      information for all putative Collective Action Members to
      counsel for Plaintiff in electronic format.

Doordash provides restaurant food delivery services.[CC]

Counsel for Jacob McGrath, and Proposed Class and Collective Action
Members are:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          DEBES LAW FIRM
          5909 West Loop South, Suite 510
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (713) 623-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 623-0951
          E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com

ELITE LABOR: Court Dismisses Marquez FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARGARITA MARQUEZ,
DELFINA CANDELAS, ISAURA MARTINEZ, and ANA LAURA FLORES on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated individuals Plaintiff, v. SAUL
HERNANDEZ, individually, INTERNACIONAL EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a ENVIOS
DE DINERO, RED LATINA TRANSFER, INC., RON'S TEMPORARY HELP
SERVICES, INC., TRIUNE LOGISTICS, LLC, QUALITY STAFFING GROUP,
INC., and ELITE LABOR SERVICES, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 16 C
10748, (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs filed a class suit asserting various claims on labor
violations against the Defendants.  In the Marquez suit, Plaintiff
Margarita Marquez alleges that she worked for Defendant Elite Labor
Services Ltd. from mid-2014 through April 2015; Plaintiff Isaura
Martinez alleges that she worked for Elite from mid-2014 through
March 2016; and Plaintiff Ana Laura Flores alleges that she worked
for Elite in 2014.

Defendant Elite Staffing, Inc. moves to dismiss on res judicata
grounds, arguing that Plaintiffs are engaged in impermissible claim
splitting following the settlement of an earlier case.  

Elite's several rounds of briefing on the issue all allege that
there is substantial overlap between the time periods in the Baker
case (Baker v. Elite Staffing, Inc., Case No. 15 CV 3246) and the
instant Hernandez case (Hernandez v. Elite Labor Services Ltd, et
al., Case No. 16 C 10747) as well as the related Marquez case, Case
No. 16 C 10748. The settlement release in Baker covers employees
who worked for Elite from April 13, 2012 to April 13, 2015.

In Baker, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated sued Elite for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the
Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the Illinois
Day and Temporary Labor Services Act ("IDTLSA"). Each Plaintiff in
the instant case was an unnamed class member in Baker and, despite
being represented by the same counsel and the fact that both cases
were pending at the same, did not elect to opt out of the Baker
case. The parties settled the Baker action pursuant to a settlement
agreement.  The Baker Court entered a final order of approval and
dismissed the matter with prejudice.   

Although the Baker plaintiffs may have intended to release only the
IDTLSA claims and preserve all others, that is not what happened.
Instead, the Baker court certified a class of state law claims and
then dismissed all of the pending claims with prejudice. The
present claim is barred. Consequently, the Court grants Elite's
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's October 31, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxemzvxw from
Leagle.com

Margarita Marquez, Delfina Candelas, Isaura Martinez & Ana Laura
Flores, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher John Williams ,
National Legal Advocacy Network, 53 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604

Ron's Temporary Help Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Carter A. Korey , Korey Richardson LLC, Elliot S. Richardson ,
Korey Richardson LLC, 20 S Clark St #500, Chicago, IL 60603, Steven
P. Blonder - sblonder@muchlaw.com - Much Shelist P.C., David
Michael Hickey , Korey Richardson LLP & Michele Denise Dougherty ,
Korey Richardson LLC, 20 S Clark St #500, Chicago, IL 60603

Red Latina Corp. & Red Latina Transfer, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Mario E. Utreras , Utreras Law Offices, Inc., 205 W.
Wacker Dr., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60606


FIRSTCOLLECT INC: Rowley Files FDCPA Suit in Del.
-------------------------------------------------
Kimberlee Rowley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FirstCollect Inc. and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02304 (D. Del., December 19, 2019)
seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

FirstCollect is a debt collector who attempted to collect an
obligation allegedly incurred by Rowley to Kent Diagnostic
Radiology via a collection letter that omitted the requirement that
a consumer must dispute in writing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


FLEETWOOD TRANS: Howard Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HARRELL HOWARD, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FLEETWOOD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01155-JDC-KK (W.D. La., Dec. 20, 2019), the Plaintiff moves
the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as an Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action; and

   2. approving notice on an expedited basis.

Fleetwood Transportation provides transportation services. The
company offers asset-based trucking services.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective are:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Amanda E. McGowen, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com
                  amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Drivers Sue Over Vehicle Defects
------------------------------------------------
Kim Bostick and Branden Jamison, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. General
Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02451 (S.D. Cal., December
19, 2019), seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment and breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and various state consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs allege that the 2015 to 2020 Cadillac Escalade, 2014 to
2019 Chevrolet Silverado, 2015 to 2020 Chevrolet Suburban, 2015 to
2020 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2014 to 2019 GMC Sierra and the 2015 to 2020
GMC Yukon or Yukon XL are equipped with defective drivelines that
make the vehicles shake violently when they reach interstate
cruising speeds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-6824
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

            - and -

     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Amey J. Park, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: rpaul@bm.net
            apark@bm.net


GEO GROUP: Marshall Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey D. Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 2019CH14947
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and
storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.

When employees first begin their jobs at the Defendant, they are
required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking
system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs
or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits
to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also
serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the
employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from
situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and
store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Despite this law, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant disregarded
its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant has violated the BIPA because it
did not: properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff and the Class's
fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a written
release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect,
capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA,
says the complaint.

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

Geo Group is a professional services and consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: 630.355.7590
          Fax: 630.778.0400
          Email: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                 dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                 jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
                 mara@fishlawfirm.com


GEORGE ADAMSON: Motion to Certify Class in "Ross" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Eugene Ross, the Plaintiff,
v. George Adamson, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07756
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon., Judge Thomas M. Durkin entered an order
denying without prejudice a motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 18,
2019, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied without
prejudice. Motion hearing was held December 18.

The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a motion seeking leave to
file a class action complaint. That motion should be noticed for
presentment at the Jan. 23, 2020 status hearing, the Court
added.[CC]

GREEN DOT CORP: Koffsmon Suit Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Esteban Koffsmon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Dot Corporation, Steven W.
Streit and Mark Shifke, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10701 (C.D.
Cal., December 18, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws.

Green Dot is a financial technology holding company that operates a
platform that provides banking and financial services products to
consumers including, among others, deposit account programs,
branded reloadable prepaid debit cards, consumer checking accounts,
small business checking accounts, branded gift cards and secured
credit cards.

On November 7, 2019, after market close, Green Dot released its
financial and operating results for the third fiscal quarter and
nine months period ended September 30, 2019 revealing a
year-over-year decline of accounts in its active consumer business.
On this news, the stock price declined from a close of $29.95 per
share of Green Dot Class A common stock on November 7, 2019 to a
close of $24.54 per share on November 8, 2019, a drop of
approximately 18.06 percent, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      388 Market Street, Suite 1300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 373-1671
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rmah@zlk.com

             - and -

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      55 Broadway, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      Email: ek@zlk.com


GSE SYSTEMS: Joyce Class Action Underway in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Joyce v. Absolute
Consulting Inc., is still pending.

On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc.,
filed a putative class action against Absolute and the Company,
Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB,
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff was not properly compensated for
overtime hours that he worked.  In addition, he alleges that there
is a class of employees who were not properly compensated for
overtime hours worked.

Absolute and the Company waived service and, on May 28, 2019,
Absolute filed an answer to the complaint and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss asserting that the Company was not the
plaintiff's employer and, therefore, not a proper party to the
litigation.

The plaintiff has responded and opposed the motion to dismiss.

No scheduling order has been issued and the motion to dismiss
remains pending.

The Company and Absolute intend to vigorously defend this
litigation. The Company is unable to conclude that the likelihood
of an unfavorable outcome in this matter is remote or probable, but
the Company and Absolute continue to deny the allegations and
defend the case. The Company has asserted an indemnification claim
related to this litigation against the sellers of Absolute.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering
solutions to the power and process industries in the United States,
Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry
Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland.


HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Hajjat, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hayat Pharmacy, LLC and Hashim Zaibak,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01857, (E.D. Wisc., December 18, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, and obtain
declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hayat is a retail establishment that sells pharmaceutical drugs and
sundries where Hajjat worked as a non-exempt delivery driver from
approximately September 2016 to January 28, 2019. He was classified
as an independent contractor and compensated on a per-job basis and
denied overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours in
certain weeks throughout the duration of his employment, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      Haba K. Yono, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Tel: (313) 251-1399
      Fax: (313) 739-1975
      Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
             hyono@forthepeople.com


HIGHER LEVEL: Alsuliman Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucine Alsuliman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Higher Level Processing Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10751, (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2019),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Higher Level Processing Inc. is an educational consulting company
that contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in an attempt to
solicit Defendant's products using an automatic telephone dialing
system. Alsuliman did not give her express consent to be contacted
in this manner, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


HIGHMARK INC: Hotel Seeks to Certify Final Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC.,
on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HIGHMARK INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order retaining the settlement class previously certified, and
certifying it for purposes of the final settlement with Highmark:

     "all persons, whether natural or fictitious, who purchased
small group health insurance coverage in Western Pennsylvania from,
or otherwise paid any small group plan premiums or portion thereof
to, Highmark Health Insurance Co. (HHIC) or a similar for profit
subsidiary of Highmark, Inc. between July 1, 2010 and March 21,
2012."

On April 16, 2016, the Court certified this class for purposes of a
settlement with UPMC. Since the same class applies to Plaintiff's
settlement with Highmark now, the Court should maintain the same
class and certify it for purposes of the new and final settlement,
the Plaintiff asks.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew M. Stone, Esq.
          STONE LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Frick Building, Suite 1806
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-391-2005
          Facsimile: 412-391-0853
          E-mail: astone@stone-law-firm.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          The Frick Building, Suite 1806
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412 338-8632
          Facsimile: 412 338-6611
          E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com

               - and -

          David Stone, Esq.
          Julio Gomez, Esq.
          STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
          100 Connell Dr. No. 2200
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: 973-218-1111
          Facsimile: 973-218-1106
          E-mail: dstone@stonemagnalaw.com
                  jgomez@stonemagnalaw.com

               - and -

          Hamish Hume, Esq.
          Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave NW
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: 202-237-2727
          Facsimile: 202-237-6131
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
                  mzappala@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
          Steven J. Del Sole, Esq.
          Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 1st Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412 261-2393
          Facsimile: 412 261-2110
          E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com
                  sdelsole@dscslaw.com

HOLMES RICH: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Roman Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA ROMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAW OFFICES OF HOLMES, RICH & SIGLER, P.C.,
and R. BRADLEY SIGLER, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02837 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 5, 2019), seeks to redress the
Defendants' conduct, which violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, that caused the Plaintiff to suffer intangible
harms.

According to the complaint, in connection with the collection of a
debt, the Defendants mailed the Plaintiff a letter dated December
7, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' letter does not
comply with the FDCPA because it provides only a five-day dispute
period, instead of the required 30 days.

Immediately following the statements providing for a five-day
response period, the Letter stated: "Appropriate legal action to
proceed with judgment on this account and seeking to collect it may
be commenced thereafter. To avoid our taking these steps and the
subsequent executions or garnishments which may relate thereto, I
request that you take care of this matter immediately."

By shortening the period within which the Plaintiff could dispute
the debt, coupled with the Defendants' demands for her to act
immediately or suffer adverse legal consequences, the Letter
overshadows and is inconsistent with the consumer's rights to
dispute the debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(4),
the lawsuit says.

