/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200110.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 8

                            Headlines

AARP: Faces Class Suits Over Violation of Insurance Laws
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
ADAMS BEVERAGES: Nix Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Employees
ADAMS DISASTER: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Sherva Claims
APPLE INC: Class Action Hits iPhone Radiation Levels

ARMADA SKILLED: Valencia Granted Leave to File Amended Labor Suit
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Gross Law Announces Class Action
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan 14 Deadline
ASSET RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Rozani Suit
ASSURANCE IQ: Yee Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages

AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
AUSTRALIA: IAG Won't Launch Queensland Flood Class Action
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 16 Fairness Hrg. Set in Securities Suit
BARCLAYS BANK: Hausfeld Files London ForEx Class Action

BAXTER INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Gross Law Announces Class Action
BLACK TIE: Conditional Certification in Bailey Suit Partly Granted
BOOZ ALLEN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hunter Anti-Trust Suit Denied
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Cianci Seeks OT Wages for Assistant Directors

BUCKINGHAM REALTY: Underpays Hourly Workers' OT Wages, Page Says
CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR: Speer Sues Over Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks
CANADA: Excluded Day School Survivors Retain Cooper Regel
CANOPY GROWH: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filing
CINTAS CORP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

CINTAS CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
COLUMBIA GAS: Objections to Class Action Lawsuit Filed
CONSTANT CONTACT: Settlement Hearing in McGee Suit Set for May 27
CORREVIO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Nevarez Suit

CROSS COUNTY, AR: Marlin Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Jailers
DARP INC: Court Awards $1.17MM Total Damages in Fochtman Labor Suit
DELICIOUS TEMPTATIONS: Wiggins Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Obeng Antitrust Suit Over Insurance Monopsony
DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Sues Over Allocation of Insurance Markets

DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Flips Denial of Class Certification in Sarun
DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Priest Faces New Allegations of Abuse
DIRECTTV LLC: Eleventh Circuit Decertifies TCPA Class
DOORDASH: Fails to Pay Arbitration Filing Fees
ENERGY TRANSFER: Gross Law Announces Class Action

ENERGY TRANSFER: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
EVENTBRITE: Calls for Dismissal of Class Action Over 2018 IPO
FAT BRANDS: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought in Vignola
FIAT CHRYSLER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Bronstein Gewirtz Notes of Jan. 31 Deadline

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Zarczynski Moves for Certification of Class
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Peeling Paint Problems
FORD MOTOR: Faces Nunez Suit Over Defective Fuel Injection Pumps
FRESHPET INC: March 4 Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set in Curran Suit
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Court Dismisses First Amended Securities Suit

GARFIELD PARK: King Sues Over Unlawful Storage of Biometric Data
GLOBAL CREDIT: Meco Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Sues Over Improper Use of Consumer Reports
GRIESBACH READY-MIX: Manns Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
GRUBHUB INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing

HEXO CORP.: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
HEXO CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit
HEXO CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
HEXO CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
HIGH BRIDGE: Moore Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA

HOME OWNERS: Shot at Class-Action Arbitration Fails in Texas
HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Class Certification Sought in Flagg Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Considers $760M Settlement Over Engine Fires
IROBOT CORP: Campbell Securities Suit Moved From N.Y. to Mass.
KIA MOTORS: Judge Considers $760MM Settlement Over Engine Fires

LIPOCINE INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
LOUISIANA HEALTH: La. App. Affirms Class Certification in OGHA Suit
LUNG HEALTH: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
MDL 1264: Lawyer Fees Redetermination in Securities Suit Denied
MDL 2741: Sheller v. BAYER AG Over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued by Shields for Underpaying ACV Fee
MILANO MARKET: Melchor Seeks Minimum, OT Pay for Delivery Workers
MUTUALFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Suit Over Sale to Northwest
NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Morganti Notes of March 2 Hearing on Deal

OHIO: Allen Moves for Certification of Two Unit Employees Classes
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Deceptive Practices Could Lead to Class Action
PLANTRONICS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
PLANTRONICS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
PLANTRONICS INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Gross Law Announces Class Action
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 27 Deadline
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
REALREAL INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action

RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Reminds Investors of Class Action
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
RING LLC: Sells Faulty Security Devices and Systems, LeMay Claims
SEQWATER: Flood Engineers Failed to Follow Guidelines, Court Says
SOL MEXICAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss EEOC Discrimination Suit Denied

ST-JEAN-LONGUEUIL DIOCESE: New Class Suit Requests Allege Sex Abuse
STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Sliger Seeks OT Pay for Mobile Phlebotomists
STURM FOODS: Settlement Claim Forms Must be Submitted by May 7
SUN COMMUNITIES: Sued for Claiming Mobile Home without Consent
SYNTHORX INC: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Sale to Sanofi

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: March 31 Fairness Hrg. Set in Isolde Lawsuit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Johnston Not Allowed to File Reconsideration Bid
UNDER ARMOUR: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
VIBRANT CREDIT: Tayborn Sues Over Charging of Overdraft, NSF Fees
VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Gentry Suit

WAG: Faces Class Action Over Dead-Pooch Controversy
WAL-MART STORES: Bryant Moves to Certify Two COBRA Notice Classes
WALMART INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Yashtinsky TCPA Suit
WANDA SPORTS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan. 17 Deadline
WANDA SPORTS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action

WAWA INC: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
WOOD-MODE INC: Suit vs Former Owners of Factory Now a Class Action
YUNJI INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Plaintiff Deadline
[*] Class Action Seeks Ban on Traditional Cigarettes in India
[*] Ontario Joins Opioid Class Suit Launched by British Columbia


                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

AARP: Faces Class Suits Over Violation of Insurance Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Barnes, writing for Forbes, reports that the AARP
(formerly American Association of Retired Persons) has spiked the
publication of an investigative story about systemic age
discrimination in recruitment and hiring by the U.S. government.

The 4,000-word story is one of two articles that the AARP
commissioned for the January 2020 edition of the AARP Bulletin. The
other story, said to be an overview of age discrimination in
employment, is still slated for publication.

The AARP, which has 38 million dues paying members, did not respond
on Dec. 1 to requests for comment by email and telephone.

Why would the AARP, which claims to advocate for Americans aged
50+, jettison an important story about age discrimination in hiring
by the U.S. government?

A source close to the matter, who asked not to be identified, said
senior officials at the AARP killed the story due to political
considerations and to avoid risking the loss of federal grant
funding.

The AARP in 2017 was awarded $74.4 million for job training
services from the U.S. Department of Labor and $9.6 million from
the Internal Revenue Service to provide tax assistance to seniors.

According to Axios, the AARP is one of the largest media companies
in the country, earning more than $174 million annually in
media-based advertising revenue. The AARP Bulletin has the
2nd-highest circulation in the country.

The AARP and its nine subsidiaries earned an estimated $1.65
billion in annual revenue in 2018.

Age Discrimination

Little media attention has been paid to the federal government's
role in perpetuating age discrimination in the United States.

Since 2012,  the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) has
operated a program called the Pathways "Recent Graduates" Program
that permits federal agencies to discriminate based on age in the
recruitment and hiring of workers. The program was created by
former President Barack Obama in 2010 through Executive Order
#13562. It allows federal agencies to restrict applications for job
vacancies to individuals who graduated from a qualified educational
institution within the preceding two years.

The program not only harms older workers by arbitrarily excluding
them from federal jobs but it sends a message to the private sector
that age discrimination is acceptable.

Pursuant to a 2017 Freedom of Information Act request, the OPM said
about 93 percent of applicants hired for 92,193 jobs under the
Pathway "Recent Graduate" Program from 2012 to 2017 were under the
age of 40. The Pathways "Recent Graduates" Program is a classic
example of "disparate impact discrimination," where a seemingly
neutral policy has disproportionate and adverse impact on older
workers.

The OPM has said the program will continue until it is invalidated
by a sitting president. So far President Trump has shown no
inclination to halt the program.

A source said the remaining AARP article refers briefly to age
discrimination by the federal government.

Political Headwinds

The AARP increasingly finds itself in difficulty due to its
conflicting roles as the self-proclaimed advocate for older
Americans and as the leading purveyor of supplemental health
insurance to older Americans who are Medicare recipients.

Last summer, the AARP engaged in a public tiff with the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
regarding a Trump administration proposal to encourage insurers to
pass prescription drug rebates through to older Americans to lower
their out-of-pocket costs. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers
now negotiate rebates with drug companies and often don't share
savings with seniors.

Research shows the rate of U.S. citizens over the age of 65 who are
filing for bankruptcy increased about 204% from 1991 to 2016 due
largely to the unmanageable costs of health care.

The AARP opposed changing the rebate pass-through formula and
launched a major lobbying campaign, AARP's Stop Rx Greed campaign,
to cut the high cost of prescription drugs. Declaring Oct. 29 to be
a national action day, AARP officials and volunteers fanned out
across the country to encourage lawmakers to pass legislation to
lower drug prices.

Against this backdrop, the future of health care is being debated
among Democratic Presidential hopefuls, some of whom support a
universal healthcare model that would presumably eliminate older
American's need for supplemental healthcare insurance.

How the U.S. Congress comes down on the issue of prescription drug
rebates, drug prices and universal health care could have a major
impact on AARP's annual revenue of more than $1.6 billion.

The AARP also is facing multiple federal class action lawsuits for
allegedly violating state insurance laws by failing to register as
a "de facto agent" for UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company and for
allegedly pocketing a hidden 4.95 % payment assessed to seniors
with the sale of each supplemental health insurance policy. The
AARP refers to the fee as a "royalty" for allowing insurers to use
AARP's intellectual property. [GN]


ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  Shareholders who purchased shares
during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS)

Investors Affected : August 8, 2017 - September 30, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) health insurers were excluding
Adamas's primary product, GOCOVRI, from their prescription
formularies or requiring patients to use "step therapy" - i.e.,
making patients try immediate-release amantadine prior to covering
GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians prescribing GOCOVRI
during the Class Period was not due to its efficacy; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements about
Adamas's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4883&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]

ADAMS BEVERAGES: Nix Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LABRANNON NIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADAMS BEVERAGES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00669 (W.D.N.C., Dec. 9, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to:

   -- accurately track and pay all hours worked by its North
      Carolina warehouse employees in weeks they worked in
      excess of 40 hours; and

   -- calculate the correct overtime rate of pay for warehouse
      employees by not including bonuses in the regular rates of
      pay for warehouse workers.

The Defendant also violated the NWWHA by failing to pay all earned
regular wages to its North Carolina warehouse employees on their
regularly scheduled paydays, the lawsuit says.

In February 2016, ABNC hired Mr. Nix in the position of Warehouse
Picker. He worked in this position until August 6, 2019, when his
employment with ABNC terminated.

During his tenure with ABNC, Mr. Nix alleges that he regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek but ABNC consistently
failed to pay him all of his earned overtime wages.

ABNC is a beer and non-alcoholic beverage distributer with a
distribution location in North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey A. Marcus, Esq.
          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: 704-612-0038
          E-mail: geoffrey@philgibbonslaw.com
                  phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com


ADAMS DISASTER: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Sherva Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Sherva, Jennifer Lewis and Russell Jacobson, individually
and on behalf of similar situated individuals v. Adams Disaster and
Restoration, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Stanley E. Adams and
Cindy Adams, husband and wife; Shane Adams and Jane Doe Adams,
husband and wife; Caylee Frost and John Doe Frost, husband and
wife; and John and Jane Does 1-4, Case No. 2:19-cv-05769-DJH (D.
Ariz., Dec. 9, 2019), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful
employment practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Arizona's wage statutes.

Specifically, the Defendants unlawfully classified and continue to
classify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as exempt
from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, and have failed and
refused to pay overtime compensation and minimum wages in violation
of the FLSA and Arizona's wage statutes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs contend that they regularly worked for the
Defendants benefit without being properly compensated for all hours
worked as required by law. The Defendants did not pay the the
Plaintiff for all hours worked for their benefit and did not pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek despite being legally obligated to do so, the Plaintiffs
add.

Messrs. Sherva and Jacobson were employed by the Defendants as
Technicians working for ADR, Inc., while Ms. Lewis was employed by
the Defendants as a Dispatcher, also working for ADR.

ADR is a restoration and cleaning company offering total
restoration solutions. The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Michael M. Licata, Esq.
          MARTINE & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com


APPLE INC: Class Action Hits iPhone Radiation Levels
----------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that in August Patently Apple posted a
detailed report titled "A Law Firm eyes a Class Action against
Apple and others triggered by a Chicago Tribune report on Radiation
levels on Smartphones."

Our report noted that when Apple was informed of the Chicago
Tribune's test results including the laboratory's 100-page lab
report, Apple disputed the findings, saying they were not performed
in a way that properly assesses iPhones.

Apple further articulated that test results for the iPhone 7s "were
inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with
procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."

Beyond FeganScott's promise to investigate, the law firm of
FeganScott published a press release wherein Beth Fegan, a managing
partner, said that "this could be the Chernobyl of the cell phone
industry, cover-up and all." Could the statement by any more
dramatic?

The law firm stated in a tweet at the time that they would
investigate the Chicago Tribune's research.

Well, that "investigation" has now turned into a class action
lawsuit filed by FeganScott. Their press release reads as follows:

National consumer-rights law firm FeganScott consolidated its two
proposed class action suits against Apple and Samsung Electronics
after independent testing from a Federal Communications
Commission-accredited laboratory confirmed that radio-frequency
(RF) radiation levels from popular Apple and Samsung smartphones
far exceeded federal limits when the devices are used as marketed
by the manufacturers.

Beth Fegan, Esq. managing partner of FeganScott and the attorney
representing the consolidated suit, which was filed after the firm
hired the industry-recognized lab, says that smartphone
manufacturers must take responsibility for misleading consumers
about the levels of RF radiation emitted by their smartphones when
used against or in close proximity to the user's skin.

Fegan further noted that "Apple and Samsung smartphones have
changed the way we live. Adults, teenagers and children wake up to
check their email or play games and do work or school exercises on
their smartphones. They carry these devices in their pockets
throughout the day and literally fall asleep with them in their
beds."

Additionally, "The manufacturers told consumers this was safe, so
we knew it was important to test the RF radiation exposure and see
if this was true. It is not true. The independent results confirm
that RF radiation levels are well over the federal exposure limit,
sometimes exceeding it by 500 percent, when phones are used in the
way Apple and Samsung encourage us to. Consumers deserve to know
the truth."

The FCC-accredited lab tested six different brand-new smartphone
models at various distances, ranging from zero to 10 millimeters to
measure the amount of RF radiation released when touching or in
close proximity to the body.

When tested at two millimeters, the iPhone 8 and Samsung Galaxy S8
were more than twice the federal exposure limit. At zero
millimeters, the iPhone 8 was five times more than the federal
exposure limit, and the Samsung Galaxy S8 was more than three times
the federal exposure limit.

The consolidated suit filed by FeganScott includes a comprehensive
list of all named plaintiffs and includes the extensive
FCC-accredited lab test results from all the smartphones tested:
iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iPhone XR, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9, and Galaxy
S10.

The test settings reflected the smartphones' actual use conditions,
rather than the conditions set by manufacturers in order to produce
results that appear to be safe for consumers.

"Smartphone owners across the country deserve to know that the RF
radiation levels from smartphones when touching the skin or used
close to the body may be unsafe," Fegan noted and added that "The
emails and calls from concerned consumers have increased as more
research comes to light, and it is our goal to show that Apple and
Samsung were aware of the alarmingly high radiation levels when
their products arrived on the market."

According to Pew Research Center, 96 percent of Americans own a
cell phone, and of those, 81 percent own a smartphone. Common Sense
Media, a nonprofit organization, reports that 29 percent of
American teens sleep with their phones in bed with them, which
makes the radiation level findings especially alarming.

Filed December 5 in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, the lawsuit seeks to represent
Apple and Samsung smartphone owners. The suit asks the court to
order the defendants to pay for medical monitoring and damages. To
learn more, visit www.feganscott.com.