HRS is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          MCCARTHY LAW, PLC
          4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd., Ste. 320
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (602) 612-5016
          Facsimile: (602) 218-4447
          E-mail: joe.panvini@mccarthylawyer.com


INTERVET INC: Sued by Palmieri for Selling Defective Bravecto
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Palmieri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERVET INC. d/b/a MERCK ANIMAL HEALTH, a
subsidiary of MERCK & CO., INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JMV-JBC
(D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its
breaches of warranty that have caused the Plaintiff and other
nationwide class members to suffer injuries by paying for defective
products.

Bravecto is the trade name for the drug fluralaner, which includes
a pesticide called isoxazoline. In May 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved the marketing and sale of Bravecto tablets
for dogs, and Bravecto topical solutions for cats and dogs, for the
treatment and prevention of flea and tick infestations.

The Defendant advertises and markets Bravecto nationally as a safe
chewable tablet for dogs, or a topical application that prevents
and kills ticks and fleas for up to three months, while competing
products provide only one month of protection.

According to the complaint, Bravecto is a pesticide that is
absorbed into the blood stream of animals that are treated with it
and causes toxicity in insects that bite those animals, including
uncontrolled neural activity and, eventually, death. Because of the
method by which it kills insects, Bravecto also presents a risk of
neurological toxicity in the animals that are treated with it.
Because the Defendant failed to disclose the risks of Bravecto to
consumers and misrepresented the safety of Bravecto, consumers
would be reasonable in purchasing Bravecto to treat their pets in a
safe manner.

Consumers of Bravecto, including the Plaintiff and the other class
members, paid a premium for Bravecto, based on its purported safe
extended prevention and control of flea and tick infestations
compared to other products, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant,
however, misrepresented or omitted the risk of neurological adverse
reactions that Bravecto causes, the Plaintiff asserts.

By misrepresenting the safety of its products, and omitting or
failing to disclose the dangers that Bravecto posed to pets, the
Defendant defrauded the Plaintiff and the other class members,
deprived them of the benefit of their bargain, and/or unjustly
enriched themselves at the Plaintiffs' and the other class members'
expense, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff treated her pet dog Jake with one Bravecto tablet on
November 13, 2016.

Intervet manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells Bravecto to
consumers and veterinarians across the United States from its New
Jersey headquarters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
          ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNILLC
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (646) 599-9848
          Email: jessica@andersensleater.com

               - and -

          Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
          ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
          2 Mill Road, Suite 202
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Phone: (302) 510-8528
          Email: rsianni@andersensleater.com


IROBOT CORP: Firefighters Fund Securities Row Transferred to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IROBOT
Corporation, Colin M. Angle and Alison Dean, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-09837 (S.D. N.Y., October 24, 2019), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
December 18, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-12536.

Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of federal securities laws arising
from Defendants' misleading financial representation that resulted
in the decline in its share prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Dains Blatchley, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: michaelb@blbglaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
      500 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 573-4800
      Fax: (617) 573-4822
      Email: Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com

             - and -

      Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 735-3000
      Fax: (212) 735-2000
      Email: smusoff@skadden.com


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Narrows Claims in Robinson Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JESSICA ROBINSON,
STACEY JENNINGS, and NICOLE GIBSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC.,
and TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-9066
(SDW) (LDW), (D.N.J.).

Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc. ("JHI") and Tax Services of
America, Inc.'s ("TSA"), doing business as "Jackson Hewitt,"
comprise "the second largest full-service tax preparation business
in the United States with franchised and company-owned office
locations through the country."  TSA is Jackson Hewitt's largest
franchisee, running "approximately 20% of the locations operating
under the name 'Jackson Hewitt,' while the rest of the locations
are run by non-owned franchisees."

The Plaintiffs formerly worked as seasonal tax preparers for
Jackson Hewitt.

Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and "individuals who work or have worked for Jackson
Hewitt" and its franchise locations.  They allege that from at
least September 1, 2011 to at least December 20, 2018, Defendants
"engaged in a conspiracy to not compete for employees" by expressly
agreeing "not to solicit, recruit, or hire" each other's personnel
without prior approval.  During the relevant time period, the
Franchise Agreement included a "Covenant Against Recruiting or
Hiring Our Employees," referred to as the so-called "No-Poach
Clause".

On December 20, 2018, Jackson Hewitt entered into an "Assurance of
Discontinuance" ("AOD") with the State of Washington under which
JHI "agreed, among other things, to remove the No-Poach Clause from
its franchise agreement going forward and to cease enforcement of
the "No-Poach Clause."

Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which is the
operative complaint, on May 13, 2019. The SAC alleges one count of
violations under Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1, 3. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and monetary
damages. On May 27, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss.

Defendants argue that dismissal of the SAC is necessary because:
(1) Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their Sherman Act
claims or to seek injunctive relief; (2) Plaintiffs' claims prior
to December 20, 2014 are barred by the statute of limitations; and
(3) the rule of reason standard applies, and Plaintiffs fail to
state a Sherman Act claim.

Article III Standing

Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs fail to state any plausible
causal link between the No-Poach Clause and Plaintiffs' alleged
injuries. Plaintiffs, however, allege they suffered reduced
employment mobility and suppressed compensation, pointing out
noticeably lower pay for Jackson Hewitt employees as compared to
the national average. This is sufficient to plead injury in fact,
the Court finds.  

Plaintiffs then allege that Defendants' conspiracy caused these
injuries, specifically that the No-Poach Clause, the No-Poach
Penalty, and surrounding policies were meant to, and did, restrict
competition for employees in the market. These restrictions, in
turn, reduced the pool of experienced candidates, decreased the
employment options available to current employees and lowered the
bargaining power of employees and depressed wages.

Therefore, Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded causation. Because
Defendants do not challenge that a favorable decision by this Court
would redress Plaintiffs' injury, Plaintiffs have Article III
standing, the Court opines.

Prospective Injury for Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief

The Court opines that even if the No-Poach Clause does not apply
prospectively, because Robinson and Jennings' employment mobility
will still be limited by the No-Poach Penalty, Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded prospective injury.

Moreover, because the AOD does not make it absolutely clear that
the alleged wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to
occur, Plaintiffs have pleaded standing for injunctive relief, the
Court finds.

Statute of Limitations and Fraudulent Concealment

The SAC alleges that Defendants' alleged conspiracy began no later
than September 1, 2011.  Newbauer v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Serv.,
Inc., Civ. No. 18-679 (E.D. Va.), which was commenced on December
20, 2018, was the first filed action related to the instant
consolidated putative class action. Thus, the Sherman Act's
four-year statute of limitation bars claims that allegedly accrued
prior to December 20, 2014.

Plaintiffs argue that fraudulent concealment tolls the limitations
period until July 9, 2018, the date they claim they had actual or
constructive knowledge of the conspiracy. The Court disagrees.

On the arguments presented, Plaintiffs have not shown that the
extraordinary remedy of fraudulent concealment should apply, the
Court opines.

Sherman Act Violations

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
Defendants and franchisees may be separate entities, capable of
forming an actionable conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs plausibly allege
Defendants' conduct unreasonably restrained trade. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants' conspiracy, namely via the No-Poach Clause
and Penalty, limited competition within the market, and
artificially depressed wages, and from the facts alleged, "no
pro-competitive objective can be attached to defendants' conduct."

For reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as
to any claims from conduct that occurred prior to December 20,
2014, and DENIED as to all remaining claims, Judge Wigenton rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3m2jo2d from Leagle.com

JESSICA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Elvin Gustafson ,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice, Amanda Marie Williams ,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis,
MN 55402, pro hac vice & BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

CARSON NEWBAUER & STACEY JENNINGS, Plaintiffs, represented by BRUCE
DANIEL GREENBERG , LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

NICOLE GIBSON, Plaintiff, represented by BRADLEY KEITH KING -
bking@ahdootwolfson.com - AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC & BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG , LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

JACKSON HEWITT, INC. & TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
represented by JAMES SIMON COONS – james.coons@ansalaw.com - ANSA
ASSUNCAO, LLP.


JACKSON NATIONAL: Nofsinger Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BONNIE NOFSINGER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03367 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Class and Subclass:

      The Class:

      "all individuals who entered into an annuity contract with
      Defendant, and who from 2012 through the present were sent
      the Surrender Letter and subsequently assessed a charge by
      Defendant identified as a “Surrender Charge" against the
      value of their annuity according to Defendant's records";
      and

      The Dual Fund Subclass:

      "all individuals who entered into a Dual Fund Annuity
      contract with Defendant and who from September 2012 through
      the present were sent the Surrender Letter and subsequently
      assessed a charge by Defendant identified as a "Surrender
      Charge" against the value of their Dual Fund Annuity
      according to Defendant's records".

   2. appointing himself as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Myles McGuire, Evan M. Meyers and David L.
      Gerbie of McGuire Law, P.C. as Class Counsel.

Jackson National is a U.S. company that offers annuities for retail
investors and fixed income products for institutional investors.
Jackson subsidiaries and affiliates provide specialized asset
management and retail brokerage services.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "O'Boyle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1850
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

Attorneys for Cindy Zurakov, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com

JENNIFER TIDBALL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned M.B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jennifer Tidball, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04102-NKL. (W.D. Mo.).

The Court held that (1) the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and meets all other requirements of the
Federal Rules; (2) the Settlement Agreement is finally approved and
entered; and (3) the Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of
enforcing the terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.[CC]

A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/uunmcxy from Leagle.com

M. B., by and through Next Friend, Ericka Eggemeyer, K. C., by and
through Next Friend, Kris Dadant & A. H., by and through Next
Friend, Kealey Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Finch ,
Children's Rights, 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005,
pro hac vice, Daniele Gerard , pro hac vice, Danielle Rosenthal ,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth Pitman Gretter , 88 Pine Street, Suite 800,
New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice, Erin McGuinness , Children's
Rights, 88 Pine Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005, pro hac
vice, Freya Pitts - fpitts@youthlaw.org - National Center for Youth
Law, pro hac vice, Jonathan King , pro hac vice, Leecia Welch , pro
hac vice, Michael Sara Bartosz , Children's Rights, Inc., 88 Pine
Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10005,  pro hac vice, Poonam Juneja
-pjuneja@youthlaw.org - pro hac vice, Scott T. Schutte -
scott.schutte@morganlewis.com, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro
hac vice, Stephen Andrew Dixon , pro hac vice & John J. Ammann ,
St. Louis University Legal Clinic.

Steven Corsi, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the
Missouri Department of Social Services & Tim Decker, in his
official capacity as Director of the Children's Division,
Defendants, represented by Eileen Ruppe Krispin , Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Melanie Pennycuff , Missouri Attorney General's
Office, pro hac vice & Scotty L. Allen , Missouri Department of
Transportation.


KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Balks at False Marketing of Vanilla Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harlan Zaback, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELLOGG SALES COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02327-CAB-BGS (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 5, 2019), alleges that through false and deceptive
packaging and advertising, the Defendant intentionally misleads
consumers into believing that its product "Bear Naked Granola Fit
V'nilla Almond" is made with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively
from vanilla beans when the ingredient list reveals otherwise.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other consumers
purchased "Bear Naked Granola Fit V'nilla Almond" because they
reasonably believed, based on Defendant's packaging and advertising
that "Bear Naked Granola Fit V'nilla Almond" is made with vanilla
flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans. Had the Plaintiff
and other consumers known that "Bear Naked Granola Fit V'nilla
Almond" is not flavored with flavoring derived exclusively from
vanilla beans, they would not have purchased the "Bear Naked
Granola Fit V'nilla Almond" or would have paid significantly less
for it. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have been
deceived and have suffered economic injury.

The Plaintiff, on behalf himself and other similarly situated
consumers, seek damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and all other remedies provided by applicable law,
including the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair
Business Practices, California Business & Professions Code, and the
California False Advertising Law.

Kellogg Sales Company was founded in 1923. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon K. Roepcke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEVON K. ROEPCKE
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 940-5357
          Facsimile: (619) 354-4157
          E-mail: droepcke@lawdkr.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Laguardia, Esq.
          LA GUARDIA LAW, APC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 655 4322
          Facsimile: (619) 655 4344
          E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com


KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Brandy Gomes, the Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee Brandy Gomes in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

The Company was served with this complaint on June 28, 2019.

The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible
losses associated with this proceeding.

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience". The company is based in Irvine,
California.

LIBERTY PROPERTY: Thompson Balks at Merger Deal with Prologis
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST, WILLIAM HANKOWSKY,
THOMAS C. DELOACH, JR., KATHERINE DIETZE, ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, DANIEL
P. GARTON, ROBERT G. GIFFORD, DAVID L. LINGERFELT, MARGUERITE
NADER, LAWRENCE D. RAIMAN, FREDERIC TOMCZYK, PROLOGIS, INC.,
PROLOGIS L.P., LAMBDA REIT ACQUISITION LLC, LAMDA OP ACQUISITION
LLC, LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and LEAF HOLDCO PROPERTY
TRUST, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02230-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 5,
2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which LPT
entered into a merger agreement with Prologis, Inc., et al.

On October 27, 2019, Liberty Property Trust's Board of Trustees
(the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused LPT to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with Prologis, Inc., Prologis,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Lambda REIT Acquisition LLC,
Lambda OP Acquisition LCL, a Delaware limited liability company,
Liberty Property Limited Partnership, and Leaf Holdco Property
Trust. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, LPT's
stockholders will receive 0.675 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of LPT they own.

On November 26, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
because the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

Among other things, the Registration Statement fails to disclose:
(i) all line items used to calculate (a) Total Net Operating
Income, (b) Adjusted EBITDA, (c) FFO, (d) AFFO, and (e) Unlevered
FCF; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff, who owns LPT common stock, contends that the
omissions and false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff adds that the Registration Statement is
an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
Proposed Transaction; and in the event the Defendants consummate
the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.

LPT is a leader in commercial real estate, serving customers in the
United States and United Kingdom through the development,
acquisition, ownership, and management of superior logistics,
warehouse, manufacturing, and R&D facilities in key markets.
William P. Hankowsky is Chief Executive Officer, President, and
Chairman of the Board of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MANNKIND CORP: Bid to Amend Claim in Tel Aviv Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiff's motion
to amend his claim in the class action suit pending before the
district court of Tel Aviv, Economic Department, remains pending.

Following the public announcement in January 2016 of Sanofi's
election to terminate a license and collaboration agreement between
the Company and sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC and the subsequent decline
in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the
district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the
certification of a class action against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price
of its common stock.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court
ruled in October 2017 that U.S. law will apply to this case.

The plaintiff appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing
before the Supreme Court of Israel, decided to withdraw his appeal.
Subsequently, in November 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the certification motion.

At a case conference in February 2019, the court directed the
parties to negotiate a procedure for determining whether the
plaintiff can distinguish the claims in the Israeli litigation from
those in a U.S. case against the Company based on the same events
(which was dismissed by the U.S. district court for the Central
District of California in August 2016). In September 2019, the
plaintiff brought a motion to amend his claim, which the Company
has opposed.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced.

MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.


MIKE SLAGLE: Court Denies Bid for Class Classification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BENSON MOORE, the Plaintiff,
vs. MIKE SLAGLE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00242-FDW
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order on
Dec. 20, 2019:

   1. giving the Plaintiff 30 days in which to file an Amended
      Complaint, particularizing his claims and providing facts to
      support his legal claims against each Defendant. If
      Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint accordance with

      the Order and within the time limit set by the Court, the
      action will be dismissed without prejudice and without
      further notice to Plaintiff;

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for classification of the class;
      and

   3. instructing Clerk to mail Plaintiff a new Section 1983 form
      for Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint, if he so
      wishes.

The Court said, "The claims that Plaintiff asserts on his own
behalf are too vague and conclusory to proceed. He appears to
assert claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
The deliberate indifference standard has two components. The
plaintiff must show that he had serious medical of needs, which is
an objective inquiry, and that the defendant acted with deliberate
indifference to those needs, which is a subjective inquiry. A
"serious medical need" is "one that has been diagnosed by a
physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that
even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a
doctor's attention. The Plaintiff fails to allege that he had a
serious medical need. Nor does he allege how each of the
Defendants' was deliberately indifferent to that serious medical
need."[CC]

MILLCOM CABLE: Fernandez Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Fernandez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Millcom Cable Service LLC,
Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc. and Anthony Miller, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-04942, (S.D. Tex., December 19, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action,
plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Millcom is an internet installation company while Perfect is a
telecommunications company. Fernandez worked as an internet
installer/technician for them from February 2017 to July 24, 2019.
He claims to have routinely worked from 65-70 hours per week
without being paid overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
      Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
      ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
      3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 960-8300
      Fax: (713) 621-6670
      Email: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
             tracey@rosenberglaw.com


MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO: Court Dismisses Hernandez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, ISAURA MARTINEZ, RUFINA HERNANDEZ, NARCICO
MEDINA, MARTIN HERNANDEZ, ANGLEINA SANTIAGO, and ANA LAURA FLORES
on behalf of similarly situated individuals Plaintiff, v.
MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO, INC., RIGOBERTO AGUILAR, individually,
EUGENIO AGUILAR, individually, RON'S TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES, INC.,
SURESTAFF, INC., FLEXIBLE STAFFING SERVICES, INC., TRIUNE
LOGISTICS, LLC, REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SELECT
REMEDY, ELITE LABOR SERVICES, LTD. and ACCURATE PERSONNEL, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 16 C 10747, (N.D. Ill.).

Francisco Hernandez filed a class action complaint asserting
various claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), the Illinois Wage Payment
Collection Act (IWPCA), and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor
Services Act (IDTLSA) against Multi-Servicios Latino, Inc., et al.

Defendant Elite Staffing, Inc. moved to dismiss on res judicata
grounds, arguing that Plaintiff is engaged in impermissible claim
splitting following the settlement of a prior lawsuit, Baker v.
Elite Staffing, Inc., Case No. 15 CV 3246. In Baker, Plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated sued Elite
for violations of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the IDTLSA.

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, has three elements: (1) an
identity of the parties or their privies in the first and second
lawsuits, (2) an identity of the cause of action, (3) a final
judgment on the merits in the first suit.

The elements of res judicata are met, Judge Rowland finds. The
claims raised in Baker arise from the same transactions as in the
instant case, and the time periods covered are the same. Each
Plaintiff in the instant case was an unnamed class member in Baker
and did not opt out of that class or the settlement agreement.  

However, Plaintiffs argue that in settling Baker, those Plaintiffs
released only those claims arising under the IDTLSA and preserved
all others. In making this argument, Plaintiffs point to the
language of the settlement agreement and the scope of the release.


However, Elite is not arguing that Plaintiff released their claims.
Rather, Elite argues that the dismissal of the Baker case acts as a
bar to the instant suit, irrespective of the scope of the release.


The Court agrees.

The present claim is barred. Consequently, Judge Rowland grants
Elite's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's October 31, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24ujztf from
Leagle.com

Francisco Hernandez, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, Isaura Martinez, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals, Martin Hernandez, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Rufina
Hernandez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Narciso Medina, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, Angelina Santiago & Ana Laura
Flores, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher John Williams ,
National Legal Advocacy Network, 53 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604

Ron's Temporary Help Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Carter A. Korey , Korey Richardson LLC, Elliot S. Richardson ,
Korey Richardson LLC, 20 S Clark St #500, Chicago, IL 60603, Steven
P. Blonder - sblonder@muchlaw.com - Much Shelist P.C., David
Michael Hickey , Korey Richardson LLP & Michele Denise Dougherty ,
Korey Richardson LLC, 20 S Clark St #500, Chicago, IL 60603

SureStaff, Inc, Defendant, represented by William Francis Dugan -
bakermckenzie.com - Baker & McKenzie LLP, Arthur James Rooney -
arthur.rooney@bakermckenzie.com - Baker & McKenzie LLP, Goli Rahimi
, Baker McKenzie LLP & Laura Elise Zabele , Baker & Mckenzie Llp,
300 East Randolph Street, Suite 5000, Chicago, IL 60601-6342

Flexible Staffing Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by Kerry
Evan Saltzman , Williams, Bax & Saltzman, P.C. & Aaron W. Chaet ,
Williams, Bax & Saltzman, P.C., 121West Wacker Drive, Wuite 3700,
Chicago, Illinois 60601


NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 25, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its
executive officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to the Company's financial guidance for fiscal 2020,
as provided on May 22, 2019.

Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date the company
provided revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020.

The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in
the market price of the company's shares following the issuance of
the revised guidance on August 1, 2019.

NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.


NOLAN ENTERPRISES: Class of Dancers Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, the
Plaintiff, vs. NOLAN ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a, CENTERFOLD CLUB,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00926-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion and conditional certifies a
      class of:

      "all of Defendant's current and former dancers who have
      worked at Defendant's club during the three years before
      the order was granted to the present."

   2. directing parties to proceed with expedited discovery; and

   3. directing parties to confer as to the proper form of the
      notice and submit a proposed notice form and opt-in consent
      form within 14 days of the date of the order.

If the parties disagree as to any specific language in the notice
and opt-in consent form, the parties may note the disputed
language, with accompanying briefing as necessary, and the Court
will promptly determine which language to use.

At the same time, the parties shall also submit a proposed plan for
the distribution of the notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs
employed by Defendant at any time from three years prior to the
granting of this motion to the present. In the event of a
disagreement on the distribution procedure, the parties shall
submit simultaneous briefing on the matter. No responsive briefing
will be permitted.

The Plaintiff has brought forward sufficient evidence that she is
similarly situated to other dancers at Vanity and that she and
other dancers were subjected to a single, FLSA-violating policy,
the Court says.

Ms. De Angelis worked at Vanity as a dancer from April 2016 to
February 2017. Ms. De Angelis alleged that Vanity did not pay its
dancers any wages by misclassifying all of its dancers as
independent contractors, rather than employees.

She further alleges that at the end of each night, Vanity took a
cut from all tips made by the dancers, and the dancers were
required to split their tips with other employees.

Ms. De Angelis filed the lawsuit as a collective and class action
against Vanity on October 23, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1983, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act.[CC]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson Seeks to Certify Two Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN CARLSON & PETER DELUCA, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, vs. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and the NORTHROP
GRUMMAN SEVERANCE PLAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-02635
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Counts II and III by Plaintiffs in the Amended
      Complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
      of 1974 (ERISA), on behalf of two subclasses of the Amended
      Class that the Court certified for Count I pursuant to its
      October 11, 2019 Order:

      Count II -- Technical Services Subclass:

      "all members of the Amended Class who worked in the
      Technical Services Sector at the time of their layoff from
      Northrop Grumman Corporation"; and

      Count III -- Pre-October 2011 Hires Subclass:

      "all members of the Amended Class whose original date of
      hire with Northrop Grumman Corporation was before October
      2011".