Will Apple and Samsung find other FCC approved labs producing
different results to challenge FeganScott who are looking for a big
payday? Yes, more than likely. So stay tuned as this legal battle
could be an interesting one that could have ramifications for the
entire smartphone industry should FeganScott's class action
prevail. [GN]

ARMADA SKILLED: Valencia Granted Leave to File Amended Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRETCHEN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARMADA SKILLED HOME CARE
OF NM, LLC, ARMADA HOME HEALTHCARE OF SOCORRO, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER
TAPIA, Defendants, Civ. No. 18-1071 KG/JFR (D. N.M.), Judge Kenneth
J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico granted the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support, filed May 31, 2019.

The Plaintiff filed her original Collective and Class Action
Complaint on Nov. 16, 2018, in which she alleged the Defendants
misclassified her and similarly situated home health clinicians as
exempt from overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), and the
New Mexico Wage Payment Act ("NMWPA").

On Feb. 14, 2019, the Hon. Karen B. Molzen, the assigned magistrate
judge, held a scheduling conference and entered a bifurcated
scheduling order.  The parties' deadline for discovery relating to
conditional class certification under the FLSA was May 8, 2019, and
the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for conditional
certification was June 5, 2019.

In her Motion to Amend, the Plaintiff states that upon review of
discovery received from the Defendants in March and May 2019, she
determined that she was classified as "non-exempt" rather than
"exempt" from overtime.  She also states that the Defendants'
discovery responses revealed additional categories of home health
workers who Defendants impermissibly denied overtime pay.
Therefore, she seeks to amend her Complaint to allege that she was
classified as a non-exempt employee, and that the Defendants failed
to pay her and other similarly situated home health workers
overtime compensation required under the FLSA and New Mexico wage
laws.  The Plaintiff further seeks to add as affected employees the
categories of Social Workers, Certified Nursing Assistants,
Certified Therapy Assistants, Home Health Aides, and Therapy Aides.
She does not seek to add any claims.

In response, the Defendants contend the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
is untimely because she should have been able to determine that she
needed to amend her complaint much earlier.  The Defendants argue
they are prejudiced by the Plaintiff's delay because they must
respond to her Motion for Conditional Certification which is based
on the putative class described in the original complaint which the
Plaintiff "admits is defective."  The Defendants further argue the
Plaintiff's amendments are futile because she seeks to certify a
class that is too broad and with whom she is not similarly
situated.

In reply, the Plaintiff argues her Motion to Amend meets the
liberal standard for amendment set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2).  She further contends the motion is not untimely, does
not prejudice the Defendants, and is not futile.

Judge Gonzales concludes that the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is
not untimely, prejudicial, or futile, and should be granted.  The
Defendants may reassert their arguments regarding the putative
class in response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification.

For these reasons, Judge Gonzales granted the Plaintiff's Opposed
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Memorandum in
Support.  The Plaintiff is directed to file her amended complaint
without delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/wPtPaE from Leagle.com.

Gretchen Valencia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Repps D. Stanford --
stanford@nmlaborlaw.com -- Moody & Stanford, PC, Catherine T.
Mitchell -- cmitchell@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro
hac vice, James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan
Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan F. Stephan --
rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
Teresa M. Becvar -- tbecvar@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras,
LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher M. Moody -- moody@nmlaborlaw.com --
Moody & Stanford PC.

Armada Skilled Home Care of NM LLC, Armada Home Healthcare of
Socorro, LLC & Christopher Tapia, Defendants, represented by
Patricia Williams -- pwilliams@wwwlaw.us -- Wiggins, Williams &
Wiggins.


ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Gross Law Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Armstrong Flooring, Inc.  Shareholders who purchased shares during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)

Investors Affected : March 6, 2018 - November 4, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in
channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) the Company's
internal control over inventory levels was not effective; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/armstrong-flooring-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4883&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]




ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-plt/   


Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-yj/
            

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-afi/    
        

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wsg/


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



ASSET RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Rozani Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rozani moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled JULIAN ROZANI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01897-WED (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
contends.

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


ASSURANCE IQ: Yee Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVA MARIE YEE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02010 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 9,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited automated text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On October 31, 2019, Assurance sent the Plaintiff two automated
text messages to her cellular telephone number, even if Assurance
did not have her prior express consent to place such text messages,
the Plaintiff asserts.

Assurance is an online insurance brokerage, which offers insurance
coverage service options nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded Aurora Cannabis Inc.  Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period:   September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) that the
Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora
Sun facilities; and (3) that as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847,888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

WSG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

ACB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

HEXO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)

WSG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased Wanda Sports'
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and related prospectus issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July
26, 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the lack of major sporting
events for its Digital, Production, Sports Solutions ("DPSS") and
Spectator Sports segments for its second quarter of 2019, ending
before the initial public offering, would negatively impact revenue
for the second quarter of 2019; (2) Wanda Sports had suffered a
year-over-year decrease in revenue in its second quarter ended June
30, 2019 and would for its fiscal year 2019, primarily related to
lower reimbursement revenues accounted for in its DPSS segment and
lack of Spectator Sport segment offsets; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB)

ACB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 11,
2019 - November 14, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Aurora
Cannabis Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as opposed to the Company's
representations, Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company
would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun
facilities; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

HEXO Corp. (HEXO)

HEXO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 25, 2019
- November 15, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HEXO
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) HEXO's reported inventory was
misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off
obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in
channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



AUSTRALIA: IAG Won't Launch Queensland Flood Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas McElroy, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that one of
Australia's largest insurers says it does not plan to launch legal
action following a landmark class action ruling on the devastating
2011 floods that hit Ipswich and Brisbane.

It comes as the company that funded the legal action, IMF Bentham,
estimates it will make up to $130 million from the case.

The Queensland government and dam operators were negligent in
managing the deluge and damage was worse as a result, the NSW
Supreme Court found in late November 2019.

Following the decision, the insurance industry said firms could be
looking at the commercial implications of the flooding, for which
they paid out $1.5 billion in claims.

Insurance Australia Group -- whose subsidiaries include NRMA, RACV
and Coles Insurance -- told AAP on Dec. 2 it will not launch legal
action to recoup from those at fault what it paid out to
customers.

Suncorp Insurance declined to comment on the ruling.

Insurance Council of Australia spokesman Campbell Fuller said
customers would not be in their sights for any potential legal
action by firms looking to retrieve losses.

"Any action that insurers take from here won't affect what has
already taken place between insurers and their customers," Mr
Fuller said.

"Anything insurers do from this point won't impact the customers
from an insurance perspective."

It was up to individual companies to seek action, he said.

"The decision from the court named responsible parties so insurers
will be examining that and determining their next course of
action," Mr Fuller said.

"That will be on an individual basis -- each insurer had a
different level of exposure to the floods."

Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the government's
legal representatives were still going through Justice Robert
Beech-Jones' 1,600 page judgment.

She said the government was waiting on advice from its lawyers
before forming any views about whether to appeal the decision.

The principal lawyer behind the action and the state opposition
have urged the Queensland government not to appeal the decision.
[GN]


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 16 Fairness Hrg. Set in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Banc of California Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re BANC OF CALIFORNIA SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

No. SACV 17-00118 AG (DFMx
consolidated with
SACV 17-00138 AG (DFMx)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("BANC OF
CALIFORNIA") COMMON STOCK FROM APRIL 15, 2016, THROUGH AND
INCLUDING JANUARY 20, 2017 (THE "CLASS"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A
PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as
a class action and that a Settlement has been proposed for
$19,750,000 in cash.  Assuming all estimated potential Class
Members elect to participate, the estimated average recovery is
between $0.31 and $0.52 per damaged share.  A hearing will be held
on March 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Andrew J.
Guilford at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 10D, Santa Ana, CA
92701, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and
therefore should be approved; (3) the application of Lead Counsel
for the payment of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses from the
Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and an amount
for Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in
connection with its representation of the Class, should be
approved; and (4) the Court should enter the Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release,
you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator: Banc of California Securities Settlement, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43319, Providence, RI 02940-3319,
1-866-617-3471.  You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of
Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release at
www.BancOfCaliforniaSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than March 17, 2020,
or submit it online by that date, establishing that you are
entitled to a recovery.  If you do not submit a valid Proof of
Claim and Release, you will not share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment
entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases
provided for therein).

If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in
this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein)
whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion so that it is postmarked no later than February 24, 2020,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you request exclusion, you will not recover money pursuant to the
Settlement.  Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be filed with
the Court and delivered such that it is received by each of the
following no later than
February 24, 2020:

Court:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLERK OF THE COURT
Ronald Reagan Federal Building &
United States Courthouse
411 West Fourth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701

Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
THEODORE J. PINTAR
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800/449-490

Defendant's Counsel:
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MARK R. McDONALD
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213/892-5200

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANT, OR
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any
questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address and
phone number listed above.

DATED: December 4, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION


BARCLAYS BANK: Hausfeld Files London ForEx Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Business World reports that US law firm Hausfeld has filed a
lawsuit in London against major banks over alleged foreign exchange
(forex) rigging in a bid to take over a high-profile British class
action from compatriot Scott & Scott.

The new action, called FX Claim UK, seeks damages from Barclays,
Citibank, RBS, JPMorgan, UBS and MUFG Bank over their role in forex
spot trading cartels between 2007 and 2013 and was filed at
London's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on December 11.

JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup and MUFG declined to comment. RBS,
Citibank, Barclays did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Hausfeld and Scott & Scott co-led a similar US action against 15
banks, securing $2.3 billion for American claimants, after some of
the world's top banks paid more than a combined $11 billion in
fines to settle US and European regulatory allegations that traders
rigged foreign exchange markets.

Banks now face another potentially huge class action in Britain
after being fined more than 1 billion euros (US$1.1 billion) by the
European Commission in May over cartels dubbed "Essex Express" and
"Three Way Banana Split."

"The fines do not go to those affected by the cartels. Through this
action, we want to hold the banks accountable for their actions and
secure compensation for affected customers," said Phil Evans, a
former Competition and Markets Authority inquiry chair, who is
leading FX Claim UK.

The latest class action application was filed five months after its
rival and heralds a potential "carriage dispute," when a court is
asked to decide which group will prevail. At a court hearing last
month, judge Marcus Smith said there could be only one
representative for such a class action.

A spokeswoman for Scott & Scott said: "Other law firms have been
wanting to insert themselves into this litigation for years, but
they have a lot of catching up to do."

The first lawsuit, called UK FX Cartel Claim, is led by Michael
O'Higgins, the former chairman of British watchdog The Pensions
Regulator and funded by litigation funder Therium. FX Claim UK is
funded by Bench Walk Advisors.

Both have after-the-event insurance cover, should the claim be
unsuccessful.

Foreign exchange is seen as the crown jewel of London's financial
sector. With about 43% percent of the $6.6-trillion-per-day forex
market traded there, lawyers have jostled for position since the
Consumer Rights Act introduced the first "opt-out" class actions
for breaches of UK or EU competition law in 2015.

In such cases, UK-based members of a defined group will
automatically be bound into legal action unless they opt out, while
foreign-based claimants actively have to sign up. [GN]


BAXTER INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Baxter International Inc. between
February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Baxter
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Baxter class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1702.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain intra-Company transactions, undertaken for the
purpose of generating foreign exchange gains and losses, used
foreign exchange rate conventions that were not in accordance with
GAAP and enabled intra-Company transactions to be undertaken after
the related exchange rates were already known; (2) Baxter lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a
result, Baxter's financial statements were misstated and would
likely require correction or amendment; (4) due to Baxter's
internal investigation, the Company would not be able to file its
quarterly report for the period ending September 30, 2019, with the
SEC on Form 10-Q in a timely manner; and (5) as a result, Baxter's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1702.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]



BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Gross Law Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Baxter International Inc. (BAX). Shareholders who purchased shares
during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Baxter International Inc. (BAX)

Investors Affected : February 21, 2019 - October 23, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Baxter International Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain intra-Company
transactions, undertaken for the purpose of generating foreign
exchange gains and losses, used foreign exchange rate conventions
that were not in accordance with GAAP and enabled intra-Company
transactions to be undertaken after the related exchange rates were
already known; (2) the Company lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
statements were misstated and would likely require correction or
amendment; (4) due to the Company's internal investigation, Baxter
would not be able to file its quarterly report for the period
ending September 30, 2019, with the SEC on Form 10-Q in a timely
manner; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business and operations lacked a
reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/baxter-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4883&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]


BLACK TIE: Conditional Certification in Bailey Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JORDAN BAILEY, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1677 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiff Bailey alleges that all the Defendants operate jointly as
"Black Tie Moving."  The Defendants provide moving services,
including packing, loading, unloading, and storage, in Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee,
and Texas.  They allegedly hold themselves out as one enterprise
known as "Black Tie Moving," and share resources, such as: the
website www.blacktiemoving.com, business locations, advertising,
marketing, owners, managers, officers, directors, and offices.
Further, the Defendants require those who work for them to wear
uniforms that display the "Black Time Moving" logo, meaning the
uniforms do not differ between the different Black Tie entities.

Bailey worked on Black Tie's "Local" and "Intrastate" moving team
from approximately November 2018 to March 2019.  While working for
Black Tie, Bailey worked exclusively in Ohio, and he was required
to wear the Black Tie Moving uniform while at work.  During the
time Bailey worked for Black Tie, he regularly worked 50-60 hours
per week, six or seven days per week, and was paid on an hourly
basis.  Bailey never received overtime compensation from Black Tie
as Black Tie misclassified him as an independent contract.  And
while working for Black Tie, Bailey worked solely for Black Tie.

The Plaintiff has also submitted sworn Declarations from Cordell
Holly, Kyle Lawson, and Alex Phipps, who have described their
experience working for Black Tie.  Holly worked for Black Tie from
approximately September 2016 to April 2018.  Lawson worked for
Black Tie from approximately March 2018 to October 2018.  Phipps
worked for Black Tie for approximately two to three weeks in April
2019.

The three Declarants have stated: (1) Black Tie paid them on an
hourly basis; (2) they regularly worked 50-60 hours per week; (3)
they were required to wear a Black Tie Moving uniform; (4) Black
Tie controlled when and where they worked; (5) Black Tie
misclassified them as independent contractors and, as such, did not
pay overtime compensation to them; (6) they rarely crossed state
lines, and when they did so, Black Tie required them to wear
"street clothes" instead of their Black Tie uniforms; (7) after
working a job that required them to cross state lines, they would
not work another job where they were required to cross state lines
for several months; and (8) while working for Black Tie, they all
worked solely for Black Tie.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on April 29, 2019, with the
filing of a three-count Complaint against the Defendants.  He filed
an Amended Complaint against the Defendants on June 18, 2019,
alleging violations of: (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act; and (3) the Ohio Wage Laws.


The Plaintiff now comes before the Court seeking conditional
certification of the following FLSA class: All former and current
drivers, movers, and related positions with different titles,
employed by the Defendants who performed off-the-clock work, were
not paid travel time, and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016
through the final disposition of the matter.

The Defendants oppose conditional certification and have also
objected to numerous aspects of the Declarations filed in support
of the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.  The
Defendants submit the Court should deny conditional certification
for three reasons: (1) the Plaintiff has failed to proffer
admissible evidence in support of conditional certification; (2)
discovery should take place prior to conditional certification; and
(3) Bailey is not similarly situated to the putative class.  The
Plaintiff replied and maintains that conditional certification of
the proposed FLSA class is appropriate.

Judge Sargus finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently supported
his Motion for Conditional Certification.  In support of his motion
for conditional certification, Bailey has submitted his own sworn
statement and declarations of other former workers of Black Tie,
all of which state that Black Tie failed to pay the Plaintiff and
the three Declarants overtime compensation.  The Judge finds that
these sworn declarations are sufficient at this stage.
Furthermore, as certification is conditional, Black Tie will have
the opportunity to move for decertification after the close of
discovery.