   2. appointing Alan Carlson and Peter DeLuca as Class
      Representatives of the Subclasses; and

   3. appointing Michael Bartolic of The Law Offices of Michael
      Bartolic, LLC and R. Joseph Barton of Block and Leviton
      LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Subclasses.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Bartolic, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BARTOLIC, LLC
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1420
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-635-1600
          E-mail: mbartolic@michaelbartolic.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Vincent Cheng, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: 202-734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com
                  vincent@blockesq.com

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klapperich Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Klapperich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01859 (E.D. Wisc., December 18, 2019),
seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Northstar, is a collection agency assigned to collect an obligation
owed by Klapperich to Discover Bank via a collection letter. Said
letter failed to identify how much of the settlement amount
consisted of principal, interest, late fees, and other
non-principal, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Telephone (973) 379-7500
      E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
              Andrew@SternThomasson.com
              Francis@SternThomasson.com
              Katelyn@SternThomasson.com


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Avila Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 4, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled,  Avila v. LifeLock et al.

On August 29, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued a mandate remanding a securities class action lawsuit,
originally filed on July 22, 2015, against the company's
subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of LifeLock's former
officers (the "LifeLock Defendants") for further proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the
August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed
the case with prejudice.

The complaint in the remanded action alleges that, during a
purported class period of July 30, 2014 to July 21, 2015, a period
that predates LifeLock's acquisition by the company, the LifeLock
Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The case
is now back in the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 4, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against the company and
certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and a proposed first amended complaint on July 11, 2019.

The Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the
first amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019.

The Court's order dismissed certain claims and certain of the
company's former officers. The Court ordered defendants to answer
by November 7. No trial date has been set.

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. ... The Consumer
Digital Safety segment provides solutions to protect information,
devices, networks and the identities of consumers. The company is
based in Tempe, Arizona.


NYU LANGONE: Court Remands Action to State Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has ordered a remand to the state
court of the case captioned IVAN ARROYO, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NYU LANGONE HOSPITAL,
Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 1624 (KPF), (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Ivan Arroyo is a security guard employed by Defendant NYU
Langone Hospitals.  It is undisputed that the terms of Plaintiff's
employment with Defendant were governed by collective bargaining
agreements ("CBAs"), negotiated by Defendant and Plaintiff's union,
the Local One Security Officers Union ("Union"). Each CBA provided
that security guards would work a 40-hour week and would be paid
overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in New York state court, alleging
that Defendant failed to pay its security guard employees all the
wage and overtime compensation they were owed from January 2013 to
the present, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the New
York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR").  Defendant removed
the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441, claiming
that Plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted under Sec. 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").  Plaintiff now moves
to remand the case back to state court.

Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, arguing that federal jurisdiction was not
appropriate under Section 301 of the LMRA because the Complaint did
not allege that the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) or any
federal law had been violated.

On review, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate
that establishing liability on Plaintiff's state-law claims will
require interpretation of the CBAs.

The Court notes that Defendant presents three additional arguments
for removal, none of which has traction here.

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are preempted under
the LMRA because the CBAs contain a provision that requires the
parties to file internal grievances and seek arbitration for any
disputes arising under the CBAs.  This argument is unavailing
because, as the Court has already found, Plaintiff has not raised a
dispute under the CBAs; instead, he seeks to assert rights provided
by New York law. It is of no moment that Plaintiff might have
alleged the same facts at issue here to argue that Defendant had
violated the CBAs.  The grievance and arbitration provisions of the
CBAs are not implicated in this matter.

Second, Defendant claims that adjudication of Plaintiff's Complaint
will require an examination of Defendant's past dealings and
negotiations with Plaintiff's Union relating to the CBA, which
examination would itself be tantamount to an interpretation of the
CBAs.   Defendant notes that provisions of the CBAs relating to
pre- and post-shift work were the subject of a grievance filed by
the Union in 2009.  According to Defendant, the Court would need to
understand the outcome of that grievance to resolve any issues
related to the application of Article 5(G) of the CBAs.  That may
be so, but as the Court has already determined, Defendant failed to
establish that Plaintiff's NYLL claims will require resolution of
issues related to the application of any provision of the CBAs.
Defendant has not demonstrated that an examination of past dealings
and negotiations under the CBAs will be necessary in this matter.

Third and finally, Defendant notes that the CBAs provide for
differential payments to employees working certain shifts or
performing specific job duties. Defendant claims that courts in
this circuit have found time and again that where a CBA provides
for certain shift-differentials or other increased payments, the
claims are preempted.  But this assertion goes too far.  It is true
that sister courts have found that claims are preempted by the LMRA
where they seek to recover compensation granted by a CBA's wage
differential provisions.

Thus, Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the
LMRA, and the case should be remanded to state court, Judge Failla
opines.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED, Judge Failla
rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y22fnmg5 from
Leagle.com

Ivan Arroyo, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alanna Rose Sakovits , Virginia
& Ambinder, LLP, James Emmet Murphy , Virginia & Ambinder, LLP &
Lloyd Robert Ambinder , Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, 40 Broad Street,
7th Floor, New York, NY 10004

NYU Langone Hospitals, Defendant, represented by Steven Ronald
Nevolis – snevolis@kelleydrye.com -Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP &
Mark Andrew Konkel – mkonkel@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye &
Warren, LLP.


OCALA, FL: Certification of Homeless Residents Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PATRICK MCARDLE, COURTNEY
RAMSEY, and ANTHONY CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF OCALA, FLA.,
the Defendant. Case No. 5:19-cv-00461-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.),
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who currently or during the pendency of this
      litigation (a) are homeless in that they are without fixed
      housing and lack the financial resources to provide for
      their own housing; (b) live within the City of Ocala
      including individuals who sometimes sleep outside the City
      to avoid arrest; and (c) have been convicted under the
      City of Ocala ordinance, codified at Sec. 42-10 of the
      Ocala City Code, that prohibits "lodging in the open"
      ("open lodging")"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I,
section 9 of the Florida Constitution.

The Plaintiffs say that they do not have access to fixed, regular,
and adequate housing due to lack of adequate alternatives.

The Plaintiffs and hundreds of homeless individuals who are
similarly situated have no choice but to sleep or rest on streets
or sidewalks, or in woods, parks or other outdoor areas in the
City.

Despite the lack of available and accessible shelter space, the
City has a policy of "broken windows" policing that includes a
"vagrant patrol" to actively identify and arrest homeless
individuals for municipal ordinance violations such as "open
lodging" with the intent of driving homeless people out of the
City. This policy has included implementing police operations in
2018 and 2019 targeted at the homeless population including
"Operation Street Sweeper," "Operation Innovation," and a "zero
tolerance" action plan, the lawsuit added.

Ocala is a city in central Florida.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jodi Siegel, Esq.
          Kirsten Anderson, Esq.
          Chelsea Dunn, Esq.
          SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL, INC.
          1229 NW 12th Avenue
          Gainesville, FL 32601-4113
          Telephone: (352) 271-8890
          Facsimile: (352) 271-8347
          E-mail: jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org
                  Kirsten.anderson@southernlegal.org
                  chelsea.dunn@southernlegal.org

               - and -

          Jacqueline Nicole Azis, Esq.
          Daniel Tilley, Esq.
          ACLU Foundation of Florida
          4023 N. Armenia, Suite 450
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (786) 363-2708
          Facsimile: (786) 363-2708
          E-mail: jazis@aclufl.org
                  dtilley@aclufl.org

               - and -

          Andrew Pozzuto, Esq.
          ALAVI & POZZUTO
          108 N Magnolia Ave Ste 600
          Ocala, FL 34475-6648
          Telephone: 352 732-9191
          Facsimile: 352 732-4892
          E-mail: apozzuto@theaplawgroup.com

OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Dismissal Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal
on the court's order of dismissal in the consolidated class action
suit remains pending.

On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB.  

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.  

Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by
various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the
two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff
Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Securities
Class Action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between May 3,
2017 and October 31, 2017.

The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating
results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such
operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of
certain of the Company’s leases and the uncollectibility of
certain receivables.

The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.  

The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018 and the Court heard Oral
Argument on February 13, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the Court entered
an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all
defendants.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed, and
oral argument was scheduled for November 13, 2019.   

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suit entitled, Bushansky v. MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc.,
et al., has been dismissed.

On May 17, 2019, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (Omega) and OHI
Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (Omega OP) completed
their merger with MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. ("MedEquities")
and its subsidiary operating partnership and the general partner of
its subsidiary operating partnership.

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by the
First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March
26, 2019, (the "Merger Agreement") Omega acquired MedEquities and
MedEquities was merged with and into Omega (the "Merger") at the
effective time of the Merger with Omega continuing as the surviving
company.

On March 17, 2019, a purported stockholder of MedEquities filed a
class action lawsuit against MedEquities and members of the
MedEquities board of directors in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee. Bushansky v. MedEquities
Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-00231.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that MedEquities and its
directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by
making materially incomplete and misleading statements in, and/or
omitting certain information that is material to stockholders from,
the Combined Proxy Statement and Form S-4, relating to the merger.


The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the merger and, in the event the merger is
consummated, rescission of the merger or damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.  

Following completion of the merger in May 2019, on August 8, 2019,
the Court granted plaintiff's motion that he be appointed lead
plaintiff and that his counsel be appointed lead counsel. On
September 18, 2019, the Court granted a joint motion by the parties
to briefly extend certain deadlines in the case, under which
plaintiff had until October 18, 2019 to designate an operative
complaint. On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.  

The action was dismissed on October 18, 2019.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Russell Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suit entitled, Russell v. MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc., et
al., has been dismissed.

On May 17, 2019, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (Omega) and OHI
Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (Omega OP) completed
their merger with MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. ("MedEquities")
and its subsidiary operating partnership and the general partner of
its subsidiary operating partnership.

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by the
First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March
26, 2019, (the "Merger Agreement") Omega acquired MedEquities and
MedEquities was merged with and into Omega (the "Merger") at the
effective time of the Merger with Omega continuing as the surviving
company.

On March 29, 2019, a purported stockholder of MedEquities filed a
class action lawsuit against MedEquities and members of the
MedEquities board of directors in the Circuit Court of Maryland,
Baltimore City, Maryland alleging, among other things, that
MedEquities and members of the MedEquities board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by: (i) failing to fulfill their
fiduciary oversight function; (ii) authorizing the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement/prospectus;
and (iii) authorizing, in the Amended and Restated Bylaws of
MedEquities the enactment of an exclusive venue designation whereby
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland is the sole and
exclusive forum for certain litigation against the company, or if
that court does not have jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division  (the "Exclusive Venue
Bylaw"). Russell v. MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Case
No. C-03-CV-19-000721.  

The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing
the special meeting of MedEquities stockholders to vote on the
transaction and, in the event the transaction is implemented, seeks
rescission of the transaction or damages, a declaration that the
Exclusive Venue Bylaw is invalid, an injunction preventing the
enforcement of the Exclusive Venue Bylaw, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

Following completion of the merger in May 2019, the parties entered
into a Stipulation dated September 26, 2019, in which they agreed
to a revised briefing schedule on one consolidated motion to
dismiss, pursuant to which defendants filed their motion to dismiss
on October 31, 2019.  

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Scarantino Class Action Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suit entitled, Scarantino v. McRoberts et al., has been
dismissed.

On May 17, 2019, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (Omega) and OHI
Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (Omega OP) completed
their merger with MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. ("MedEquities")
and its subsidiary operating partnership and the general partner of
its subsidiary operating partnership.

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by the
First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March
26, 2019, (the "Merger Agreement") Omega acquired MedEquities and
MedEquities was merged with and into Omega (the "Merger") at the
effective time of the Merger with Omega continuing as the surviving
company.