Next, Black Tie's request that the Court refrains from granting
conditional certification prior to discovery is not well taken,
Judge Sargus opines.  The cases that Black Tie cites do not support
a finding that conditionally certifying an FLSA class prior to
discovery is required.  Rather, the cases upon which they rely
focus on whether a worker is an independent contractor or an
employee.  The Court need not address the merits of a plaintiff's
claims at the first stage of conditional certification.

The Judge then finds that the Plaintiff has proffered sufficient
evidence, at this stage of the litigation, to support the
conclusion that he is similarly situated to the putative class.
The declarations that the Plaintiff submitted in support of his
Motion for Conditional Certification, all allege that the Plaintiff
and the three Declarants have been misclassified as independent
contractors when they are actually employees.  Thus, the Plaintiff
is similarly situated to the putative class as the Plaintiff and
the putative class members are unified by a common theory.

Bailey requests that the Court approves his proposed opt-in notice
and procedure for disseminating the notice to the putative FLSA
class members and have attached a proposed Notice and Consent to
Join Form to his Motion for Conditional Certification.  Judge
Sargus (i) finds no reason to depart from the Court's previous
well-reasoned decision declining to impose a two-year statute of
limitations prior to discovery; (ii) orders the parties to meet and
confer to resolve the dispute over the language 'related worker
with different job title' that is confusing, vague and ambiguous";
and (iii) overrules the Defendants' final objection to the Notice
concerning the manner in which the Consent to Join forms should be
returned.

Accordingly, Judge Sargus granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice.  The parties are ordered to meet and
confer about the content of the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and
resolve the unresolved objection.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/wy5z0B from Leagle.com.

Jordan Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Robi J. Baishnab --
rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher LLC, Hans A. Nilges --
hans@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher LLC & Shannon Marie Draher --
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher LLC.

Black Tie Management Company LLC, Black Tie Moving Services LLC,
Black Tie Moving Columbus LLC, Black Tie Moving Cleveland LLC,
Black Tie Moving Cincinnati LLC & Christopher Hess, Defendants,
represented by Michael L. Fortney -- fortney@stark-knoll.com --
Michael R. Fortney, Stark & Knoll Co., L.P.A. & Timothy Micah
Dortch -- mdortch@potts-law.com -- The Potts Law Firm, LLP, pro hac
vice.

James Dustin Black, Defendant, represented by Michael L. Fortney,
Michael R. Fortney, Stark & Knoll Co., L.P.A. & Timothy Micah
Dortch, The Potts Law Firm, LLP.


BOOZ ALLEN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hunter Anti-Trust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SARAH J. HUNTER and DAVID N. YOUTZ, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. BOOZ
ALLEN HAMILTON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-411
(S.D. Ohio), Judge George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 7, 2019, Plaintiff Sarah Hunter, on behalf of herself and a
putative class, commenced the action by filing a one-count proposed
class action complaint.  On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff David Youtz,
with her Hunter Plaintiffs, joined the action, and the Plaintiffs
filed a one-count proposed class action Amended Complaint, alleging
the Defendants violated the Sherman Act.

The Defense Intelligence Agency ("DIA"), an agency within the
United States Department of Defense ("DOD"), provides military
intelligence for the DOD.  Much of the DIA's work is performed or
completed by contractors.  DIA contractors conduct intelligence
analysis and provide the DIA with intelligence reports. And per
Executive Order 12968, DIA contractors must hire only United States
citizens to perform DIA contracts.

The Defendants are DIA contractors that currently operate out of
the Joint Intelligence Operations Center, Europe Analytic Center
located at a former British Royal Air Force base in Molesworth,
England ("JAC Molesworth").  The Defendants have been DIA
contractors since at least 2013 and have been the sole DIA
contractors at JAC Molesworth since that same year.

The Defendants would hire United States citizens to work on
specific DIA task orders, as required by Executive Order 12968.
Hiring a United States citizen who lived within the United States
was costly and would take time as the individual would need to get
his or her stateside affairs in order prior to departing to
England. Moving to England would cost an individual approximately
$30,000.  As such, DIA contractors would regularly seek to hire
United States citizens already living in Molesworth, England.
However, despite the fact that the Plaintiffs and the putative
class members lived in England while they worked for the
Defendants, they were not considered residents of the United
Kingdom.  The Plaintiffs and the putative class members received
their paychecks in United States Dollars and were subject to U.S.
tax laws, subject to certain exclusions.

For several years, the Defendants would compete against each other
to hire employees of each other, thus creating "robust" competition
for the skilled workers already at JAC Molesworth.  However, at a
time known only to the Defendants, but no later than Jan. 1, 2015,
the Defendants entered into express agreements -- collectively
between all three, and individually each with each other -- not to
hire one another's employees working at JAC Molesworth.  These
no-poach agreements prevented the Plaintiffs and the Class members
from seeking better-paid employment opportunities with other
Defendants at JAC Molesworth.

In or around September 2018, Youtz applied for a position at CACI
International, Inc. and CACI Technologies, LLC's  and several
openings at Booz Allen.  Youtz, however, did not receive an offer,
despite his experience and positive performance evaluations.
Rather, Youtz received an email from a CACI talent acquisition
advisor that it is unable to bring over personnel that were on the
contract with Booz Allen and  Mission Essential Personnel, LLC.
Further, these no-poach agreements did not only affect workers who
sought to transfer between the Defendants; it also extended to
those who had no intention of changing from one Defendant to
another, due to  the companies' efforts to maintain internal equity
in their compensation structures, as well as the reduction of
transparency.  The Plaintiffs assert these no-poach agreements are
still currently in effect.

The Defendants have jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants assert that
the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the Foreign Trade
Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA") bars application of the
Sherman Act to the case at bar because the Plaintiffs complain of
an injury that affects solely foreign commerce.  They next argue
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead either a per se violation
of the Sherman Act or an antitrust claim under the rule of reason.
Lastly, they argue that if the Court determines that the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently pleaded a Sherman Act violation then the Court
should limit the relevant time period to begin, at the earliest, in
July 2017.

The Plaintiffs oppose dismissal and assert: (1) the FTAIA is
inapplicable as their claim involves domestic commerce; (2) they
have sufficiently asserted a Sherman Act claim against the
Defendants; and (3) they have sufficiently alleged a conspiracy
dating back to January 2015.

Judge Smith finds that the Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim reasonably
alleges domestic injury.  The following facts support the
conclusion that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a domestic
injury so to survive a Rule 12 motion: (1) the named Plaintiffs and
putative plaintiff class are all citizens of the United States; (2)
the Defendants are United States business entities; (3) the
Plaintiffs and the putative class work solely on contracts for the
United States DIA; and (4) the Plaintiffs and the putative class
are paid in the United States currency and are subject to the tax
laws of the country.  Judge Smith acknowledges that JAC Molesworth
is located in England, outside of the territorial limits of the
United States, however the facts listed, when taken as true,
reasonably allege a plausible domestic injury and the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is denied and the Judge
declines to determine the applicable standard at this time.

In addition, Judge Smith finds that the Plaintiffs allege a
situation where the Plaintiffs' belief is based on factual
information that makes the inference of culpability plausible.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into no-poach
agreements with one another and that the named Plaintiffs first
became aware of these no-poach agreements in the Autumn of 2018.
What is not presently clear is precisely when the Defendants
entered into these no-poach agreements as such documents are in the
control of the Defendants.  Further, it is plausible that the
agreements were entered into in January 2015 and that negotiations
of such agreements took place in 2013.

For reasons stated, Judge Smith denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/WIaUbE from Leagle.com.

Sarah J. Hunter & David N. Yountz, Plaintiffs, represented by Shawn
Kincade Judge -- sjudge@isaacwiles.com -- Isaac Wiles Burkholder
Teetor LLC, Gregory M. Travalio -- gtravalio@isaacwiles.com --
Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac
vice, Kevin E. Rayhill -- krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Mark H. Troutman --
mtroutman@isaacwiles.com -- Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor LLC &
Steven N. Williams -- swilliams@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice.

Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated, Defendant, represented by William
Glover Porter, II, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, David A. Higbee --
david.higbee@shearman.com -- Shearman & Serling LLP, pro hac vice,
K. Mallory Brennan -- mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling, pro hac vice, Kara Marie Mundy -- kmmundy@vorys.com --
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP & Kimberly Weber Herlihy --
kwherlihy@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

CACI International Incorporated, CACI Technologies LLC & CACI
Technologies Incorporated, Defendants, represented by Joseph C.
Weinstein, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP & Jeffrey M. Walker, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP.

Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony
C. White, Thompson Hine LLP, Mark R. Butscha, Jr., Thompson Hine
LLP & Robert F. Ware, Thompson Hine LLP.


BRIGHT HORIZONS: Cianci Seeks OT Wages for Assistant Directors
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE CIANCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTERS LLC, Case No.
526705/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 9, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff
and other New York Assistant Directors were not paid proper
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in any
given workweek.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other ADs were
misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the New
York Labor Law. The Defendant also failed to keep accurate records
of the hours that they worked.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated ADs all shared similar
job titles, training, job descriptions and job tasks.

Bright Horizons operates as a child care center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          8OO Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 800 616-4000
          Facsimile: 561 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


BUCKINGHAM REALTY: Underpays Hourly Workers' OT Wages, Page Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN D. PAGE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. BUCKINGHAM REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04840-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Dec. 9, 2019), seeks to address a class-wide overtime violations
committed by Buckingham against its hourly-paid employees, who were
also paid earned wages in categories Buckingham called commissions
on pay stubs.

The Plaintiff contends that Buckingham is and has been underpaying
overtime compensation to its hourly-paid employees on a systematic,
class-wide basis as a result of an unlawful practice by which
Buckingham is failing to include all of its employees' earned wages
in its calculation of employees' regular rates of pay and, in so
doing, is failing to include all earned wages in its calculation of
its employees' overtime rate of pay.

All hourly-paid employees paid wages in the categories Buckingham
calls "Commissions" were and are being similarly subjected to
Buckingham's unlawful compensation scheme, the lawsuit says. Even
though Buckingham is using the word "Commissions," Page and all
similarly situated Buckingham hourly-paid coworkers, who receive a
portion of their wages in this "Commissions" category regularly
earn a portion of their wages through their actual hours worked and
for earned, non-discretionary purposes.

The Plaintiff was hired by Buckingham in April 2019 to work as a
Maintenance Technician at its Heritage Trails Apartments in Terre
Haute, Indiana. Plaintiff Page was involuntarily terminated on
September 26, 2019.

Buckingham is a property management company. On its Web site,
Buckingham describes itself as managing properties in the following
states: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky,
Tennessee and Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE ROBERT J HUNT, LLC
          3091 E. 98th St., Ste. 280
          Indianapolis, IN 46280
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com


CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR: Speer Sues Over Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Speer, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR, HEARTLAND MEDIA, KHSL, KNVN,
Case No. 2:20-at-00016 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020), is brought
against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
statutory wages and overtime wages resulting from the missed meal
breaks and any rest breaks. The Defendant also failed to include
the statutory wages and overtime wages due as alleged on employees'
pay stubs. The Defendant further failed to pay all wages due,
including overtime and statutory wages, upon termination or at any
time thereafter to the Plaintiff or those similarly situated whose
employment has ended within the relevant statute of limitations.

The Defendant's conduct was a knowing and deliberate attempt to
evade minimum wage laws, including FLSA and the California Labor
Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an employee, who worked in Chico California in the
control booth of a pair of jointly operated television stations.

The Defendant operated two television stations within
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


CANADA: Excluded Day School Survivors Retain Cooper Regel
---------------------------------------------------------
APTN National News reports that Abraham Parenteau, Vicki Klyne and
George Munroe signed a retainer agreement on Dec. 10, 2019, with
Alberta-based law firm Cooper Regel to represent their group -- the
Unverified Day School survivors society -- in a potential class
action lawsuit.

The group was featured in a recent APTN Investigates documentary
called Broken Circle. The institutions were excluded from other
settlement agreements because they were not found to be controlled
by the federal government, were run by bands or provinces, were
private residences or were hospitals that taught students.

"We want the government to recognize what was done to us and honour
our requests to get recognition and justice," said the group's
president George Munroe.

He added that any class action must include claims against the
various churches that operated the schools, which have largely
escaped any liability in previous settlements.

"We will not forgive the people who abused us," Munroe said, adding
they are also looking for an apology and compensation from the
government of Canada.

Survivors like Munroe and Parenteau allege horrific abuses at the
provincially-run school in Duck Bay, including sexual assault.

Parenteau is also calling all survivor groups in other provinces to
come on board to help strengthen their action.

"I feel pretty good about it. We are on the right track," he said,
"We are just starting and hopefully we will get everything going
for an apology and compensation for these people."

Class action could be "very large"- lawyer

"I am always humbled and happy to get on a plane and go," said
lawyer Steve Cooper who flew to Winnipeg in order to sign up the
group, "I suspect but do not yet know that this might be as big as
some of the largest class actions that I have dealt with and that
have been seen in Canada."

"We are talking about almost and possibly over 700 institutions and
probably every province and territory in Canada." He said, "It is
very significant."

Cooper could not provide any details about what the potential may
look like at this early stage.

Cooper Regel is the law firm co-representing a $1 billion class
action lawsuit against the federal government for treatment at
so-called Indian Hospitals.

His firm also negotiated the recognition and $50 million in
compensation to former Newfoundland residential school students.

For Parenteau it is just the beginning of a long process of
reconciliation.

"We are happy to sign an agreement with our lawyer, I guess we can
say that now," he laughed. "Hopefully we can come up with, hammer
out some kind of agreement with government and put this chapter
behind us. It's just a start now." [GN]


CANOPY GROWH: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Canopy Growth
Corporation (CGC). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canopy-growth-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=4757&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 20, 2020
Class Period: June 21, 2019 to November 13, 2019

Allegations against CGC include that: (1) the Company was
experiencing weak demand for its softgel and oil products; (2) as a
result, the Company would be forced to take a CA$32.7 million
restructuring charge due to poor sales, excessive returns, and
excess inventory; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]

CINTAS CORP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Cintas Corporation (NASDAQ: CTAS) between March 6,
2017 and November 13, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cintas investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Cintas class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1721.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cintas never tracked legacy margins following the G&K
acquisition; (2) the Company has systematically provided guidance
with which it would outperform (a "Beat and Raise" scheme); (3)
undisclosed to the investing public, the Company has breached the
law multiple times; (4) as a result of publicly known and
undisclosed breaches of law, the Company's Credit Agreement may be
jeopardized; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The lawsuit claims that when the truth was disclosed in the Spruce
Point Capital Management investment research report, investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1721.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]


CINTAS CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on December 12, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio against Cintas Corporation (NASDAQ:
CTAS). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is March 6, 2017 through November 13, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-cintas-corporation/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Cintas
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, February 10,
2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
         Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com
[GN]




COLUMBIA GAS: Objections to Class Action Lawsuit Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kirk, writing for The Eagle-Tribune, reports that Daniel
Rivera is known around the area as the mayor of one of the biggest
cities in the Merrimack Valley.

He's known in his hometown as being a friendly and accessible
elected official.

But in the case of a class action lawsuit against Columbia Gas, he
just wants to be known as Daniel Rivera, of 1 Thomas Road,
Lawrence.

Rivera's home is in the area affected by the Sept. 13, 2018 gas
disaster and, as such, he is automatically a "Class Member" of the
lawsuit.

What that means is that if Rivera, the mayor of Lawrence, files
paperwork with the court and agrees to "opt-in" to any settlement,
he will likely get a check for anywhere from $50 for minor damage
to his home up to $15,000 for major damage.

But, Rivera said in a letter to the settlement administrator, he
doesn't want anything.

In fact, he said, the settlement should be nullified.

"I am of the opinion that the settlement terms are unfair and
unreasonable," he said in a letter dated Nov. 9. The deadline to
file objections to the class action suit with the settlement
administrator, Superior Court Judge James Lang, was Dec. 10, 2019.

The reason Rivera objects to the suit, he said, is that the
attorneys' fees proposed as part of the settlement are too high,
the time frame to apply for compensation under the settlement is
too short, and the claims process is too complicated.

He isn't the only one objecting to the proposed settlement.

A group of residents who formerly lived in a multi-family at 6-12
Springfield St. filed an objection to the settlement, saying they
suffered mental and physical distress when their apartment building
burned in the disaster.

They are being represented by D'Angelo Law Group of North Andover.
In their objection, signed by attorneys Stephen D'Angelo, Esq. and
Matthew Andrade, Esq., the residents said the class action suit
should be "denied or decertified" for a number of reasons,
including the fact that the amounts being offered are not enough.

The objection complaint also asked the judge to convert the
approval hearing, scheduled for February, to a status hearing.

"The court and the parties should realize that $143 million is
inadequate, unfair and unreasonable and the parties should go back
to the drawing board to come up with a better settlement which is
fair, adequate and reasonable and affords all of the victims of
this event the ultimate right to trial if so chosen," the objection
states.

John Roddy, Esq. of the law firm Morgan & Morgan, which is one of
three law firms involved in the class action suit, said in an
emailed statement December 12 afternoon that the proposed agreement
is fair and equitable.

"The settlement provides the most money to those most severely
affected, whether resident or business," he said. "We are
continuing our town halls through the end of January to help class
members file claims. And to assist as many people as possible, (on
Wednesday) we asked the court for a three-week extension to the
claims submission deadline. That money will go into the communities
in March if the settlement is approved, almost record time for a
class action of this magnitude."

Rivera, in his objection, said the settlement "favors the interests
of the class-action attorneys and not the victims in the three
communities that were directly impacted and continue to be today.
When the attorneys are paid in one day a salary that a Lawrence
family doesn't make in a year, we have a problem.

"Class action attorney's fees comprise 16.5% of the total
settlement, totaling $23.5 million. Assuming the attorneys have
worked every single day since the disaster occurred, this
translates to $44K per day."

Rivera questions the need for victims in the affected area to apply
for relief and stressed the lack of time allotted to apply for the
settlement, which is between November to January, where at least
three major holidays fall.

"Columbia Gas has a list of every affected victim and all of them
deserve fair compensation for their loss, not just those who can
navigate these bureaucratic settlement processes," he said. "Asking
4,000 affected residents to go through yet another claims process
for this funding when just last year they went through a chaotic,
invasive and demeaning process that left them frustrated and not
fully compensated for their loss with Columbia Gas is a completely
unnecessary hurdle."

Rivera said he hopes the judge overseeing the settlement takes
these factors into account and changes the amount of money allotted
to the attorneys, the time frame allotted to the victims, and the
process for accessing these funds by the victims.

Attached to the objection filed by the residents of Springfield
Street was a list of cases in which victims had sued companies for
damages caused by explosions or fires or other calamities.

The settlements listed in every case was much higher than the
settlements being offered in the current class action suit.

In one case, in which a fire caused by an air conditioning unit
resulted in the destruction of a family's home, the court granted a
settlement of more than $1 million.

In another case, when a tree fell on a power line, caused a fire
and burned up art galleries, the six artists were awarded more than
$1 million.

In yet another case, a woman and her son were given a settlement of
between $500,000 and $1 million for an electrical fire in their
apartment in New York City. [GN]


CONSTANT CONTACT: Settlement Hearing in McGee Suit Set for May 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Constant Contact Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

WILLIAM McGEE and LEE McGEE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

vs.             

CONSTANT CONTACT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.    

No. 1:15-cv-13114-MLW
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. ("CONSTANT
CONTACT" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 25, 2014 AND
JULY 23, 2015, YOU COULD GET A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit concerning
the price of Constant Contact stock.  The settlement will provide
$13 million to pay claims from Constant Contact investors who
bought or acquired the Company's common stock from July 25, 2014,
through and including July 23, 2015.  If you qualify, you may send
in a claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from
the settlement, or you can object to it.

A hearing will be held on May 27, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. ET, before the
Honorable Mark L. Wolf, at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse,
1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, to consider whether to approve
the settlement and the proposed Plan of Allocation and a request by
the lawyers representing all Class Members for an award of
attorneys' fees of 25% of the $13 million settlement amount, plus
expenses not to exceed $120,000.

If you purchased or acquired Constant Contact common stock between
July 25, 2014 and July 23, 2015, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this Litigation and the settlement thereof.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator or visiting its website: Constant Contact
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 43321, Providence, RI 02940-3321; 1-866-635-4819;
www.ConstantContactSecuritiesLitigation.com.  You may also review
the Stipulation of Settlement and all other settlement-related
documents at www.ConstantContactSecuritiesLitigation.com, or you
may contact the Claims Administrator at 1-866-635-4819 for further
information regarding the settlement.  You may also contact a
representative of counsel for the Class: Rick Nelson, Shareholder
Relations, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West
Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, 1-800-449-4900.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release online at
www.ConstantContactSecuritiesLitigation.com by April 13, 2020, or
by mail postmarked no later than April 13, 2020, establishing that
you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is postmarked by April 24,
2020.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court on or before April 24, 2020, and also
delivered by hand or first-class mail to:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900  
San Diego, CA 92101

BENJAMIN NAFTALIS
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
85 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022

The Court has retained the discretion to alter any of the deadlines
or requirements outlined above for good cause shown.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: November 26, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


CORREVIO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Correvio Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ: CORV) and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
19-cv-11361, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Correvio securities between October
23, 2018 and December 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Correvio securities during
the class period, you have until February 10, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Correvio is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in
developing therapeutics worldwide.  The Company's portfolio of
marketed brands comprise, among others, vernakalant IV, or
Brinavess, for the rapid conversion of recent onset atrial
fibrillation ("AF") to sinus rhythm.

Earlier during Brinavess's development, safety concerns led the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to decline approval for
Brinavess after a patient with no apparent heart issues had died
after being administered the drug during one of its clinical
trials.  The FDA then mandated a clinical hold on the Brinavess
program, which remains in effect in the U.S.  Correvio's SEC
filings would later characterize the patient death that
precipitated the clinical hold as "a single unexpected serious
adverse event of cardiogenic shock experienced by a patient with AF
who received vernakalant (IV)."

On October 23, 2018, Correvio announced its intention to resubmit a
New Drug Application ("NDA") for Brinavess to the FDA for recent
onset AF (the "Resubmitted NDA"), which followed additional
purported safety data the Company had accumulated, as well as
discussions with the FDA regarding the drug's potential regulatory
path forward.  The Company later announced on July 25, 2019, that
the FDA had accepted the Resubmitted NDA.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the data supporting the
Resubmitted NDA for Brinavess did not minimize the significant
health and safety issues observed in connection with the drug's
original NDA; (ii) the foregoing substantially diminished the
likelihood that the FDA would approve the Resubmitted NDA; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 6, 2019, FDA staffers reviewing Brinavess announced
that they did not believe that the drug's benefits outweighed its
risks.  Specifically, the FDA noted that Brinavess was associated
with "serious liabilities" including low blood pressure, irregular
heartbeats in the lower heart chambers, and death.

On this news, Correvio's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
39.81%, to close at $1.30 per share on December 6, 2019.

Then, on December 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, the Nasdaq
Stock Market ("NASDAQ") suspended trading in Correvio securities in
anticipation of the FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee's ("RDAC") review and discussion of the Resubmitted NDA.
Finally, just before market-close that day, the RDAC voted 11-2
against approval of the Resubmitted NDA, noting that Brinavess's
benefit-risk profile was not adequate to support approval.

Following this news, and after Correvio shares resumed trading on
the NASDAQ, Correvio's stock price fell $0.94 per share, or 67%, to
close at $0.46 per share on December 11, 2019, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and
Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Nevarez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson denied the motion for class
certification and denied as moot the motion to decertify class in
the lawsuit captioned Silverio Nevarez, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03454-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs sought to certify a single class consisting of
85,000 hourly workers at Costco's California warehouse locations,
alleging violations of California wage and hour law based on
Costco's security procedures.

"Because Plaintiffs fail to submit sufficient evidence to establish
that common class-wide issues of fact and law exist that
predominate over individualized inquiry, the Court concludes that
the Plaintiff have failed to satisfy their burden under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and DENIES the motion," Judge Wilson ruled.

"Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED on each of
their non-PAGA causes of action.  Because this Order denies class
certification and orders supplementary briefing on the PAGA claims,
Costco's pending motion to deny or decertify class certification is
DENIED as moot," Judge Wilson added.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Silverio Nevarez and
Efren Correa seek to bring wage and hour claims on behalf of all
current and former non-exempt hourly workers employed by Costco
Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") in California from March 25, 2015,
to the present (the "Class Period").  The Plaintiffs allege that
Costco has a policy and practice of denying hourly employee pay,
based on two separate security procedures Costco allegedly
maintained during the class period, which applied to all hourly
workers at its retail location.

The Plaintiffs assert that Costco's policies make them liable for
the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to
pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay all wages at termination; (4)
failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide proper and
accurate paycheck stubs; (6) unfair business practices; and (7)
penalties pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").[CC]


CROSS COUNTY, AR: Marlin Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Jailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT MARLIN, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CROSS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case 3:19-cv-00355-JM
(E.D. Ark., Dec., 9, 2019), accuses the Defendant of failing to pay
the Plaintiff and other employees overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and other Jailers worked in
excess of 171 hours in a 28-day period, as the Defendant required
them to do so, but they were not paid for all hours worked, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Jailer within the
three years prior to the filing of the complaint. As its employee,
the Plaintiff was an employee of a public agency employed in law
enforcement activities and, therefore, entitled to the protections
of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seg., the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendant operates the Cross County Sheriff's Office where the
Plaintiff was employed as a Jailer from May 2019 until November
2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Stacy Gibson, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DARP INC: Court Awards $1.17MM Total Damages in Fochtman Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK FOCHTMAN, et al., Individually, and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. DARP, INC. and HENDREN
PLASTICS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-5047 (W.D. Ark.), Judge
Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' request for damages in their Motion
for Summary Judgment.

On Sept. 27, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.  The Court
denied Defendant DARP's and Defendant Hendren's motions, but
granted in part and deferred ruling in part on the Plaintiffs'
motion.  In particular, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment with respect to liability, finding that the
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages owed to the
class for their failure to pay minimum-wage and overtime
compensation.  With respect to the calculation of damages, however,
the Court deferred its ruling in favor of receiving supplemental
briefing on two of the Defendants' affirmative defenses.

In particular, the Court asked the Plaintiffs to consider: (1)
whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against damages
for the value of in-kind services provided to the class in an
amount equal to the statutory cap of $0.30 per hour, as provided in
Section 11-4-213(a) of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"); and
(2) whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against
damages for the value of so-called "stipend" payments that DARP
made to certain class members for their successful completion of
the program.

The Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Brief on damages on Oct. 4,
2019.  Hendren and DARP filed Supplemental Responses.  On Oct. 17,
the Court held a telephonic hearing with the counsel for all
parties and received oral argument.  It also directed DARP to file
an updated spreadsheet detailing the stipend payments, as discussed
in the telephonic hearing.  DARP emailed the revised spreadsheet to
the Court, which it now attaches as an exhibit to the Order.  The
Plaintiffs stipulate that the figures in the revised spreadsheet
accurately reflect the stipend payments made to the class members.

Now having obtained additional stipulated facts and the parties'
briefing on the last issue remaining in the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment, Judge Brooks will grant in part and deny in part
the request for damages.

In summary, the class members will receive compensatory damages for
all regular and overtime hours they worked at Hendren while
residing at DARP.  The parties agree that these hours translate to
$615,308.44 in regular compensation and $20,909.06 in overtime
compensation.  The Defendants are entitled to the maximum statutory
credit against the compensatory damages award for the value of the
in-kind services they provided the class members when they resided
at DARP's facility.  The Plaintiffs stipulate that these in-kind
services were actually provided to the class and that the Court
should apply the full $0.30-per-hour deduction on all regular hours
worked, per Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-213(a).  The only remaining
question to resolve regarding the $0.30-per-hour deduction is
whether it applies to regular hours, overtime hours, or both.

In sum, Judge Brooks finds that there is no genuine, material
dispute of fact as to the calculation of compensatory damages,
while factoring in DARP's deduction for in-kind services.  The
calculation is as follows:

   As to regular hours:

     76,216.75 hours worked x the minimum wage
      in effect at the time the work was performed = $615,308.44
     76,216.75 hours × $0.30 per hour              =  $22,865.025
                                                     ------------

     $615,308.44 - $22,865.025                     = $592,443.415

   As to overtime hours:

     1,667.25 hours worked × one-and-a-half times
      the minimum wage in effect at the time the
      work was performed                           =   $20,909.06
      
   Total compensatory damages:

                 $592,443.415 + 20,909.06           = $613,352.48

Judge Brooks further finds that the Defendants are entitled to a
deduction from compensatory damages in the sum of $30,575.82, which
is the total amount of stipend payments that DARP made to certain
class members upon their completion of the program.  When factoring
in DARP's deduction for the stipend payments, the new computation
of compensatory damages is as follows:  $613,352.48 - $30,575.82 =
$582,776.66.

Finally, the damages owed to the Plaintiffs and the class members
will also include an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal
to compensatory damages.  The Court explained in its previous Order
the reasons why liquidated damages were justified in the case.  The
Judge in his discretion finds that liquidated damages will be
awarded in the case in an amount equal to compensatory damages:
$582,776.66.  Combining the compensatory damages award with the
liquidated damages award yields a total award of $1,165,553.32.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brooks granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' request for damages in their Motion for
Summary Judgment.  All other motions pending in the case are moot.


Judge Brooks ordered the parties to confer and jointly submit a
proposed distribution plan containing the total amounts owed to
each class member, the names of any class members who have
requested exclusion, the date by which the Defendants will transfer
the funds specified in the Order to the class counsel for
distribution, the method by which these funds will be distributed
to the class members, and the procedure for distributing any
unclaimed funds.  

A final judgment will issue after the Court has calculated the
amount of fees and costs to be awarded to the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Supplemental Opinion
& Order is available at https://is.gd/65B0o8 from Leagle.com.

Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Corby Shumate, individually, and on behalf of all others,
Michael Spears, individually and on behalf of all others, Andrew
Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others, Fabian Aguilar,
individually and on behalf of all others & Sloan Simms,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, represented
by John Holleman -- jholleman@johnholleman.net -- Holleman &
Associate P.A. A Professional Association & Timothy A. Steadman ,
Holleman & Associates, P.A.

DARP, Inc., Defendant, represented by William B. Putman, Putman Law
Office.

Hendren Plastics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence M.
McCredy, Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP, Timothy Chad Hutchinson --
thutchinson@rmp.law -- Rmp LLP, James Robert Renner --
RRenner@duanemorris.com -- Rmp LLP & Seth M. Haines --
shaines@rmp.law -- Reece Moore Pendergraft.


DELICIOUS TEMPTATIONS: Wiggins Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESTONI WIGGINS and ROXANNE JOHNSON, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DELICIOUS TEMPTATIONS,
INC. and TONY NIEL, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00883-BSM
(E.D. Ark., Dec. 9, 2019), is a collective action brought for
violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers, whose
duties include waiting on customers, taking and delivering orders,
busing tables, doing dishes, and cleaning the facilities. The
Plaintiffs contend that they frequently worked more hours than they
were scheduled, which went unrecorded and uncompensated because the
Defendants do not have a timeclock system by which Servers could
clock in and clock out.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the violations of the FLSA
and AMWA.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Little Rock. Mr.
Niel is the owner, principal, officer and/or director of Delicious
Temptations. He manages and controls the day-to-day operations of
Delicious Temptations, including the decision to not pay the
Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including a sufficient premium for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Sean Short, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  sean@sanfordlawfirm.com


DELTA DENTAL: Faces Obeng Antitrust Suit Over Insurance Monopsony
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Stephen N. Obeng, DMD v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-25072-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2019), arises
from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the
market for dental insurance across the United States.