On February 22, 2019, a purported stockholder of MedEquities filed
a derivative and class action lawsuit against MedEquities, members
of the MedEquities board of directors, and the Company in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Scarantino v. McRoberts
et al., Case No.  24-c-19-001027.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties by the MedEquities; board of directors in connection with
its approval of the merger and the omission from the Form S-4 of
certain information that is material to stockholders.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the merger and, in the event the merger is
consummated, rescission of the merger or damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.  

On July 3, 2019, the Court issued a Notification of Contemplated
Dismissal, based on plaintiff's apparent failure to serve the
complaint.  

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in August 2019.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Deposition Discovery in SEPTA Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
deposition discovery in the class action suit initiated by The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has been
stayed.

On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA’s opposition to the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was originally due January 11,
2013.

Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff’s claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted
SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an
amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the
underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint
extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013
Second

Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013,
SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants'
motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply
briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss.

On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be
heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to
dismiss SEPTA’s amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA’s motion for class
certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment,
or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended
complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second
amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to
amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.

Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the
Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stays
all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing
of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of
the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the
existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry
regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.

As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016,
on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related
matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to
December 31, 2011.

As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings
and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive
Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting
Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.

The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000. The
Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which
was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court
a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with
the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC’s cease-and-desist
order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most
salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.

On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in
which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to
dismiss SEPTA’s second amended complaint. The Court granted the
motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all
defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn,
Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied
the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims
against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown
Defendants’ opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA’s reply due
April 23, 2018.

On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule.

On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status
report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in
the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a
status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule.

On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case
management deadlines until further order of the Court.

On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report.
On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status
conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the
case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party
depositions.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 23, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel.

On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene
in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel,
and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to
SEPTA's motion. On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in
support of its motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court
denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground
that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint.

The proposed third amended complaint also seeks to reassert the
Exchange Act claims against those defendants that the Court
dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. Defendants’ briefs
in opposition to SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint were filed on April 25, 2019. SEPTA filed a reply brief
in further support of its motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on May 9, 2019. That motion is pending.

On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA’s motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, former defendants
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC and the underwriters joined in
Orrstown’s motion for protective order.

On June 25, 2019, SEPTA filed its opposition to Orrstown's motion.
On July 9, 2019, Orrstown filed a reply brief in further support of
its motion. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially
granting Orrstown's motion for protective order, ruling that all
deposition discovery in the case is stayed pending a decision on
SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended
complaint, and the allegations of the proposed third amended
complaint, are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously against those claims. It is not possible at this time to
estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably
possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.


PIZZA PARAMUS: Pereira Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO JORGE PEREIRA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA PARAMUS, INC. d/b/a Mangiamo
Pizza Restaurant; HANI GHOBRIAL, an individual; SAMEH GHOBRIAL, an
individual; JOHN DOES 1-5 and ABC CORPS. 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-21128 (D.N.J., Dec. 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and all available relief for restaurant workers
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff and other "similarly situated" employees are
non-tipped, non-exempt Mangiamo restaurant employees, including
Chefs, Cooks, Salad Preparers, Food Preparers, Pizza Makers and
Dishwashers (restaurant workers). Mr. Pereira was employed most
recently as a salad preparer by Mangiamo from January 1, 2015, to
December 31, 2018.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice that denied restaurant workers appropriate overtime
compensation pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Mangiamo sells pizza and other food items, such as salads,
sandwiches and pasta, and offers catering, dine-in and delivery
options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Schley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
          197 Route 18, Suite 3000
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (732) 325-0318
          E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com


PIZZA TO YOU: Waters Moves to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Kirk Waters, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. Pizza to You, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00372-TMR (S.D. Ohio), moves the Court for an
order conditionally certifying the action as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards, and designating him as the
representative of a class consisting of:

     All current and former Jet's Pizza delivery drivers who
     worked at any location owned/operated by Defendants Pizza to
     You, L.L.C.; Pizza to You 2, L.L.C.; Pizza to You 3, L.L.C.;
     Pizza to You 4, LLC; Pizza to You 5, LLC; PRM Management
     LLC; Peter Marrocco; and/or Rosemary Marrocco within the
     three years prior to the filing of this Class Action
     Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter.

Mr. Waters filed this lawsuit on November 22, 2019, on behalf of
the pizza delivery drivers, who work at the Defendants' Jet's Pizza
stores in the Dayton area.  He alleges that pizza delivery drivers
at the Defendants' Jet's Pizza stores are all employed according to
the same terms: they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for
all hours worked, they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants'
pizzas, and they are not reimbursed for their actual expenses (with
associated recordkeeping) or at the IRS standard business mileage
rate.  This reimbursement policy drops the delivery drivers' wages
below minimum wage.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to (1) approve the his proposed
notices and methods of disseminating notice, (2) order the
Defendants to provide name and contact information for all
potential class members within 14 days of the court's order, and
(3) authorize a 90-day opt-in period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lroselle@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


PK MANAGEMENT: Court Rejects Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEORA RILEY et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. PK MANAGEMENT,
LLC et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order on Dec.
20, 2019, overruling Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
appointment of class representatives and appointment of class
counsel filed September 16, 2019.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs' proposed class does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). This is not to say that no
class could ever be certified. Rather, plaintiffs need to more
creatively and thoughtfully address the requirements of Rule 23."

PK Management provides real estate services. The company offers
single and multi family housing, senior living, conventional, and
housing management services. PK Management serves customers in the
United States.[CC]


POPULAR INC: Discovery in Diaz Class Suit to End March 20
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court
overseeing the case, Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part, has set March 20,
2020 as the deadline to complete discovery.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular
Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have been named
defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez
Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First
Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance
Companies").

Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies.

They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an
estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance
Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive
relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from
paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering
them to pay those fees directly to the insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant
Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery. The Court of Appeals and the Puerto
Rico Supreme Court both denied the Popular Defendants' request to
review the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint and, on January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October
2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the
class, after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari
petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the
class certification, which the Court declined to entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, Plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the Popular
Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.

In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it
to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a
mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term.

The Court set March 20, 2020 as the deadline to complete discovery
and scheduled a pre-trial hearing and tentative trial dates for the
second half of 2020.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Potter Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
PotNetwork Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company and
its subsidiaries, First Capital Venture Co. and Diamond CBD, Inc.,
continue to defend a class action suit entitled, Potter v.
PotNetwork Holdings Inc., et al. Case No. 19-cv-24017-RNS.

After the quarter end the Company and its subsidiaries First
Capital Venture Co. and Diamond CBD, Inc. were served with a
lawsuit by a customer claiming to have purchased CBD products from
Diamond CBD and that the amount of CBD contained in the products
was less than the amount represented on the label of those
products.

The Company has a filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and
believes that it is without merit.

The lawsuit seeks to be certified as a class action, which request
the Company also believes is without merit.

The lawsuit was filed in the US Federal District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entitled, Potter v. PotNetwork
Holdings Inc., et al. Case No. 19-cv-24017-RNS.

PotNetwork Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides online breaking news
and videos straight from the cannabis industry. PotNetwork Holdings
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in  Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.


PRETIUM PACKAGING: Moreno Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Carlos Moreno, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRETIUM PACKAGING, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2019-01114297-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02500 to the
proceeding.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant allegedly violated
California law by failing to pay various types of overtime
compensation and provide various meal and rest breaks. Based on
these allegations, the Plaintiff brings a putative class action
alleging causes of action for violation of California Labor Code,
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and California Business
& Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason R. Stavely, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 621.5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621.5065
          Email: jstavely@atllp.com

               - and -

          Russell I. Glazer, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Clements, Esq.
          TROYGOULD PC
          1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367
          Phone: (310) 553-4441
          Facsimile: (310) 201-4746
          Email: rglazer@troygould.com
                 bclements@troygould.com


REGAL CINEMAS: Amara Hits Illegal SMS Promotional Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Amara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-03125, (M.D. Fla., December 19, 2019), seeks statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Regal Cinemas, Inc. operates a geographically diverse chain of
movie theaters in the United States. It sent Amara an SMS ad
promoting its "Regal Unlimited Movie Subscription Pass," which is a
subscription-based service that Regal offers to consumers for a
monthly fee. At no point in time did Amara provide Regal with his
express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      HEDIN HALL LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 357-2107
      Fax: (305) 200-8801
      Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com


RENO, NV: Brooks et al. Sue over Amendments of RMC Chapter 4 & 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CATHERINE CASTELLANOS, LAUREN COURTNEY, RACHAEL JASPER,
BRIANNA MORALES, VICTORIA RACHET, LILY STAGNER, NATALEE WELLS,
CECELIA WHITTLE, and MARYANN ROSE BROOKS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RENO
and MICHAEL CHAUMP, in his official capacity as Business Relations
Manager of Community Development and Business Licenses for the CITY
OF RENO and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB (D. Nev., Nov. 18, 2019), alleges that
Plaintiff Dancers have and will continue to suffer irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights if the Defendants, their officials,
employees, agents and assigns are not enjoined from enforcing the
unconstitutional provisions of RMC Chapter 4 and 5.

As a result of the passage of the amendments effective May 8, 2019
to RMC Chapter 4 and 5, each Plaintiff Dancer lost and will
continue to loose substantial income from not working as a stripper
dancing topless at one or more of the only four adult interactive
cabarets permitted in and licensed by the City of Reno.

The Plaintiff Dancers have paid all required fees and have been
required under force of law to obey all regulations contained in
the "Privileged License," "Adult Interactive Cabaret" and "Adult
Interactive Cabaret Performer" sub-sections of Chapter 4 and 5 of
the Reno Municipal Code (RMC), the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated are female adult
interactive cabaret performers who are between the ages of 18 and
21 years of age, and who lawfully dance topless as strippers at
adult interactive cabarets licensed by the City of Reno that serve
alcohol to their customers.

Reno is a city in the northwest section of the U.S. state of
Nevada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NE 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Amount in Blair Lawsuit Paid
----------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement
amount in the lawsuit, Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., has been
paid.

This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed
on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The complaint alleges various claims, including that our cash sales
and total rent to own prices exceed the pricing permitted under the
Karnette Rental-Purchase Act.

Following a court-ordered mediation on March 28, 2019, the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for a total
of $13 million, including attorneys' fees.

The settlement was approved by the court in October 2019.

Rent-A-Center said, "We have denied any liability in the settlement
and agreed to the settlement in order to avoid additional
expensive, time-consuming litigation. We recorded the pre-tax
charge for this settlement in the first quarter of 2019, and the
settlement amount will be paid in November 2019."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.

REYNOLDS MACHINE: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ABDIFATAH ABUKAR, the
Plaintiff, v. REYNOLDS MACHINE CO. LLC, and SUSSEK MACHINE COMPANY
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-838-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order on Dec. 18, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
      the FLSA collective action; and

      "all persons who are or have been employed by Reynolds
      Machine at the New Berlin, Wisconsin location and who were
      paid on an hourly basis at any time since June 5, 2016"

   2. declining to postpone its ruling until the parties have had
      the benefit of discovery; and

   3. directing the parties to confer on the proper form of the
      notice as directed in the order, and to file a stipulation
      or briefs on the matter if necessary.

The case has been pending since June, the summary judgment deadline
falls in January, and the Court has already granted the parties an
extension of time to accommodate settlement talks, the Court
added.

Mr. Abukar alleged that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Wisconsin wage and hour laws.

Reynolds, now owned by Sussek, manufactures precision machinery
parts such as truck axels, airplane parts, and brakes from a single
plant in New Berlin, Wisconsin.