The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming,

According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony
power through its artificial territorial division of that market
among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:

   (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers
       when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market
       Allocation Conspiracy");

   (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
       Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
       who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
       insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and

   (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
       (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.

These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy:
Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of
Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the
Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they
derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta
Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta
Dental" plans.

Dr. Obeng is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State
of Florida. He is a member of Cooper Dental Group, a family dental
practice located in Ormond Beach, Florida. Dr. Obeng provided
covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by the
Defendants pursuant to his in-network contract with DDIC.

Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                  mzappala@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          55 Hudson Yards
          B OIES S CHILLER F LEXNER LLP
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
                  choltzman@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
          Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
          Davis Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220-9600
          Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
          E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com


DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Sues Over Allocation of Insurance Markets
----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Schwartz D.D.S., a Professional Corporation, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS
ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00018-SSV-KWR (E.D. La., Jan.
3, 2020), is brought on behalf of dental providers to enjoin an
ongoing conspiracy between and among the individual Defendant Plans
and their association, the DDPA, to allocate markets in violation
of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act and Louisiana law.

The Defendants are DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION; DeltaUSA; DELTA
DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.;
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF ARKANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA;
DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA
DENTAL PLAN OF IDAHO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL
PLAN OF INDIANA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF
KANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC.; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE
CORP.; DENTAL SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
MICHIGAN, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF
MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC.; DELTA
DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA; OREGON DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF
PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF
RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF
TENNESSEE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL
OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST
VIRGINIA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF
WYOMING.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have entered into a
horizontal market allocation agreement that is per se illegal under
the antitrust laws. The Defendant Plans are potential competitors
who have agreed to allocate exclusive geographic markets. The
Defendant Plans formalized and enforced this territorial market
allocation scheme by means of the license agreements issued by the
Defendant DDPA. These license agreements limit and restrict the
ability of Defendant Plans to compete outside of their respective
territorial markets. Because the officers of the Defendant Plans
make up the Board of the DDPA, serve as the principal officers of
the DDPA, and effectively exercise "complete and unfettered control
over the operations of the association,"

The harm from the Defendants' market allocation is reflected in
suppression of compensation below levels that would prevail in a
competitive marketplace to dental providers, who have received
reimbursement from any of the Defendants. As a result of
Defendants' agreed-upon territorial restraints, Delta Dental's
compensation to dental service providers was collusively and
unlawfully suppressed below the level that would prevail in a
competitive marketplace, says the complaint.

Plaintiff John C. Schwartz D.D.S., is a dental services provider
and a citizen of the State of Louisiana.

DDPA is an Illinois nonprofit corporation and is a national
association of independent Delta Dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
          Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
          Davis Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Phone: (202) 220-9600
          Fax: (202) 220-9601
          Email: ccooper@cooperkirk.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 322-8880
          Fax: (205) 328-2711)
          Email: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                 jonm@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          Henry Saint Paul Provosty, Esq.
          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          Eric Belin, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, L.L.C.
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 410-2795
          Email: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                 ebelin@provostylaw.com
                 hprovosty@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 237-2727
          Fax: (202) 237-6131
          Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                 mzappala@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 446-2300
          Fax: (212) 446-2350
          Email: dboies@bsfllp.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Flips Denial of Class Certification in Sarun
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TONY SARUN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B288062 (Cal.
App.), Judge Dennis M. Perluss of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Seven, reversed the
trial court's order denying class certification.

Sarun had no health insurance in March 2012 when he received
emergency care at Northridge Hospital Medical Center, then owned
and operated by Dignity Health.  Upon admission, Sarun signed an
agreement to pay the hospital's "full charges, unless other
discounts apply."  "Full charges" were defined as the Hospital's
published rates (called the chargemaster), prior to any discounts
or reductions.  The admissions contract explained uninsured
patients might qualify for government aid programs or financial
assistance from Dignity Health.

After receiving an invoice for $23,487.90, which reflected a
chargemaster rate of $31,359 and a $7,871.10 "uninsured discount,"
and without applying for any other discount or financial
assistance, Sarun filed the putative class action lawsuit.  In his
third amended complaint, filed in May 2015, Sarun asserts claims
for unfair and/or deceptive business practices under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 ("UCL") and violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and seeks declarations that
Dignity Health's billing practices as they relate to uninsured
individuals who received emergency care at a Dignity Health
hospital in California are "unfair, unconscionable and/or
unreasonable" and that, because the prices to be charged are not
adequately disclosed or readily available to those individuals, its
admissions contract contains an "open price" term within the
meaning of Civil Code section 1611, so that self-pay patients are
liable only for the reasonable value of the services or treatment
provided.

In June 2017, Sarun moved for class certification of his cause of
action for declaratory relief, now defining the proposed class as
individuals who had received treatment at Northridge Hospital
Medical Center during the proposed class period and who were
directly billed for such treatment at chargemaster rates or
chargemaster rates less an uninsured discount.  In December 2017,
the trial court denied Sarun's motion, finding the class was not
ascertainable; common issues of fact did not predominate because it
would be necessary to determine whether thousands of individual
chargemaster rates were reasonable or unconscionable to provide
meaningful relief; and, for the same reason, a class action was
neither manageable nor a superior method for resolving the
litigation.  The court's order did not address Sarun's alternate
request for certification of an issue class, limited to the
question whether Dignity Health's admissions contract included an
"open price" term.

Sarun filed a timely notice of appeal.

Judge Perluss finds that as the trial court observed, the class
definition is straightforward on its face: It is defined in
objective terms -- patients who received treatment at Northridge
Hospital Medical Center and were billed for such treatment at
chargemaster rates or chargemaster rates less an uninsured discount
-- that are, in the language of Noel, sufficient to allow a member
of the class to identify himself or herself as having a right to
recover based on the class description.  To the extent that the
trial court had concerns regarding the state of the record as it
pertained to matters such as the provision of notice to the class
members or how burdensome it would be to identify class members,
those issues should not have been resolved in the context of
ascertainability.

Next, Judge Perluss finds that the trial court's decision that
common issues do not predominate with respect to Sarun's request
for certification of a class to pursue his cause of action for
declaratory relief in its entirety is supported by substantial
evidence.  However, its implicit finding with respect to the
limited issue class that the common issue of contract
interpretation raised by Sarun is outweighed by individual
questions of fact is not.  As discussed, there are no individual
issues raised by the limited request for declaratory relief.

Finally, Judge Perluss finds that courts are not limited to the
class definition proposed in the certification motion.  If
necessary to preserve the case as a class action, a court may
redefine the class to reduce or eliminate an ascertainability or
manageability problem.  In the case, restricting the class to
uninsured emergency care patients at Northridge Hospital Medical
Center, that is, to the category of patients identified in Sarun's
operative pleading and at the single facility addressed in the
certification motion, will greatly ease any manageability concerns
with the rule 3.765(b) limited issue class that should be certified
in the case.

Judge Perluss exercises the Court's inherent authority to modify
the class definition, combining elements of the definition in
Sarun's third amended complaint and his motion for class
certification and limiting it to uninsured individuals who, during
the relevant time period, received emergency care at Northridge
Hospital Medical Center and who signed (personally or through an
authorized agent) the admissions contract and were thereafter
directly billed for that treatment at chargemaster rates or
chargemaster rates less the uninsured discount.  As to that
redefined class, he will reverse in part the trial court's order
denying class certification and direct it to certify as a class
issue whether Dignity Health's admissions contract contains an open
price term, so that patients within the class are obligated to pay
no more than the reasonable value of the services provided.

Accordingly, Judge Perluss reversed the order denying class
certification, and remanded the cause remanded with directions to
certify a modified issue class as described in the Opinion.  Sarun
is to recover his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of Judge Perluss' Nov. 12, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/jP2uyw from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Barry L. Kramer, Barry L. Kramer -
kramerlaw@aol.com; Strange & Carpenter, Barry R. Strange --
lacounsel@earthlink.net -- and Gretchen Carpenter -- Strange &
Carpenter -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Ogloza Fortney, Darius Ogloza -- lacounsel@earthlink.net -- David
Fortney -- dfortney@oglozafortney.com -- and Brian D. Berry --
bberry@oglozafortney.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Priest Faces New Allegations of Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Stansell, writing for Live 5 News, reports that a former
priest in the Diocese of Charleston is facing new allegations of
sexual abuse in a lawsuit moved to federal court.

A woman, only referred to in court documents as Jane Doe 304,
claims she was sexually abused multiple times by the late priest
Frederick Hopwood.

The alleged abuse spanned from 1959 to 1962 when the woman was just
a child, starting around the age of 8 years old.

Hopwood died in April 2017, but he has been at the center of
several other lawsuits in recent years, and he was convicted in a
1994 case on a charge of a lewd act upon a child.

However, Jane Doe 304's lawsuit is related to a $12 million class
action settlement paid out to victims of sexual abuse at the hands
of priests, including Hopwood.

The woman, who no longer lives in South Carolina, is suing church
officials and attorneys for not being notified and allowed
inclusion into the class-action suit against the Diocese of
Charleston because it was closed to victims outside of South
Carolina.

Court documents claim the Diocese of Charleston aided and abetted
attorneys to "exclude essentially all victims who then resided out
of state and that the written orders in the class action failed to
secure the full relief for absent class members."

The lawsuit also accuses attorneys and church officials of being
aware the class members were "under-inclusive."

"The Richter defendants were also aware that some abuse victims
repressed memories of their childhood sexual abuse and in 2006
could reasonably be expected to not recall childhood abuse,"
according to court documents. "In short, the class was known to be
under-inclusive, and the defendants deliberately misrepresented to
the trial court that absent class members later disclosed would
receive relief, when in fact those absent members would get no
relief."

The lawsuit has been filed in federal court as a diversity
breach-of-contract, a case occurring when a plaintiff claims the
defendant(s) failed to fulfill the terms of a contract, according
to www.legalbeagle.com.

A lawyer, representing the Bishop of Charleston and Robert
Guglielmone as defendants, requested the case be moved to federal
court because the money the woman is seeking could exceed $75,000.

Jane Doe 304 has requested a jury trial for her allegations of
legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

The attorney representing Jane Doe 304 and representative with the
Diocese of Charleston have not responded to requests for comment at
this time. [GN]


DIRECTTV LLC: Eleventh Circuit Decertifies TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit last month issued a significant class action
opinion in Cordoba v. DirectTV, LLC, vacating a class certified in
a TCPA class action and remanding the case. The issue underlying
the court's decision was whether large parts of the class as
certified had standing. Because the plaintiff did not establish
that common issues regarding class members' standing predominated
over individualized issues, class certification could not stand.

Plaintiff Cordoba alleged that defendants DirectTV and Telecel (a
company hired to do telemarketing for DirectTV) failed to maintain
"internal do-not-call lists" and called him 18 times, even after he
had demanded not to be contacted. He sued DirectTV and Telecel
under the TCPA and sought to represent two classes, one of which
comprised all individuals who received more than one telemarketing
call from Telecel on behalf of DirectTV during the time period in
which Telecel failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list. The
district court certified both putative classes. DirectTV sought
interlocutory review under Rule 23(f), which the Eleventh Circuit
granted as to the internal do-not-call list class.

In reversing class certification, the Eleventh Circuit focused on
two main issues: Article III standing and predominance under Rule
23(b)(3).

Standing: The defendants raised two standing challenges. First, the
defendants argued that under the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, the receipt of an unwanted phone call was not, in and of
itself, a sufficiently concrete, particularized injury to satisfy
Article III's "injury-in-fact" requirement. Second, the defendants
argued that even if receipt of an unwanted phone call was an
"injury in fact," that injury was not "fairly traceable" to the
alleged violation of the TCPA, i.e., the defendants' failure to
maintain an internal do-not-call list.

On the first issue, the Eleventh Circuit ultimately concluded that
receiving an unwanted phone call is by itself, an injury in fact,
even if such an injury "might not be significant in the grand
scheme of things." As the court reasoned, in much the same way as
the receipt of an unwanted fax can be an injury in fact by tying up
resources and diverting attention, unwarranted phone calls also can
be injuries in fact because they "use[] some of the phone owner's
time and mental energy, both of which are precious."

As for whether that injury was "fairly traceable" to the
defendants' failure to maintain a do-not-call list, the court
concluded that the named plaintiff had asked not to be called, so
he could fairly trace his injury to Telecel's failure to maintain
an internal do-not-call list. But the court did not stop with the
named plaintiff. It carried its analysis into the certified class
and noted that if an individual "never asked Telecel not to call
them again, it doesn't make any difference that Telecel hadn't
maintained an internal do-not-call list. Telecel could and would
have continued to call them even if it had meticulously followed
the TCPA and FCC regulations." Thus, for class members that did not
request to be added to a do-not-call list, their alleged injuries
would not be "fairly traceable" to Telecel's challenged conduct,
and they, therefore, would lack Article III standing.

The court rejected the notion that an "unrestricted telemarketing
campaign," standing alone, could give rise to standing. It found
that such a campaign is the kind of bare procedural harm that
Spokeo disallows, and it further found that the critical fact for
traceability was whether the class member requested to be added to
a do-not-call list. Each class member's conduct was therefore
relevant (and dispositive on the class certification issue).

Predominance: Having concluded that members of the class who did
not ask DirectTV to stop calling them would lack standing, the
court then turned to the "more difficult question" of what role
"standing" "plays in the class certification analysis." In other
words, the court then asked so what?

The court began its analysis by noting that proving absent class
member standing is not a requirement of class certification.
Instead, the court held that the case as a whole is justiciable if
the named plaintiff has standing and that a class can be certified
where the named plaintiff has demonstrated his or her standing,
even if it is apparent that absent class members may not have
standing. In so holding, the court departed from the majority of
circuits, including the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits,
which have held that a class that includes members who do not have
standing cannot be certified. Instead, the court seemingly joined
the minority rule of the Seventh and Third Circuits, which do not
require that absent class members have standing as a prerequisite
for class certification.

But that was not the end of the inquiry. Even though not a
prerequisite to class certification, the court recognized that
proving the standing of absent class members was still relevant to
the analysis because absent class members cannot ultimately recover
unless they have standing. At some point, "each plaintiff will
likely have to provide some individualized proof that they have
standing — i.e., each plaintiff will have to provide some
evidence that he or she called Telecel or otherwise communicated
that they did not wish to be called, and their injury is therefore
traceable to Telecel's violation of the law." The court recognized
that the individualized nature of proving standing posed a
"powerful problem" to predominance under Rule 23(b)(3),
particularly given that the evidence showed that as few as 5% of
the putative class members may have asked Telecel not to call
them.

Having identified this problem, the court then found that the
district court wholly failed to address it. The lower court made no
findings about how to address traceability, and the Eleventh
Circuit found this failure to be an abuse of discretion.

Takeaways: We note several main points from Cordoba.
First, in Cordoba, the Eleventh Circuit has seemingly adopted the
approach of the First Circuit in dealing with absent class member
standing. That is, although eschewing the adoption of the
bright-line rule that operates in the majority of circuits, whereby
a class cannot be certified if it includes absent members without
standing, the court nevertheless made clear that individualized
issues related to absent class member standing could still defeat
predominance; but as in many cases, whether predominance is
defeated turns on a determination of how much individual litigation
would be too much. A court could potentially certify a class that
includes a few members without standing, provided that sorting the
wheat from the chaff will not require too much individualized
fact-finding. (However, as we've discussed elsewhere, any procedure
whereby class members without standing are not removed until
post-judgment could run afoul of the Seventh Amendment.) But it's a
different story for "a class with potentially many more, even a
majority, who do not have Article III standing," and where
identifying those with standing and those without will require
individualized proof.