Reynolds employees typically work on an hourly basis. All hourly
employees are subject to the employment policies set forth in the
employee handbook.

Pursuant to the Handbook, all hourly employees must be prepared to
begin working at the start of their shifts, which is indicated by
the sound of a buzzer. Additionally, all hourly employees must
receive permission before working overtime, which is compensated at
a rate of one-and-a-half times their hourly wage.

Beginning on June 5, 2016, Reynolds instituted a policy that
rounded its hourly workers' start and end times to thirty-minute
intervals.

According to this policy, the start and end times are not rounded
to the nearest thirty-minute interval. Rather, they are rounded up
or down to the interval that results in the least financial
obligation for the employers.

Abukar contends that he and the putative collective are hourly
workers at Reynolds' plant in New Berlin; that they were all
subject to the above-quoted rounding policy explained in the
Handbook; and that they each suffered a shortfall in compensation.

He further explains that he and the other members of the putative
collective were subject to the same bonus policies, attendance
policies, and other policies that required the employees to be at
their workstations and ready to go at the moment their shift
started -- suggesting that arriving early enough to prepare the
workstations was mandatory, though implicit, the lawsuit says.[CC]


RICH PRODUCTS: Pettigrew Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jermane Pettigrew, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rich Products Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH14627 (Ill. Cir., December 18, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics, as well as statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Pettigrew worked for Rich Products' food service facility. They
were required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. Plaintiffs alleges that Rich improperly
disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      Kim Hilton, Esq.
      Seth Matus, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      Mara Baltabols, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             kunze@fishlawfirm.com
             smatus@fishlawfirm.com
             jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
             mara@fishlawfirm.com
             docketing@fishlawfirm.com


SABRINA DAVIS: Brown's Bid to Certify Class of Inmates Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ADE BROWN v. SABRINA DAVIS, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-00812-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), U.S. Magistrate Judge
Phillip J. Green denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, Class Certification, and Special Master.

The Plaintiff initiated this action against several individuals
alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights.  At this
juncture, the Plaintiff's remaining claims are that the Defendants:
(1) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in
conditions with insufficient ventilation and temperature control;
(2) violated his First Amendment rights by employing large fans the
noise from which prevented him from communicating with other
inmates; and (3) violated his Eighth Amendment rights where the
noise from such fans caused him to suffer headaches, sleeplessness,
and depression.

Judge Green opines that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that
the class is so numerous as to make joinder impracticable.  He
notes that the Plaintiff has neither demonstrated that there exist
a substantial number of potential class members or that joinder of
any claims these individuals may have is not practical.  Instead,
he adds, the Plaintiff appears to argue that every inmate of the
facility in which he is incarcerated is a potential class member
and because the facility incarcerates a large number of people this
requirement is satisfied.

The Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that there exist
common questions of fact or law with respect to the claims other
potential class members might assert, Judge Green states.  In
short, Judge Green concludes, the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy
his burden to obtain class certification.[CC]


SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER UNGER, and
DUSTIN LACH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. SC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, and JOHN K. SEARS, Case No.
1:19-cv-00125-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), move the Court for an order:

     (i) certifying the case as a class action pursuant to
         Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
         authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice of this case
         and the proposed settlement to all current and former
         hourly employees, who worked for the Defendants during
         the recovery period;

     (ii) certifying the collective action under the Fair Labor
          Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

    (iii) designating Plaintiffs Christopher Unger and Dustin
          Lach as Representative Plaintiffs; and

     (iv) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs explains that the Motion is filed as one of several
motions intended to implement the terms of the parties' proposed
settlement.  The parties have also filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and soon will file a Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

The parties have reached a settlement, and seek certification of
the case as a Class Action, and certification of Count I of the
Complaint as a Collective Action, together with related relief, in
order to implement the terms of the settlement.

On February 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Class and Collective
Action Complaint in this matter asserting claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Michigan Worker Opportunity Wage Act to
recover the unpaid and underpaid wages.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Defendants had a policy
under which they failed to pay employees overtime at the rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rate.  During investigation
and discovery, the Defendants disclosed that a second company, SC
Services, LLC ("SCS"), routinely shared employees with Defendant
SCES, both of which were wholly owned by Defendant Sears, and were
subject to the same payroll policies.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq.
          LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.
          124 West Allegan, Suite 700
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 482-2400
          E-mail: jstheuer@loomislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall B. Kleiman, Esq.
          Ted W. Stroud, Esq.
          OADE, STROUD & KLEIMAN, P.C.
          200 Woodland Pass, P.O. 1296
          East Lansing, MI 48826-1296
          Telephone: (517) 351-3550
          E-mail: rkleiman@osklaw.com


SETERUS, INC: Koepplinger et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KENNETH KOEPPLINGER and RHODA
SMITH, On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. SETERUS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-995
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the class and subclass:

      North Carolina State Law Class:

      "all consumers throughout the State of North Carolina who
      were sent a letter from Seterus substantially similar or
      materially identical to the NC Final Letters delivered to
      Plaintiffs"; and

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Sub-Class:

      "all consumers throughout the State of North Carolina whose
      servicing rights were acquired by Seterus after their loan
      was in default and who were sent a letter from Seterus
      substantially similar or materially identical to the NC
      Final Letter delivered to Plaintiffs".

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives.

The Defendant operates as a loan servicing company.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Edwards IV, Esq
          S. Gwaltney, Esq
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite
          310 Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: 919 526 0450
          Facsimile: 919 882 8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
                  aedwards@maginnislaw.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Consumer Suit Shelved
---------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court of
appeals has issued an order holding an appeal in abeyance pending a
district court's decision.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to
settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who
purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1,
2011, to the date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the
proposed settlement class. The Court held a fairness hearing on
March 22, 2019, and it issued an order granting final approval of
the settlement on May 9, 2019.

On June 10, 2019, three objectors filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Two of the objectors dismissed their appeals.

The Company and the other settling parties have moved to dismiss
the remaining appeal because the district court did not certify the
approval order as appealable.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the district court to
certify the order as appealable, and on October 22, 2019, the court
of appeals issued an order holding the appeal in abeyance pending
the district court's decision. The Company denies all allegations
of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a class action
complaint in Saskatchewan court has not been served on the
Company.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the
Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares
for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for
travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding.

The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same
putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia,
and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016,
the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that
action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action
against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff
unilaterally discontinued the action against the Company in British
Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and
to stay that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10,
2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
discontinue that proceeding as to the Company.

On September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that
may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and
indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation. The Saskatchewan
claim has not been served on the Company, and the time for the
Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to run.

The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages (including
punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment interest,
disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as a result
of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada.

The Company does not currently serve Canada.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Defends Class Suit in Sherman, Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the continues to
defend a suit seeking class certification pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to
conceal defects with the MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and also asserts related
state law claims based upon the same alleged facts.

The initial complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes
of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the
Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary
relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and to strike certain class allegations.

The plaintiffs have filed a response to the Company's motion, but
the briefing to the court has not yet been completed. The Company
denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the
complaint.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


ST LOGISTICS: Barricelli Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GIOVANNI BARRICELLI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CURRENT
AND FORMER EMPLOYEES, the Plaintiff, vs. ST LOGISTICS, LLC, D/B/A
SOLDIER DELIVERY, A WISCONSIN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND TRAVIS
SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00136 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an Order:

   1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action
      against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act's overtime compensation provisions;

   2. directing the Defendants to immediately provide a list of
      names, last known addresses, last known email addresses,
      and last known telephone numbers for all putative class
      members within the last three years;

   3. providing that notice be prominently posted at each of
      Defendants' delivery facilities/hubs in the United States
      where putative class members work, be attached to its
      current delivery drivers' next scheduled pay check, and
      be mailed and emailed to putative class members so each
      can assert their claims on a timely basis;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative
      class as of the date this motion is fully briefed;

   5. authorizing a reminder postcard to be issued mid-way
      through the 90-day notice period; and

   6. requiring that the opt in Plaintiffs' be deemed "filed"
      on the date they are postmarked.

ST Logistics is a nationwide transportation provider specializing
in all aspects of local, air and ground freight, offering a wide
range of transportation services to suit every.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and similarly situated current and
former employees are:

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wendy V. Miller, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Washko, Esq.
          Casey M. Parker, Esq.
          Benjamin P. Lemly, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
             SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          SunTrust Plaza
          401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200
          Nashville, TN 37219-2446
          Telephone: 615-254-1900
          Facsimile: 615-254-1908
          E-mail: wendy.miller@ogletree.com
                  liz.washko@ogletree.com
                  casey.parker@ogletree.com
                  benjamin.lemly@ogletree.com

STERLING WIRELESS: Obi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emeka Raymond Obi, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sterling Wireless LLC; Stellar Wireless Group Inc.;
Super Wireless Inc.; PCS Wireless Avenue U Inc.; J & E Wireless
Inc.; PCS Wireless Penn Inc.; PCS Wireless Nassau Inc.; Stellartel
Group Inc.; PCS Wireless Succes Inc; Stellar Wireless Consulting,
LLC; Stellar Wireless Group Retail, LLC; Stellar Wireless of
Chicago Inc; Stellar Wireless of Manhattan Inc.; Stellar Wireless
of UPNY Inc.; and Sachin Jain, Case No. 1:19-cv-07255 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 27, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law's minimum
wage and overtime provisions.

Mr. Obi also accuses the Defendants of violating the New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act provisions, which require employers to provide
employees with a wage notice and wage statements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly subtracted
from the Plaintiff's wages the value of missing inventory that the
Defendants erroneously attributed to him. The Plaintiff did not
have a written employment contract with the Defendants. The
Plaintiff never received any written notice from the Defendants
concerning how much he was being paid and how many hours each week
he was supposed to work.

The weekly wages paid to the Plaintiff failed to compensate the
Plaintiff at an amount sufficient to equal the minimum due, when
accounting for minimum wage, overtime and spread-of-hours pay,
under New York Labor law for non-exempt employees working for an
employer based in New York City with more than 10 employees, says
the complaint.

Mr. Obi was employed for the Defendants as a salesperson of phone
plans, phones, and accessories.

The Defendants were joint employers in that they were jointly owned
and operated and regularly interchanged merchandise and
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (718) 669-0714
          Facsimile: (646) 556-6113
          Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Zhu, et al. Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taronis Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Hatten v. Taronis
Technologies, Inc., et al., which is now captioned as Zhu, et al.
v. Taronis Technologies, Inc., et al., remains pending.  

The Lead Plaintiff has opposed the Defendants' dismissal bid in a
court filing dated November 27.  The Defendants have urged the
court to grant their request in a pleading dated December 24.

On April 15, 2019, an alleged shareholder filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, captioned Hatten v. Taronis Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00889 (M.D. Fla.).

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of the Company between January 28,
2019 and February 12, 2019 and alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated federal securities laws, including
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
alleged false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose
certain information regarding the Company's business with the City
of San Diego.

On June 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida granted the parties' joint motion to transfer
the case to the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.

On July 10, 2019, the Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff. The case is
now captioned Zhu, et al. v. Taronis Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. CV-19-04529-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.). On August 2, 2019, the Court
established a schedule for the filing of an operative amended
complaint and a response thereto.

On August 30, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and class period as the initial complaint.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was due on
October 14, 2019.