Second, standing challenges under Spokeo, as we have noted before,
can be the gift that keeps on giving in class cases, and may have
more value at class certification than at the motion to dismiss
stage. Spokeo can be a powerful tool to defeat statutory class
actions, but it is not necessarily a tool that can be used to
obtain a dismissal in all cases. Instead, by requiring class
representatives to demonstrate standing across a class of allegedly
similarly-situated members, it makes class certification more
fact-intensive and thus more difficult.

Third, this case heightens the importance of ascertainability.
Defendants may consider emphasizing that a plaintiff must
demonstrate how it will solve concrete standing problems for the
people that fall within the class definition, and a plaintiff
cannot carry that burden without producing a class definition that
draws clear lines between who is in and who is out. At the same
time, though, Cordoba highlights that it may not be sufficient to
oppose certification merely by arguing that predominance or
ascertainability problems exist, without actually proving that
those problems are real. Many courts have rejected defendants'
predominance objections as speculative or hypothetical; be
prepared, if possible, to prove that the putative class as defined
will include a substantial number of members who lack standing or
injury and that it will require lots of individualized proof to
determine who is a proper class member. [GN]



DOORDASH: Fails to Pay Arbitration Filing Fees
----------------------------------------------
Mallory Moench, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that
in his San Francisco courtroom, U.S. District Judge William Alsup
has berated lawyers for Google, Oracle, Uber and PG&E. An attorney
for DoorDash found himself the target. The issue was the way the
meal-delivery startup pushed its couriers into arbitration.

"Your law firm and defense law firms have tried for 30 years to
keep plaintiffs out of court in employment cases. You've gotten a
lot of success in the courts," Alsup said. "So finally somebody
says, 'OK, we'll take you to arbitration,' and suddenly it's not in
your interest anymore, and now you're wiggling around trying to
figure some way to worm out of your own agreement."

Arbitration is a long-standing way of taking disputes out of the
court system and resolving them, theoretically, more quickly and at
lower cost. DoorDash was back in court because it was taking a
truly low-cost approach: It hadn't paid the arbitration fees for
the cases in question.

Contracts that impose arbitration are commonplace in the gig
economy, with drivers, meal couriers and other workers waiving
their right to a trial with a few taps of an app. Uber, Lyft and
Postmates, along with DoorDash, are among the companies whose
contracts require arbitration.

Arbitration is favored by many businesses because it keeps
resolutions quiet and avoids the potential for sympathetic juries
to award big damages. But thousands of workers have filed
arbitration demands and companies haven't coughed up millions of
dollars in fees to pay for the process, landing them in courtrooms
like Alsup's anyway.

Tens of thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers sued the companies for
not paying arbitration fees to address their claims. A federal
judge in Oakland compelled Postmates into individual arbitration
with more than 5,000 couriers in October. And when a San Francisco
Superior Court judge ordered DoorDash to arbitrate individual
claims for 419,409 workers, the company instead negotiated a $39.5
million settlement, according to a November court filing.

"DoorDash only works if it works for all members of our community;
Dashers, merchants and customers," spokeswoman Becky Sosnov said in
an email, using the company's term for couriers. "Like many other
companies, DoorDash includes an arbitration provision in its
independent contractor agreement." Workers have the ability to opt
out of arbitration, she noted, and the company "has arbitrated
claims with Dashers historically and currently is doing so while
ensuring that claimants meet minimum filing requirements of
arbitration demands."

Postmates and Lyft did not respond to requests for comment. Uber
declined to comment.

Failure to pay arbitration fees is not unique to tech companies.
The Legislature passed a law this year penalizing California
employers who don't pay fees within 30 days. Attorney General
Xavier Becerra recently opened an investigation into the issue.
Company attorneys have argued in court that arbitration claims
weren't filed correctly or violate contracts.

Businesses have traditionally turned to arbitration to resolve
disputes by avoiding litigation.

"We say let's see if we can resolve this, without having months of
litigation where positions get hardened and feelings get hurt,"
said Michele Miller, the head of Cozen O'Connor's West Coast labor
practice.

Miller, who represents management in arbitrations, also said court
cases raise concerns about "allegations that may ultimately prove
to have no value being aired in public forums beforehand."

But what mandatory arbitration clauses don't count on are mass
claims, said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston attorney who has
challenged gig economy companies in court for years.

"What all the companies are banking on is that few people will go
through the trouble and expense and time of bringing an
arbitration," Liss-Riordan said. "What they weren't counting on was
people taking them up on it and filing masses of arbitration
against companies."

To pressure companies, plaintiffs' attorneys "call them on their
bluff," said Veena Dubal, associate professor of law at UC
Hastings. They do that by filing thousands of individual
arbitration claims.

"It's extremely expensive for companies to arbitrate individually,
more expensive than to do a class action, and it's time consuming,"
Dubal said. But companies favor that approach because it means no
legal precedent is set.

One key issue has been whether gig workers should be classified as
independent contractors or employees. The legal landscape will
shift in January, when a new law, AB5, takes effect, making it
harder for companies to claim workers should be contractors.

In the meantime, disputes over contractor status under the old
rules fester on -- and unpaid arbitration fees are a factor. The
case Alsup heard on Dec. 2 alleges that DoorDash hasn't paid filing
fees to the American Arbitration Association to address 2,236
workers' petitions. The lawsuit said workers paid the $1.2 million
required under association rules, but DoorDash didn't pay more than
$4 million that it owed after requesting an extension. The
association closed the cases, stalling resolution.

In a letter to the workers' attorneys and the association, DoorDash
said paying for "deficient arbitration demands constitutes an
excessive and unreasonable hardship." DoorDash attorney James
Fogelman argued in court on Dec. 2 that arbitration claims weren't
correctly submitted because they didn't contain a copy of each
individual contract.

Warren Postman, an attorney for the workers, said they don't have
individual documents because the workers see the terms only when
they scroll through them on an app. Alsup said he symphathized.

"It's unconscionable that you would have a system that no one could
tell whether they have an agreement," the judge told Fogelman.

"If they don't click on that, then they don't get a job for that
day. People out there who are desperate, living paycheck to
paycheck, and they say, 'What the hell, I've got no choice, I'd
better click on this,'" Alsup said.

The arbitration association declined to comment on the specific
case per its policy. "If a party refuses to pay its fees to the
association, the other parties involved may seek court
intervention," spokesman Michael Clark said in an email.

Two new California laws going into effect in January tackle
mandatory arbitration. Companies can no longer require employees to
sign an agreement forcing harassment, discrimination and wage
claims into arbitration as a condition of employment instead of
being able to sue. Companies will also be penalized for not paying
arbitration fees within 30 days.

California's law banning mandatory arbitration as a condition of
employment was carefully written to not contradict the Federal
Arbitration Act and Supreme Court case law that allows employers to
mandate arbitration and prohibit class-action lawsuits. But some
attorneys say legal challenges are inevitable and the arguments
won't stand up in court.

Even if California's law survives, it doesn't change anything for
workers who already signed a contract requiring arbitration. And
DoorDash, Uber and Lyft have pledged to fight AB5, pledging $30
million apiece toward a ballot initiative to overturn the law.

In the meantime, gig workers will keep filing claims. And the
arbitration fees will keep piling up. [GN]


ENERGY TRANSFER: Gross Law Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Energy Transfer LP. Shareholders who purchased shares during the
dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Energy Transfer LP (ET)

Investors Affected : February 25, 2017 - November 11, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Energy Transfer LP. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Energy Transfer's permits to conduct the Mariner
East pipeline project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery
and/or other improper conduct; (ii) the foregoing misconduct
increased the risk that the Partnership and/or certain of its
employees would be subject to government and/or regulatory action,
thereby depreciating the Partnership's unit value; and (iii) as a
result, the Partnership's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form/?id=4871&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]



ENERGY TRANSFER: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Northern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-02771, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Transfer
securities between February 25, 2017 and November 11, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Partnership and certain of its
top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Energy Transfer within the
class period, you have until January 20, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Energy Transfer provides energy-related services in the U.S. and
China.  The Partnership owns and operates approximately 9,400 miles
of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines.

Energy Transfer's projects include the Mariner East pipeline, a
multibillion-dollar pipeline project to carry highly volatile
natural gas liquids across Pennsylvania.  According to the
Partnership's SEC filings, the Mariner East pipeline transports
NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shales areas in Western
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Eastern Ohio to destinations in
Pennsylvania, including the Partnership's Marcus Hook Industrial
Complex on the Delaware River, where they are processed, stored and
distributed to local, domestic and waterborne markets.
Additionally, the first phase of the project, referred to as
Mariner East 1, consisted of interstate and intrastate propane and
ethane service and commenced operations in the fourth quarter of
2014 and the first quarter of 2016, respectively.  The second phase
of the project, referred to as Mariner East 2, began service in
December 2018.

On February 13, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection ("PADEP") approved water-crossing and sedimentation
permits for the Mariner East 2 pipeline, which would transport
natural-gas liquids across Pennsylvania to a terminal in Marcus
Hook.  According to news sources, the permits were believed to be
the final regulatory hurdle to begin construction of the pipeline.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Partnership's business,
operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Energy Transfer's permits to conduct the Mariner East pipeline
project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery and/or other
improper conduct; (ii) the foregoing misconduct increased the risk
that the Partnership and/or certain of its employees would be
subject to government and/or regulatory action; and (iii) as a
result, the Partnership's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 12, 2019, the Associated Press reported that Energy
Transfer's Mariner East pipeline project was under investigation by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI").  Citing interviews
with current and former state employees, the Associated Press
reported that the FBI's investigation "involves the permitting of
the pipeline, whether [Pennsylvania Governor Tom] Wolf and his
administration forced environmental protection staff to approve
construction permits and whether Wolf or his administration
received anything in return."

On this news, Energy Transfer's unit price fell $0.81 per share, or
6.77%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $11.16
per share on November 13, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]

EVENTBRITE: Calls for Dismissal of Class Action Over 2018 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that
Eventbrite has told a Californian court that it should throw out a
proposed class action lawsuit in relation to its 2018 initial
public offering, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to identify
any specific false or misleading statements made by the company.

Shares in the ticketing firm took a bashing in both March and May
this year following official updates regarding revenues and revenue
projects - which were lower than expected - and also ongoing
challenges around the integration of Ticketfly, the rival ticketing
business that it bought in 2017.

Some Eventbrite investors argued that the admission that the
Ticketfly integration was proving rather challenging was contrary
to what the company had said ahead of its September 2018 IPO. Which
meant, they reckoned, that the ticketing firm had misled potential
investors about the business.

Seeking to capitalise on those arguments, various law firms set
about putting together a class action lawsuit that could involve
any investors who bought Eventbrite shares between the IPO and the
financial statement this March. But Eventbrite denies that there is
any valid claim against it under the American laws that regulate
the sale and exchange of stocks and shares.

In a legal filing made with the court this week, Eventbrite states:
"Plaintiffs claim that Eventbrite . . . misled investors about its
September 2017 acquisition of Ticketfly. But the complaint does not
allege facts suggesting that Eventbrite made any false or
misleading statements of material fact".

Not only that, but Eventbrite told potential investors - it says -
that its strategy of growing through acquisition - and by
integrating the customer base and tech of acquired companies -
presented challenges.

"Eventbrite noted that this integration and migration process
typically takes between twelve and 24 months, and warned investors
about many risks inherent in the integration and migration
process", the firm's lawsuit adds. "Among other things, that
Eventbrite may have difficulty assimilating the acquired
technology, may fail to timely integrate acquired companies, and
may experience customer loss during this process."

On the Ticketfly integration specifically, it insists that its
pre-IPO documents "did not say anything about when Eventbrite
expected to complete the integration and migration process for
Ticketfly, or which Ticketfly features Eventbrite planned to
integrate onto its own platform, much less that it would be
successful in doing so. Nor did [those documents] promise that all
or even a specific percentage of Ticketfly's customers [called
‘creators'] would eventually migrate to Eventbrite's platform".

"Quite the opposite", it goes on, "Eventbrite expressly disclosed
that its 'ability to attract and retain creators will be harmed' if
the company is ‘not able to provide easy-to-use solutions
required by creators'; that 'creators of the acquired companies or
businesses may not migrate to our platform'; and that Eventbrite
'previously experienced customer loss in the process of integrating
and migrating acquired companies for a variety of reasons'.
Eventbrite's public statements after the IPO were entirely
consistent with these disclosures".

Elsewhere in its submission Eventbrite takes issue with the
specific past statements that aggrieved investors have cited in
their legal claim. Those statements were vague, or obviously
opinion, or not the sort of thing any serious investor would base a
decision on, it argues, especially in the context of the warnings
contained in Eventbrite's official IPO documentation.

With all this in mind, the ticketing outfit tells the court that
the proposed investor class action "should be dismissed with
prejudice". We now await to see how the aggrieved investors, and
the court, respond. [GN]


FAT BRANDS: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought in Vignola
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Jordan and David Kovacs, Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
titled ADAM VIGNOLA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FAT BRANDS, INC., ANDREW A. WIEDERHORN, RON
ROE, JAMES NEUHAUSER, EDWARD H. RENSI, MARC L. HOLTZMAN, SQUIRE
JUNGER, SILVIA KESSEL, JEFF LOTMAN, FOG CUTTER CAPITAL GROUP INC.,
and TRIPOINT GLOBAL EQUITIES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA
(C.D. Cal.), seeks an order certifying this action as a class
action on behalf of this class:

     All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
     securities of FAT Brands, Inc. ("FAT Brands") pursuant
     and/or traceable to FAT Brands' October 23, 2017 initial
     public stock offering (the "Class").  Excluded from the
     Class are Defendants, all present and former officers and
     directors of FAT Brands and any subsidiary thereof, members
     of such excluded persons' families and their legal
     representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity
     which such excluded persons controlled or in which they
     have or had a controlling interest.

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Kaskela Law
LLC as co-Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -
          Joshua Baker, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com
                  soddo@robbinsllp.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Inc. (FCAU) between February 26,
2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased Fiat securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Fiat FCAU Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms
in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America; (2) high-ranking Fiat official were aware of and
authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 20, 2019, General Motors filed a racketeering lawsuit
against Fiat in the Eastern District of Michigan for damages caused
by a bribery scheme perpetuated by the UAW and Fiat.

On this news, shares of Fiat fell $0.58 per share or nearly 3.72%
to close at $15.00 per share on November 20, 2019.

If you purchased Fiat securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fiatchryslerautomobilesnv-fcau-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-223/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Bronstein Gewirtz Notes of Jan. 31 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V. ("Fiat Chrysler" or the "Company") (NYSE: FCAU) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Fiat Chrysler
securities between February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fcau.   
     

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms
in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America; (2) high-ranking Fiat official were aware of and
authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fcau or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Fiat Chrysler you have until January 31, 2020 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff
acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the
litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Zarczynski Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zarczynski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES INC. and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-01893-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendants) 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
asserts.

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


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Peeling Paint Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Ford
F-150 peeling paint problems have caused a class action lawsuit
that alleges corrosion damages the aluminum hoods, roofs and side
panels. In addition, the F-150 paint warranty is allegedly
meaningless due to the terms of the warranty.

Plaintiff Tina Nelson owns a 2014 Ford F-150 SuperCrew she
purchased in 2016, but in 2018 she noticed the hood, roof and side
panel paint was peeling and corroding.

The plaintiff took the truck to a Ford dealership in Oklahoma for
it to be repaired and technicians allegedly determined there were
problems with the paint primer that caused the paint to peel.

A Ford representative allegedly asked the dealer technician if
there was a defect in the paint, but the technician allegedly
replied, "It is probably a defect in the primer. The paint doesn't
appear to have adhered to it."

According to the lawsuit, Ford told the plaintiff no assistance
would be provided, even though the plaintiff argues the truck was
still within the 5-year extended corrosion warranty.

Nelson says corrosion and peeling paint have exposed the underlying
surfaces which will cause even more rust and weakening of the
underbody.