Taronis Technologies, Inc., a technology-based company, focuses on
addressing the constraints on natural resources primarily in the
United States. The company offers MagneGas, a hydrogen-based
synthetic fuel that is used as an alternative to acetylene and
other natural gas derived fuels for metal cutting and other
commercial uses. The company was formerly known as MagneGas Applied
Technology Solutions, Inc. and changed its name to Taronis
Technologies, Inc. in January 2019. Taronis Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re
TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:17-cv-01677-DCN.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017, and September
18, 2017 and were consolidated on December 5, 2017. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements with
respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of certain alleged
business practices in connection with sales to the U.S. government
on the Company's growth and profitability.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The case was filed on September 19, 2017. The plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and other claims arising out of
substantially the same actions or inactions alleged in the
securities class actions described above. This action has been
stayed pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss on the securities
class action.

Although the company is only a nominal defendant in the derivative
action, the company could have indemnification obligations and/or
be required to advance the costs and expenses of the officer and
director defendants in the action.

TransDigm said, "We intend to vigorously defend these matters and
believe they are without merit. We also believe we have sufficient
insurance coverage available for these matters. Therefore, we do
not expect these matters to have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition or results of operations. However, given the
preliminary status of the litigation, it is difficult to predict
the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of any
potential loss."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TRG CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1463 (W.D. Tex., December 18, 2019),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Texas Common Law.

TRG Customer Solutions operates as IBEX Global Solutions, a
multinational customer solutions services company. Johnson worked
as call center agent who provide customer support and sales
services to its customers. She claims to have been denied overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com


UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case,
Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma,
have taken an appeal from the court order denying class
certification.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production.

The company have asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law.The company also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to
the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the
trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012
the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's
order certifying the class.

The Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January
22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a smaller
class of royalty owners than their first attempt. Since then, the
Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just
include royalty owners under certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore,
and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

On July 29, 2019, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs are appealing the order
denying class certification.

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNIT CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the case,
Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230,
District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, are awaiting the
court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay
royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.

The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in the company's Oklahoma wells. Unit has
numerous defenses including that it has fulfilled its lease royalty
obligations with respect to gas consumed as fuel.

As to the propriety of class certification, the company is
defending on the grounds that the class involves thousands of
different leases that have to be individually examined and
construed, making class-wide liability determinations impossible.
On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff moved for class certification. The
court conducted a hearing on October 4, 2019, but has not yet
issued its ruling.

Unit Corp. said, "We continue to vigorously defend against each of
the pending claims. At this time, we are unable to express an
opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
provide an estimate of potential losses, if any."

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks
actual and punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working
interest owners in our Oklahoma wells.

The company have asserted several defenses including that the case
cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide
variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment
was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law.
Further, Plaintiff's requests for relief beyond payment of interest
allegedly due are barred by statute.

Unit Corp. said, "We have filed a summary judgment motion as to
named Plaintiff’s individual claims. The Court will take up the
issue of class certification after it rules on our summary judgment
motion."

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ct. Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Condry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part the
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned
RACHEL CONDRY, et al. v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00183-VC (N.D. Cal.).

A case management conference is scheduled for January 22, 2020, at
10:00 a.m. to discuss next steps.  A joint case management
statement is due January 15, 2020.

According to the Order, the Court ruled at summary judgment that
United Healthcare, when it denied five named plaintiffs' claims for
reimbursement of out-of-network lactation services, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act's requirement that the plan
administrator "write a denial in a manner calculated to be
understood by the claimant."

The Plaintiffs now seek certification of a class of ERISA plan
participants, who received the same denial letters as the five
named plaintiffs, with an eye towards a court order requiring
United Healthcare to send class members new letters that explain
the basis for denial in a comprehensible fashion (which would, in
turn, allow participants to meaningfully assess whether to contest
the denial).

Judge Chhabria concludes that in sum, the data and evidence the
Plaintiffs have provided do not come close to proving that United
Healthcare failed to comply with the Affordable Care Act in a
uniform way.  "This precludes a finding, on this record, that the
members of the proposed nationwide class had their claims denied
due to a uniform standard or practice.  This aspect of the motion
for class certification is therefore denied."[CC]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CA: Class of Plan Members Certified in Munro
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Allen L. Munro, et al. v.
University of Southern California, et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-06191-VAP-E (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court certifies a class of:

     All participants and beneficiaries of the University of
     Southern California Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and
     the University of Southern California Tax-Deferred Annuity
     Plan from August 17, 2010 through the date of judgment,
     excluding the Defendants.

The Court appoints Schlichter, Bogard & Denton as class counsel.
The Court also appoints Allen Munro, Daniel Wheeler, Jane
Singleton, Sarah Wohlgemuth, Rebecca Snyder, Dion Dickman, Corey
Clark, and Steven Olson as class representatives.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on August 17, 2016, alleging that
the University of Southern California ("USC") violated provisions
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.  The suit is one of more than a
dozen "nearly identical" university retirement plan cases litigated
in federal courts in recent years.

USC maintains two retirement savings plans, the Defined
Contribution Retirement Plan (the "DC Plan") and the Tax-Deferred
Annuity Plan (the "TDA Plan" and, together with the DC Plan, the
"Plans" and each a "Plan").  The named plaintiffs in this
action--Allen Munro, Daniel C. Wheeler, Jane A. Singleton, Sarah
Wohlgemuth, Rebecca A. Snyder, Dion Dickman, Corey Clark, and
Steven L. Olson--are current or former employees of USC and
participants in the Plans.  The Defendants are the Plans'
fiduciaries, a group composed of USC, the USC Retirement Plan
Oversight Committee (the "Committee"), and current or former
members of the Committee.[CC]


USAA: Spegele Seeks to Certify Class of Universal Life 3 Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROY C. SPEGELE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00967-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order certifying the case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and/or 23(c)(4):

   "all persons who own or owned a Universal Life 3 and/or a
   Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or administered
   by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors in
   interest, that was active as of March 1999.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:

   "all persons who own or owned a New York-issued Universal Life
   3 and/or a Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or
   administered by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its
   predecessors in interest, that was active as of March 1999."

   Excluded from the alternative class are: USAA; any entity in
   which USAA has a controlling interest; any of the officers,
   directors, or employees of USAA; the legal representatives,
   heirs, successors, and assigns of USAA; anyone employed with
   Plaintiff’s counsel’s firms; and any Judge to whom this case
is
   assigned, and his or her immediate family. Also excluded from
   the Class are policies issued by USAA Life Insurance Company of

   New York.

Founded in 1963, USAA Life Insurance Company is the 23rd largest
provider of life insurance coverage.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com
                  hickey@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: 816-561-6500
          Facsimile: 816-561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415-981-4800
          Facsimile: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  eak@girardgibbs.com
                  amo@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Larry R. Veselka, Esq.
          SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (731) 221-2325
          Facsimile: (713) 221-2320
          E-mail: lveselka@skv.com

VERATIP CORP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Sarikaputar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PARANEE SARIKAPUTAR, PEDRO COJ CUMES, PHOUVIENGSONE SYSOUVONG a/k/a
Tukta Phouviengsone, SUPUNNEE SUKASAWETT, WIPAPORN SITTIDEJ, VINAI
PATAN, PHAISIT SIRIMATRASIT, CHAICHANA KITTIRONNAKORNKUL a/k/a Kay
Kittironnakornkul, and SUPATRA WUNGMARN on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERATIP CORP. d/b/a ThaiNY
Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11168 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5,
2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the
Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants are VERATIP CORP., NINETY-NINE PLUS CORP. d/b/a
ThaiNY Restaurant, JAKIRA LLC d/b/a Tom Yum d/b/a M-Thai, EXCEL
RESTAURANT GROUP CORP. d/b/a Charm's, THAINY RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a M
Thai, 9999 MIDTOWN CORP. d/b/a Thai Rice and Noodle, EXCELLENT
DUMPLING HOUSE INC d/b/a Excellent Dumpling House, PROSPERITY 89
CORP. d/b/a Thais New York, THAI-TO-GO LLC d/b/a Thais New York,
LUCKY CHARM 6365 CORP d/b/a Thais New York, OPULENT RESTAURANT
CORPORATION d/b/a Thais New York, LUCKY DD CORP d/b/a Thais New
York, PERAPONG CHOTIMANENOPHAN a/k/a Peter Chotimanenophan, MICHAEL
P. BRONSTEIN a/k/a Michael Bronstein, CHARDENPONG OONAPANYO a/k/a
Chareonpong Oonpanyo, ADIDSUDA CHUNTON a/k/a Amy Chunton, HIN WAI
LAW, AH DI, and GIFT RAKOWSKI.

According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to record all of
the time that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees work
or worked, including work done in excess of 40 each week.

The Plaintiffs are all employees of the Defendants.

The Defendants operate Thai restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


VISITING NURSE: Celznick Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Celznick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Visiting Nurse Association Healthcare
Partners of Ohio, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02931, (N.D. Ohio,
December 19, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants operate a medical service facility where Celznick worked
as a Licensed Practical Nurse. She claims to have regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime
compensation and regularly rendered "off of the clock" work in
advance of their scheduled shift start times, sometimes as much as
30 minutes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      614 West Superior Ave., Ste. 1148
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


WAWA INC: Newton Sues Over Failure to Monitor Payment Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Newton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WAWA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
5:19-cv-06147-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Dec., 27 2019), seeks to hold Wawa
responsible for the harm it caused the Plaintiff and thousands of
other customers in the massive data breach that took place between
March 4, 2019, and December 12, 2019.

Because of Wawa's inadequate and negligent security measures and
failure to adequately monitor its payment systems, cyber criminals
were able to steal vast amounts of sensitive personal information,
including credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates,
cardholder names, internal verification codes, and other card
information, the Plaintiff contends.

As a result of the Data Breach, millions of consumers have
reportedly had their sensitive credit and debit card information
exposed to fraudsters resulting from purchases made at Wawa
locations, according to the complaint. Wawa's failure to implement
adequate data security measures for this sensitive customer
information directly and proximately caused injuries to her and the
class, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Wawa's inadequate and
negligent data security measures and cavalier approach to data
security, says the complaint. Despite the well-publicized and
ever-growing threat of security breaches involving payment card
networks and systems, and despite the fact that these types of data
breaches were and are occurring throughout the restaurant and
retail industries, Wawa failed to ensure that it maintained
adequate data security measures causing customer Payment Data to be
stolen.

Plaintiff Newton has been a frequent Wawa customer, shopping at
multiple Wawa locations several times a month, ever month, for
years. The Plaintiff and class members seek to recover damages
caused by Wawa's negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract,
and violations of state consumer protection statutes.

Wawa, Inc. operates a chain of gas stations, convenience stores,
and related businesses, including over 850 locations in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington
D.C., and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Email: bfj@chimicles.com
                 mbd@chimicles.com
                 awf@chimicles.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Johnson et al Seek to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENILEE JOHNSON and JANE
WHITAKER, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, and PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. JENILEE JOHNSON and JANE WHITAKER, the
Plaintiffs, vs. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA; and US ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07818 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying two classes:

      The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class:

      "(a) all individuals with addresses in Illinois, (b) with
      respect to whom WWR filed or threatened a lawsuit on behalf
      of USAM (c) at any time beginning on November 27, 2017 and
      ending December 18, 2018"; and

      The Deceptive Business Practices and Consumer Fraud Act:

      "(a) all individuals with addresses in Illinois, (b) with
      respect to whom a lawsuit was filed by USAM (c) at any time
      during a period beginning on November 27, 2015 and ending
      December 18, 2018"; and

   2. appointing f Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as
      counsel for the class.

The Plaintiffs assert class claims against Defendants based on the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act.