According to the class action, the lawsuit includes, "All persons
in the United States and its territories who within the applicable
statute of limitations period, and as shown by Defendant's records,
purchased or leased a new or used Ford F-150."

Ford manufactured its F-150s for many years using steel bodies but
switched to aluminum body panels in the 2000s to decrease the
truck's weight and increase fuel economy. According to the
plaintiff, Ford's choice has come at a price to F-150 owners who
must pay to repair areas where the paint has peeled.

Ford has allegedly known about the paint, primer and corrosion
problems for years based on technical service bulletins (TSBs)
issued to dealerships.

TSB 04-25-1 was released 2004 for 2004 Ford F-150s:

"Some vehicles may exhibit a bubbling or blistering under the paint
on aluminum body parts. This is due to iron contamination of the
aluminum panel . . . Ford's Scientific Research Laboratory has
performed a number of tests on vehicle body parts returned for
corrosion related concerns. Testing has revealed that the aluminum
corrosion was caused by iron particles working their way into the
aluminum body party, prior to it being painted."

TSB 06-25-15 was issued in 2006 in which the bulletin warned
technicians about aluminum body panel corrosion in 2004-2007
F-150s. Then in 2016, TSB 16-0028 warned about aluminum panel
corrosion in 2004-2016 Ford F-150 trucks.

In August 2017, Ford issued TSB 17-0062 for 2002-2017 F-150s that
told technicians to replace the corroding aluminum panels.

Another bulletin was issued in February 2019, with TSB 17-0062
covering 2004-2018 Ford F-150s:

"Some 2000 and newer Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles equipped
with aluminum body panels may exhibit corrosion concerns appearing
as bubbled and/or peeling paint with or without accompanying white
dust. Panel replacement is recommended."

According to the class action, an F-150 customer expects that for
the money they pay, the paint shouldn't peel before the truck has
50,000 miles on it. Additionally, Ford knows the extended warranty
for body panel corrosion is useless because it applies only if an
aluminum panel "perforates."

But the plaintiff says Ford is fully aware that it is not possible
for aluminum body panels to perforate.

The Ford F-150 peeling paint lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division -
Nelson, et al., v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox,
P.C., and McGuire Law, P.C. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces Nunez Suit Over Defective Fuel Injection Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abner Nunez, Robert D. Peters, James Childs, Paul A. Ponteaux Sr.,
Philip A. Adams, Ricky J. Tremblay, Michael Corbett, James Gregg
Simmons, Jr., Gina Carter, Eric Mobley, Gregory R. Nix, David
Lyndon Johns, Kenneth Blair, Robert W. Kirby, Mark A. Cagle,
Gustavo Nicolas Gonzalez, and Jace Reyes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10010-MAG-EAS (S.D. Fla.,
Jan. 3, 2020), seeks to recover costs for the manifested and
immediately damaging defect of the high-pressure fuel injection
pumps in Ford's diesel trucks, in addition to any and all
consequential damages stemming therefrom.

Ford Motor Company has sold--and continues to sell--millions of
diesel trucks equipped with high-pressure fuel injection pumps that
are proverbial ticking time bombs, wholly unbeknownst to an
unassuming American public who ponies-up big bucks for these
vehicles' fictitious "durability," "longevity," and "topnotch fuel
economy," according to the complaint. Ford promised consumers the
continued reliability of their diesel engines with increased fuel
efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency. However, the
Plaintiffs says, this came with a hidden and catastrophic cost that
was secretly passed on to consumers.

The culprit is the Bosch-supplied CP4 high pressure fuel injection
pump, which unbeknownst to consumers is a ticking time bomb when
used in American vehicles, the Plaintiffs allege. As Ford knew
before and during the Class Period (2011–present), Bosch's CP4
pump was never compatible with American fuel standards. The CP4
pump is not built to withstand the specifications for U.S. diesel
fuel in terms of lubrication or water content, and it struggles to
lift a volume of fuel sufficient to lubricate itself.

As a result, the pump is forced to run dry and destroy itself as
air bubbles allow metal to rub against metal. The pump secretly
deposits metal shavings and debris throughout the fuel injection
system and the engine until it suddenly and cataclysmically fails
without warning, further contaminating the fuel delivery system
with larger pieces of metal. Thus, the Plaintiffs and other Class
members have suffered from a defect that existed in the Class
Vehicles, upon the first use of the Class Vehicles, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Florida, who purchased
one of the Defendants vehicles.

Ford designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells Ford automobiles
in this District and multiple other locations in the United States
and worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          Email: andrew@forthepeople.com
          Secondary Email: Kdimeglio@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARD, MARTINEZ, GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          Email: bobh@hmglawfirm.com


FRESHPET INC: March 4 Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set in Curran Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Freshpet Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GARY CURRAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
No. 2:16-cv-02263-MCA-LDW
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESHPET, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF
FRESHPET, INC. ("FRESHPET") DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 2015
THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 11, 2015, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED
THEREBY, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on March 4, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther
King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New
Jersey, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount
of $10.1 million, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement Class
should be certified for purposes of settlement; (3) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by
the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (4) whether the
Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (5) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's
expenses in connection with this Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY FRESHPET COMMON STOCK
DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER
11, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Freshpet;
(ii) the Individual Defendants; (iii) members of the families of
each Individual Defendant; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant
has a controlling interest; (v) the officers and directors of
Freshpet during the Settlement Class Period; and (vi) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded
party.  Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons
who timely and validly exclude themselves therefrom by submitting a
request for exclusion.  If you have not received a detailed Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and
a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Freshpet Securities Settlement, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43313, Providence,
RI 02940-3313, or on the internet at
www.FreshpetSecuritiesSettlement.com.  If you are a Settlement
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by
mail or online no later than February 18, 2020, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  If you request to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
postmarked by February 12, 2020, in the form and manner explained
in the detailed Notice.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered
in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to
Freshpet Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi &
Co. LLC, EXCLUSIONS, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901,
postmarked by February 12, 2020.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the
fee and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
February 12, 2020:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Martin Luther King Building
& U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street, Room 4015
Newark, NJ  07101

Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ALAN I. ELLMAN
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY  11747

Defendants' Counsel:
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
ROBERT L. HICKOK
3000 Two Logan Square
Eighteenth & Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA  19103

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: November 20, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Court Dismisses First Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), In re
GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
17-929 (D. N.J.).

Currently pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  The
putative class action concerns allegations of securities fraud.
The Plaintiffs assert that Galena and several of its key officers
and/or employees engaged in fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as to public statements
relating to Galena's product Abstral (fentanyl) Sublingual
Tablets.

The Plaintiffs are persons and entities that purchased Galena
common stock from Aug. 11, 2014 through Jan. 31, 2017.  Defendant
Galena is a biopharmaceutical company that develops hematology and
oncology therapeutics.  Defendant Mark J. Ahn was the President,
CEO, and Director of Galena until Aug. 20, 2014.  Defendant Mark W.
Schwartz was the COO of Galena from 2011 to Aug. 20, 2014, and then
President and CEO of Galena from Aug. 20, 2014 through the end of
the Class Period.  Defendant Ryan M. Dunlap was the Vice President
and CFO of Galena during the Class Period until Dec. 31, 2015.
Defendant Christopher S. Lento was the Senior Vice President of
Oncology Commercial Operations at Galena from May 2013 through Dec.
31, 2014.  Defendant Remy Bernarda was the Senior Vice President of
Investor Relations at Galena throughout the Class Period.

In March 18, 2013, Galena acquired the commercial product Abstral
(fentanyl) Sublingual Tablets and announced the product's launch on
Oct. 23, 2013.  During the Class Period, Abstral was the only
commercial product sold by Galena.  In July 2014, Galena also
acquired Zuplenz, a medication used to treat nausea and vomiting,
primarily for persons undergoing chemotherapy.  However, during the
Class Period, Galena did not have any sales of Zuplenz.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used Galena's
artificially inflated stock to finance operations.  On Nov. 18,
2014, Galena entered into a purchase agreement which led to Galena
ultimately receiving a total of $13.4 million for common stock.  At
the end of 2014 and 2015, Galena received a total of $2.3 million
by way of at market issuance sales agreements.  In March 2015,
Galena sold units of common stock and warrants for $40.8 million.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Feb. 13, 2017.  They then
filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 6, 2017, alleging two counts:
(I) violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K, or alternatively,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; and (II)
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Defendants Ahn,
Schwartz, and Dunlap.  Judge McNulty dismissed the Complaint
without prejudice on Aug. 21, 2018, finding that the Plaintiffs (1)
do not have a private right of action under Item 303 pursuant to
Oran v. Stafford; (2) failed to articulate clear theories of
securities fraud liability; and (3) failed to plead fraud on a
statement-by-statement basis as required by the PSLRA.

The Plaintiffs then filed their FAC.  The FAC indicates that the
Plaintiffs are proceeding under a theory of presumption of reliance
based on the fraud-on-the market doctrine.  It asserts two counts:
(1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against all the Defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against Defendants Ahn, Schwartz, and Dunlap.  The
Defendants again moved to dismiss, which the Plaintiffs opposed,
and to which the Defendants replied.  The matter was then
transferred to Judge Vazquez.

As a preliminary matter, Judge Vazquez notes that Galena is a
relatively small public company that had one commercial product:
Abstral.  Approximately 30% of all Abstral prescriptions originated
from Drs. Ruan and Couch -- who were shut down during the Class
Period and ultimately sentenced to prison.  The matter is not a
securities fraud action against a larger public company with
various commercial product lines and significantly greater
insulation between the top-level executives and day-to-day
marketing decisions regarding any specific product.

In addition, the Plaintiffs allegations all relate to Abstral.  As
noted, Galena sold Abstral to a third party in November 2015.  In
the Judge's view, the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead any
improper conduct following Galena's divestment of the drug.  As to
allegations of wrongdoing before November 2015, the Plaintiffs make
allegations that could potentially support a viable cause of
action, that is, statements after Drs. Ruan and Couch's businesses
were raided by the FBI. The Court, however, cannot sustain the FAC
for the reasons that follow.  The Judge permits Plaintiffs an
additional opportunity to re-plead consistent with his analysis.

Plaintiffs first allege a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5.  Among other things, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead any material
misrepresentation or omission.  Given the quantity and variety of
alleged improprieties in this case, the Judge first addresses the
areas in which the FAC falls short.

Judge Vazquez finds that the FAC suffers from several pleading
shortcomings which fall generally into the following areas: (1)
allegations not linked to any particular violation, (2) disclosures
concerning the government investigation of Galena, (3) Item 303
allegations, (4) statements attributable to particular Defendants,
(5) motive, and (6) past earnings, targeted providers, and related
allegations.  He reviews each in turn.  To be clear, the Judge is
not prohibiting the Plaintiffs from reasserting the foregoing items
in an amended complaint, provided that they can cure the
deficiencies.  At the same time, if the Plaintiffs file an amended
pleading that again takes a scattershot approach consisting of an
amalgamation of allegations, the entire pleading may be construed
as defective.

Judge Vasquez also finds that the FAC makes some allegations that
could potentially support a Section 10(b) claim, specifically as to
statements made after the businesses of Drs. Ruan and Couch were
raided and shut down.  Yet, the FAC is dismissed because the FAC as
written does not distinguish these allegations as an independent
basis for the Section 10(b) violation, instead opting to use a
shotgun approach and essentially argue that all allegations
comprise the Section 10(b) claim.  The Judge is unable to
effectively separate the wheat from the chaff, when reviewing the
entire FAC, in light of this approach.  More importantly, in light
of the Court's ruling, the current Class Period cannot stand.

Accordingly, Judge Vasquez granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC.  The dismissal is without prejudice.


A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/xVTsL6 from Leagle.com.

Mark Muir, Movant, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN , KANTROWITZ,
GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS. & SHERIEF MORSY --
smorsy@faruqilaw.com
-- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP.

Winnie Lu, John Pagoumian, Peter Gianoukas & Robert McDonald,
Movants, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN, KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, ESQS. & JAMES E. CECCHI -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

Dan Grunfeld, Shawn Kracht, Joseph Selinger, James Huisman &
Brooks
Lieske, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN,
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS. & WILLIAM B. FEDERMAN --
WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD.

STEVEN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

SUE KATTUAH, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC., RYAN M. DUNLAP, JOHN T. BURNS & REMY
BERNARDA, Defendants, represented by CHAD JOHNSON PETERMAN --
chadpeterman@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP.

MARK J. AHN, Defendant, represented by HOLLY SUSANNE WINTERMUTE --
hswinter@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP.

MARK W. SCHWARTZ, Defendant, represented by GLENN S. KERNER --
gkerner@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP.

CHRISTOPHER S. LENTO, Defendant, represented by SANDRA LYNN
MUSUMECI -- smusumeci@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES CANCILA
LLP.


GARFIELD PARK: King Sues Over Unlawful Storage of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamila King, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GARFIELD PARK HOSPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2020CH00056 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant,
its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail their
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or pass codes--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each individual. The Defendants' use of
this technology exposes workers to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such
situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff
alleges. Specifically, the Defendant have violated and continues to
violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly
inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length
of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored,
and used, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the
Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' fingerprints,
as required by BIPA; obtain a written release from Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate, or
otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain
consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose,
redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third
party as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jamila King is a natural person and a resident of the
State of Illinois.

Garfield Park, owns and operates a behavioral health care facility,
located in Cook County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Meco Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klajdi Meco moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned KLAJDI MECO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL CREDIT &
COLLECTION CORP., DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC, and UNIFUND
CCR, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01894-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) 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
contends.

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 avers.

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


GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Sues Over Improper Use of Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lovenia Scott, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated
v. GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporations; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-581969 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Jan. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar California
laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees and use information
from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process
without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
current, former and prospective employees, seeks statutory damages
due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the
FCRA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of
California.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations and does business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 thomas@setarehlaw.com
                 farrah@setarehlaw.com


GRIESBACH READY-MIX: Manns Seeks Overtime Wages for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMARA MANNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRIESBACH READY-MIX LLC, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT GRIESBACH,
and RANDALL LEE GRIESBACH, Case No. 1:19-cv-01800-WCG (E.D. Wisc.,
Dec. 9, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages for drivers under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin wage and hour
laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
members are or were drivers for the Defendants at times since
December 9, 2016. Since that time, the Defendants have had a common
policy and practice of failing to compensate their drivers for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek at one and
one-half times their respective regular rates, the lawsuit says.

Since December 9, 2016, Chris Griesbach and Randy Griesbach have
owned and operated GRM, including setting its human resources and
pay practices and policies applicable to Plaintiff Manns and the
class members.

Griesbach Ready-Mix LLC is a concrete contractor company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          E Erie Street, Suite 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


GRUBHUB INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Grubhub Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares during the dates
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Grubhub Inc. (GRUB)

Investors Affected : July 30, 2019 - October 28, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Grubhub Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) customer orders were actually declining, despite
the massive investments that the Company had made to spur demand
for and use of its platform; (ii) Grubhub's new customer additions
were generating significantly lower revenues as compared to
historic cohorts because these customers were more prone to using
competitor platforms; (iii) Grubhub's vaunted business model under
which it secured exclusive partnerships had failed, and Grubhub
needed to engage in the same aggressive nonpartnered sales tactics
embraced by its competitors to generate significant revenue growth;
(iv) Grubhub was required to spend substantial additional capital
in order to grow revenues and retain market share in the face of
heightened competitive dynamics and market saturation, eviscerating
the Company's profitability; and (v) Grubhub was tracking tens of
millions of dollars below its revenue and earnings guidance and
such guidance lacked any reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/grubhub-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4871&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         CONTACT:
         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]



HEXO CORP.: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

WSG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

ACB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

HEXO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)

WSG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased Wanda Sports'
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and related prospectus issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July
26, 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the lack of major sporting
events for its Digital, Production, Sports Solutions ("DPSS") and
Spectator Sports segments for its second quarter of 2019, ending
before the initial public offering, would negatively impact revenue
for the second quarter of 2019; (2) Wanda Sports had suffered a
year-over-year decrease in revenue in its second quarter ended June
30, 2019 and would for its fiscal year 2019, primarily related to
lower reimbursement revenues accounted for in its DPSS segment and
lack of Spectator Sport segment offsets; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB)

ACB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 11,
2019 - November 14, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Aurora
Cannabis Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as opposed to the Company's
representations, Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company
would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun
facilities; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

HEXO Corp. (HEXO)

HEXO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 25, 2019
- November 15, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HEXO
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) HEXO's reported inventory was
misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off
obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in
channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



HEXO CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
HEXO Corp., Inc. (HEXO) between January 25, 2019 and November 15,
2019, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased HEXO securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit HEXO Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) HEXO's reported inventory was
misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off
obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in
channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The truth emerged through a series of disclosures occurring between
Oct. 4, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019, when the Company announced that was
producing cannabis in a section of its Niagara facility that was
not properly licensed with Health Canada. As a result of these
disclosures, the value of HEXO stock has consistently decreased,
damaging investors.