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Company, L.P.A. provides legal services.
The Company offers bankruptcy, consumer and commercial collection,
compliance, litigation, and real estate default services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Kasun Wijegunawardana, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

WESCO AIRCRAFT: Continues to Defend Gray Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gray v.
Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-08528.

On August 8, 2019, Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company" or "Wesco Aircraft"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Wolverine Intermediate Holding II Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and Wolverine Merger Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger") with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Since the announcement of the Merger, five putative class action
complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged
Company stockholders: Gray v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., et
al., No. 1:19-cv-08528 filed September 13, 2019 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Stein
v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-08053 filed
September 17, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Kent v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-01750 filed September 17, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Sweeney
v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 19STCV33392 filed
September 19, 2019 in the Superior Court of the State of California
County of Los Angeles, and Bushansky v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-08274 filed September 24, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(together, the Actions).

The Actions name as defendants the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors. The Actions allege, among other
things, that the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed
by the Company on September 13, 2019 omits certain information
regarding the confidentiality agreements between the Company and
the potentially interested parties, the Company's updated
projections, the analysis performed by the financial advisors, and
services the financial advisors previously provided to certain
parties.

The Actions seek, among other things, damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief to prevent the Merger from closing.

The Stein, Kent, Sweeney and Bushansky actions have been
voluntarily dismissed.

Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc. provides supply chain management
services to the global aerospace industry. The Company also
provides hardware, bearings, tools, electronic components, and
machined parts. Wesco Aircraft Holdings serves customers worldwide.
The company is based in Valencia, California.


YRC INC: Court Dismisses Suarez ICCTA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has dismissed
the Amended Complaint in SOUTHERN FURNITURE LEASING, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. YRC, INC., YRC WORLDWIDE INC., ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
and YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-2129-KHV, (D. Kan.).

Southern Furniture Leasing, Inc. is a business that rents furniture
to various individuals and other businesses. Southern Furniture
entered into a contract with YRC Inc, et al., whereby the YRC
Entities would ship its goods pursuant to a standard bill of
lading.

On June 21, 2019, Southern Furniture, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint against YRC, Inc., YRC Worldwide Inc., Roadway Express,
Inc. and Yellow Transportation, Inc.  Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants systematically overcharged customers for shipments, and
bring claims for breach of contract (Count 1); breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing (Count 2); unjust enrichment (Count
3); and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Defendants sought dismissal of the Claims on the grounds that (1)
the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and (2)
plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Specifically, Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because (1) plaintiff does not have Article III
standing and (2) plaintiff did not adequately plead the required
amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")

Plaintiff specifically alleges that it entered an agreement with
Defendants that required defendants to charge based on the actual
weight of shipments. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants
violated this agreement by eliminating negative reweighs, causing
plaintiff to pay more for shipments than it should have. These
allegations are sufficient to show an actual concrete injury for
the purposes of Article III standing, the Court finds.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants' reweighing practice caused it
and the other class members to pay more for shipments than they
should have. It also alleges that, as Department of Justice
findings can show, this reweighing practice allowed defendants to
wrongfully retain more than $100 million since 2005. In other
words, the class members combined to lose approximately $100
million as a direct result of defendants' reweighing practice.
These allegations are sufficient for the purposes of pleading the
amount-in-controversy under CAFA, the Court finds. Accordingly, the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants assert that the Court should dismiss plaintiff's claims
because the ICCTA bars its cause of action.  The ICCTA governs
billing disputes between shippers and motor carriers. 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 13710(a)(3)(B).

Pursuant to the ICCTA, plaintiff does not have a cause of action
because it did not contest the bills within 180 days of receipt.
Therefore, the Court dismisses the action because the amended
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Thus, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED,
the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3m2rxq5
from Leagle.com

Southern Furniture Leasing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
persons or entities nationwide who are similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Barton , Wagstaff & Cartmell,
LLP, Garrett Owens , Price Armstrong LLC, Nicholas W. Armstrong ,
Price Armstrong LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah S. Ruane , Wagstaff &
Cartmell, LLP & Tyler W. Hudson , Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, 4740
Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112

YRC, Inc., Roadway Express, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. & YRC
Worldwide, Inc., Defendants, represented by Stephen L. Hill, Jr. -
stephen.hill@dentons.com -Dentons US, LLP.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid for Summary Judgment in Karl Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entered an Amended Order on Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment in case captioned JAMES KARL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S.
RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET
BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company and BIOMET,
INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 18-04176 WHA,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Defendants engaged in designing, manufacturing, and marketing
biopharmaceutical and medical device products.  Relevant in the
case, Zimmer US engaged with Biomet Reconstruction and Biomet
Biologics in selling products focused on knees, hips, sports
medicine, foot and ankle, extremities, and trauma. They primarily
sold these products to physicians and hospitals.

In August 2015, Plaintiff Karl signed a sales associate agreement
with Zimmer US, Biomet Reconstruction, and Biomet Biologics and
thereafter began working for those three entities as a sales
representative selling orthopedic devices in California.  That
sales associate agreement classified Karl as an "independent
contractor."  He was paid through Edge Medical, LLC, which he
established for tax purposes.

Karl was a member of "Team Golden Gate," led by Territory General
Manager Don Quigley (an employee who managed the Defendants'
operations in a given territory), which covered sales in the San
Francisco Bay Area region.  Members of Team Golden Gate were paid
on a commission-only basis under a "pooled" arrangement.  That is,
the Defendants (1) set a "base rate" commission percentage for each
product type sold, (2) pooled each team member's base rate
commissions, and (3) paid each member a predetermined percentage of
the pooled commissions, regardless of the amount of commissions
that member personally generated.

As part of his job duties, Karl spent on average between 60% and
70% of his time on "case coverage."  This involved assisting
surgeons in the operating room and planning for procedures, such as
designing modifications for implants.  Karl's workday averaged
between 10 to 12 hours.

In July 2018, Karl filed the instant putative class action and now
seeks eight claims for relief: (1) violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA); (2) failure to pay overtime wages under
California law; (3) failure to provide meal periods under
California law; (4) failure to provide rest periods under
California law; (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements;
(6) failure to reimburse business expenses; (7) unfair business
practices; and (8) Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim.  The
gravamen of these claims stems from the allegation that the
Defendants misclassified their sales representatives as independent
contractors rather than employees and thus denied them various
benefits under federal and California wage-and-hour laws.

All the Defendants now move for summary judgment against Karl
(individually) on his (1) FLSA claim (Claim 1), arguing that he
cannot prove that he was an "employee" and that even if he were an
employee, he qualified as an exempt "outside salesperson" under the
FLSA; and (2) various state law claims (Claims 2-4, 6-7), arguing
that Karl cannot prove he was an "employee" under California law,
was an exempt "outside salesperson" under California law
regardless, and had the opportunity to take meal and rest periods.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings and Biomet separately further move for
summary judgment on all claims on the independent ground that they
neither the Defendant employed Karl or contracted with him.

Karl opposes and concurrently moves under Rule 56(d) for a denial
or continuance of summary judgment.

Defendants argue that Karl cannot prove he was an "employee" under
the FLSA or California law such that he was entitled to overtime
wages. They further contend that even assuming he was misclassified
as an independent contractor, Karl qualified as an exempt outside
salesperson for the purposes of his overtime claims.

Judge Alsup agrees and holds that, even if Karl was an employee, he
qualified as an exempt outside salesperson under both federal and
state law.  In light of the totality of the circumstances and the
purpose of the FLSA exemption, Karl's primary duty was to make
sales and case coverage constituted sales-related activity.  First,
the Defendants hired Karl as a sales representative whose job was
to exercise best efforts to aggressively market and sell the
Products in the Territory.  Second, Karl's own testimony revealed
that his motivation for covering cases remained directly related to
sales.  Third, the finding is consistent with the purpose of the
exemption.   Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on this ground as to Claim 1.

Judge Alsup also granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to Claim 2.  The current record shows that Karl -- who
himself pitched case coverage as part of his solution-selling sales
method -- qualified as an exempt "outside salesperson" under
California law.  In opposition, he merely argues that for the
reasons he asserted in connection with the FLSA claim, case
coverage was unrelated to "sales activity" under California law.
The Judge disagrees.  Both the Defendants' realistic expectations
of Karl's role and Karl's own view of his job duties in the medical
device industry point to this conclusion.

Next, the applicable IWC wage order provides that the provisions of
that order -- including the meal and rest period provisions -- will
not apply to outside salespersons.  Karl's claims that defendants
failed to provide meal and rest periods in violation of California
law similarly fail for the reasons discussed above.  Accordingly,
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Claims 3 and 4 is
granted.

Judge Alsup denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as
to Claim 6.  Karl offers evidence suggesting that he was required
to enter information into the Defendants' administrative systems,
such as entering his schedule into the team's calendars.  The
Defendants also controlled Karl's advertising: Karl had to run all
his advertising by defendants first and was prohibited from
promoting their products on social media.  Drawing all inferences
in favor of Karl, the foregoing is sufficient to raise a triable
issue as to whether or not he was misclassified as an "independent
contractor."

Judge Alsup also denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
as to Claim 7.  The Defendants further move for summary judgment on
Karl's claim under California Business and Professional Code
Section 17200 et seq., which prohibits unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent competition, to the extent it is derivative of Karl's
first, second, third, fourth, and sixth claims.  Because Karl's
sixth claim for expense reimbursement is still live, his Section
17200 claim is still viable at least to that extent.

Joint Employment

Zimmer Biomet Holdings and Biomet further move for summary judgment
on all claims on the separate ground that they are not Karl's joint
employer and have no relationship with Karl.  The Court agrees.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings was created as a result of the merger
between Zimmer US and Biomet.  It served as parent corporation to
its distinct subsidiary entities, including Biomet.  Karl
contracted with Zimmer US, Biomet Reconstruction, and Biomet
Biologics only.  There is no evidence that Zimmer Biomet Holdings
was involved with Karl's day-to-day sales operations.

Administration Motion to File Under Seal

The Defendants seek to redact an exhibit containing Karl's
commission compensation statements.  Specifically, they seek to
seal information related to Karl's gross sales, net sales,
pre-pricing commission percentage, and post-pricing commission
percentage, citing competitive harm.  Because the Court's Order
does not rely on this specific information and the public can gain
full understanding of the relevant inquiry with the information
already disclosed, Judge Alsup holds that the Defendants have shown
compelling reasons to seal.  The Judge therefore granted the
motion.

Rule 56(d) Motion

Finally, concurrently with his opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, Karl separately filed a motion under Rule 56(d), arguing
that the summary judgment motion is premature given that the
parties have yet to conclude fact discovery.  Judge Alsup denied
the motion.  The Judge finds that Rule 56(d) motion comes after
over 10 months since the initial case management conference was
held on Nov. 1, 2018 -- meaning nearly over 10 months since
discovery has been open to Karl.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent
stated.  The Judge granted their motion to file under seal. The
Judge denied Karl's motion under Rule 56(d).

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's October 31, 2019 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5vd93l3 from Leagle.com

James Karl, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alec Llewellyn
Segarich -- alec.segarich@lrllp.com -- Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich
LLP, Denis S. Kenny -- denis@sfcounsel.com -- Scherer & Smith, LLP
& Jason Shelton Lohr -- jason.lohr@lrllp.com -- Lohr Ripamonti &
Segarich LLP.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Zimmer US,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Biomet Inc., an Indiana Corporation,
Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company & Biomet Biologics, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company, Defendants, represented by Eric Meckley --
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Joseph Raymond Lewis -- joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis.



                            *********

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 2020. 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 ***