If you purchased HEXO securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/hexocorp-hexo-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-226/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


HEXO CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of HEXO Corp.
("HEXO" or the "Company") (NYSE: HEXO) between January 25, 2019 and
November 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of HEXO
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than January 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

HEXO investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

HEXO, incorporated and headquartered in Canada, makes and sells
cannabis products for distribution to users, principally through
third-party physical and online retailers.

Based on our investigation, we believe HEXO made materially false
or misleading statements by (1) providing revenue guidance that
materially overstated HEXO's likely revenue for 2020, (2)
overstating the number of retail locations for HEXO's product that
would be available during the fiscal year of 2019, (3) overstating
the value of inventory, and (4) failing to disclose the Company's
unlicensed growth of cannabis in Niagara.

After the close of markets on October 4, 2019, HEXO announced the
sudden resignation of its new Chief Financial Officer. In response,
HEXO's stock price declined 6% to close at $3.80 on October 7,
2019, the next trading day.

Six days later on October 10, 2019, HEXO withdrew its revenue
guidance for the fiscal year of 2020 based in part on slow
expansion of retail locations in Quebec and Ontario. That day,
HEXO's stock price closed at $3.66, or 22% lower than the prior
day's closing price.

On October 28, 2019 HEXO announced that it would take an impairment
charge as a result of an excess of inventory that was caused in
part by the slow expansion of retail locations in Quebec and
Ontario. HEXO's stock declined another 6% to close at $2.52 the
next day.

Then on November 15, 2019, HEXO belatedly disclosed that it had
identified the unlicensed growth of cannabis on a HEXO property on
July 30, 2019. That day, HEXO's stock closed at $1.79, a 5% decline
from the prior day's closing price.

                   About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact:

         Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only
         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: 1-800-541-7358
[GN]



HEXO CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of HEXO Corp. (NYSE: HEXO) between
January 25, 2019 and November 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Hexo investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Hexo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1734.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Hexo's reported inventory was misstated as the Company
was failing to write down or write off obsolete product that no
longer had value; (2) Hexo was engaging in channel-stuffing in
order to inflate its revenue figures and meet or exceed revenue
guidance provided to investors; (3) Hexo was cultivating cannabis
at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was not appropriately
licensed by Health Canada; and (4) as a result, Hexo's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1734.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]



HIGH BRIDGE: Moore Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MONTE MOORE, individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. HIGH BRIDGE
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-06240 (N.D. Ill.), files with
the Court his Motion for Stage-One Conditional Certification and
Notice to Putative Class Members.

Mr. Moore seeks an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the proposed
      collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act;

   2. directing the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data
      containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last
      known personal and work e-mail addresses, telephone numbers
      (both landline and mobile), and dates of employment;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective
      members by mail, e-mail, and text message and an identical
      reminder notice via these means half-way through the opt-in
      period; and

   4. allowing for a 60-day opt-in period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com


HOME OWNERS: Shot at Class-Action Arbitration Fails in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
William Sassani, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Texas
Supreme Court has affirmed lower court rulings regarding a class
action lawsuit by homeowners against their home warranty company.

In a 26-page ruling issued Nov. 22, Justice Eva Guzman wrote that
the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas and the trial
court correctly declined to compel class arbitration in a dispute
between Nathan Robinson and Misti Robinson against Home Owners
Management Enterprises and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Co.

Guzman made three points in the ruling to support the lower courts'
decisions. First, that "arbitrability of class claims is a 'gateway
issue' for a court to determine unless the agreement between the
two parties already "clearly and unmistakably" mentions
arbitration. Second, that a "contract that is silent on a matter
cannot speak to that matter with unmistakable clarity." Third, "an
express contractual basis is required" to infer arbitration. It
"cannot be inferred from silence or ambiguity."

Guzman noted that the concept of arbitration has "two fundamental
principles: arbitration agreements are contracts that must be
enforced according to their terms, and a party cannot be compelled
to arbitrate any dispute absent an agreement to do so."

The justice said that since the agreement between the two parties
did not discuss class arbitration, the lower courts made the
correct ruling in deciding that Home Management Enterprises was not
bound to class-action arbitration.

According to the ruling, after buying their home, the Robinsons
discovered that there were defects in its construction. When they
felt that the issues had not been remedied quickly or correctly,
the Robinsons sued.

The case went to arbitration, and the arbiter found in favor of the
Robinsons' individual claims. However, the Robinsons petitioned the
trial court that Home Owners Management Enterprises must submit to
class-action arbitration. The company petitioned the trial court
for a motion to dismiss.

The court then ruled in favor of the company, saying that the
warranty agreement does not permit class arbitration. [GN]



HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Class Certification Sought in Flagg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Andre D. Flagg, et al. v. Houston County, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00909-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala.), Andre D. Flagg
moves for class certification.

The lawsuit challenges the operation, customs and practices of the
Houston County courts and jail.

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Houston County
Jail, in Dothan, Alabama, appears pro se.[CC]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Considers $760M Settlement Over Engine Fires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Smith, writing for ABC Action News, reports that a proposed
$760 million class action settlement over engine fires in Kia and
Hyundai vehicles is now in the hands of a California judge.

The proposed settlement over engine fires is expected to affect
more than 4 million drivers.

The proposal, which calls for cash reimbursements for repairs,
refunds for related towing and rental car expenses and lifetime
warranty coverage for engine repairs, needs preliminary approval
from Judge Josephine L. Staton before the class action settlement
can move forward.

The class action lawsuit includes drivers who owned or leased the
following vehicles with 2.0-liter or 2.4-liter gasoline direct
injection engines:

2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
2014-2015 and 2018-2019 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2019 Kia Optima
2012-2019 Kia Sorento
2011-2019 Kia Sportage

So far, the settlement deal does not include the Kia Soul, which
was involved in the fatal Ohio car fire that killed Keith Nash in
2017.

An Oklahoma family filed a lawsuit after their 2019 Kia Soul rental
car -- seriously injuring 33-year-old Jordan Carlton -- during a
Hawaiian vacation in June.

Since April 2018, the I-Team has exposed thousands of Kia and
Hyundai fires and uncovered some of these fires may be caused by
fuel leaks resulting from improper repairs during engine recalls.

Kia and Hyundai issued sweeping recalls earlier this year after
I-Team Investigator Jackie Callaway interviewed a whistleblower and
former employee at Kia headquarters who claimed the company has
known about the fire hazard since 2017. [GN]



IROBOT CORP: Campbell Securities Suit Moved From N.Y. to Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JEROME CAMPBELL, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. IROBOT CORPORATION,
COLIN M. ANGLE, and ALISON DEAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-10373 (Filed Nov.
7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Dec. 9, 2019.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-12483-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of iRobot securities between November 21, 2016 , and
October 22, 2019, inclusive. The asserted claims are alleged
against iRobot and certain of the Company's current executives, and
arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The Plaintiff purchased shares of iRobot securities during the
Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the violations of
the federal securities laws, the lawsuit says.

IRobot is an American advanced technology company founded in 1990
by three members of MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab who designed
robots for space exploration and military defense.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander C. Drylewski, Esq.
          Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq.
          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2129
          E-mail: alexander.drylewski@skadden.com
                  Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com
                  James.Carroll@skadden.com
                  smusoff@skadden.com


KIA MOTORS: Judge Considers $760MM Settlement Over Engine Fires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Smith, writing for ABC Action News, reports that a proposed
$760 million class action settlement over engine fires in Kia and
Hyundai vehicles is now in the hands of a California judge.

The proposed settlement over engine fires is expected to affect
more than 4 million drivers.

The proposal, which calls for cash reimbursements for repairs,
refunds for related towing and rental car expenses and lifetime
warranty coverage for engine repairs, needs preliminary approval
from Judge Josephine L. Staton before the class action settlement
can move forward.

The class action lawsuit includes drivers who owned or leased the
following vehicles with 2.0-liter or 2.4-liter gasoline direct
injection engines:

2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
2014-2015 and 2018-2019 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2019 Kia Optima
2012-2019 Kia Sorento
2011-2019 Kia Sportage

So far, the settlement deal does not include the Kia Soul, which
was involved in the fatal Ohio car fire that killed Keith Nash in
2017.

An Oklahoma family filed a lawsuit after their 2019 Kia Soul rental
car - seriously injuring 33-year-old Jordan Carlton -- during a
Hawaiian vacation in June.

Since April 2018, the I-Team has exposed thousands of Kia and
Hyundai fires and uncovered some of these fires may be caused by
fuel leaks resulting from improper repairs during engine recalls.

Kia and Hyundai issued sweeping recalls earlier this year after
I-Team Investigator Jackie Callaway interviewed a whistleblower and
former employee at Kia headquarters who claimed the company has
known about the fire hazard since 2017. [GN]

LIPOCINE INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lipocine Inc. ("Lipocine" or the "Company") (LPCN) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the District of Utah, and docketed under
19-cv-00906, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lipocine securities between March
27, 2019, and November 8, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lipocine common shares
within the Class Period, you have until January 14, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development of pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and
women's health. The Company's primary development programs are
based on oral delivery solutions for poorly bioavailable drugs. The
Company has a portfolio of product candidates purportedly designed
to produce pharmacokinetic characteristics and facilitate lower
dosing requirements, bypass first-pass metabolism in certain cases,
reduce side effects, and eliminate gastrointestinal interactions
that limit bioavailability.

Lipocine's lead product candidate is TLANDO (LPCN 1021), an oral
testosterone replacement therapy. The Company has previously
submitted New Drug Applications ("NDA") for TLANDO twice and, both
times, received Complete Response Letters ("CRL") from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") rejecting the NDAs. The
Company received the first CRL in June 2016 and the second in May
2018.

On March 27, 2019, during pre-market hours, Lipocine issued a press
release announcing new topline results from a study evaluating
TLANDO's effects on blood pressure (one issue cited by the FDA in a
prior CRL rejecting TLANDO's NDA), as well as the Company's
intention to refile the NDA for TLANDO in the second quarter of
2019 (the "March 2019 Press Release").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the results from Lipocine's
clinical studies of TLANDO were insufficient to demonstrate the
drug's efficacy; (ii) accordingly, Lipocine's third NDA for TLANDO
was highly likely to be found deficient by the FDA; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 11, 2019, Lipocine issued a press release announcing
receipt of a CRL from the FDA regarding its NDA for TLANDO. In the
press release, Lipocine advised investors that the FDA had again
rejected the NDA for TLANDO-this time because an efficacy trial had
not met three of its secondary endpoints.

On this news, Lipocine's stock price fell $1.93 per share, or
70.7%, to close at $0.80 per share on November 11, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]




LOUISIANA HEALTH: La. App. Affirms Class Certification in OGHA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A
PUBLIC TRUST, D/B/A OPELOUSAS GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, v. LOUISIANA
HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
LOUISIANA, Case No. 19-265 CW 19-179 (La. App.), Judge Sylvia R.
Cooks of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Third Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the trial court certifying a class of
Louisiana healthcare providers sought by Plaintiff Opelousas
General Hospital Authority ("OGHA").

OGHA alleged that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana's (BCBS-LA)
uniform contracting practices amounted to anticompetitive conduct
that was in violation of the Louisiana Anti-Trust Statute.
Specifically, OGHA alleged these unfair contracting practices
prohibited Louisiana Blue Cross providers from contracting for
reimbursement rates with any other out-of-state Blue Cross insurer,
required that Louisiana Blue Cross providers accept Louisiana Blue
Cross contracted rates from any other Blue Cross insurer, and
excluded any other Blue Cross insurer from entering the Louisiana
health insurance marker or contracting for its own reimbursement
rates with Louisiana Blue Cross providers. OGHA maintains this
results in a monopolistic market share for BCBS-LA and violates
anti-trust law under La.R.S. 51:122 and/or 51:123.

Since the filing of the suit on Aug. 24, 2016, there have been
several motions in both state and federal court that significantly
delayed the proceedings.  Although originally set for hearing on
June 29, 2017, due to the numerous motions filed by BCBS-LA and the
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the class certification was not
heard until nearly two years later on May 30, 2019.  After the
hearing on the class certification and filing of post-hearing
memoranda by both parties, the trial court rendered judgment
certifying the statewide class sought by OGHA on July 29, 2019.

On appeal, BCBS-LA contends the trial court erred in certifying the
class because OGHA did not offer any common evidence to satisfy the
elements of a violation of Louisiana's antitrust law on a
class-wide basis.  BCBS-LA also maintains one of OGHA's lead
lawyers has an irreconcilable conflict of interest due to his
service on the Board of Trustees of OGHA.

Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in certifying the
class, Judge Cooks will affirm the lower court judgment.  

First, Judge Cooks finds no error in the trial court's finding that
numerosity was met.  OGHA presented testimony that the number of
potential class members would be approximately 11,000 health care
providers throughout Louisiana.

Second, Judge Cooks agrees with OGHA and the trial court that the
commonality requirement was met as it was demonstrated the course
of conduct by BCBS-LA gave rise to a common nucleus of operative
facts, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant
number of the putative class members.  As noted, simply because
different rates may apply to providers in different areas of
Louisiana will not defeat class certification.  

Third, Judge Cooks finds no abuse of the trial court's vast
discretion in finding typicality was met in the present case.  As
OGHA notes, although different areas may have different average
rates for services, the calculation of loss will be the same, i.e.,
the difference between the allegedly unlawful contracted rate and
the providers billed charges for the services.  

Fourth, Judge Cooks finds nothing presented by BCBS-LA which would
persuade her to rule contrary to the Board of Ethics' opinion.
Moreover, the Judge finds nothing in the assertion against Mr.
Morrow that would be a factor in denying class certification in the
present case.  She finds no error in the trial court's ruling that
Mr. Morrow could participate as counsel in the matter.

Fifth, the Judge finds that the OGHA's definition clearly meets
this requirement.  BCBS-LA's own billing system (the FACET system),
will serve in defining the class as these documents can be utilized
to ascertain the harm caused to each class member as each
provider's reimbursement rate and billed charges are available for
all services rendered through the contract with BCBS-LA.

Finally, Judge Cooks finds the common claim advanced by the
proposed class is that BCBS-LA's contracted rate results from the
business model that BCBS-LA applies to all contracted healthcare
providers.  Therefore, she finds a common question of law and fact
predominates over the individual issues such that a class procedure
is the most efficient way to resolve the issues presented.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cooks affirmed the judgment of the
trial court certifying the matter as a class action.  All costs of
the appeal are assessed against the Appellant.

A full-text copy of Judge Cooks' Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zwoflS from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Filo, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C., 723 Broad
Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 582-8364, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al.

Patrick C. Morrow -- PatM@mmrblaw.com -- James P. Ryan --
JamesR@mmrblaw.com -- Morrow, Morrow, Ryan, Bassett & Haik, 324
West Landry Street, Opelousas, LA 70570, (337) 948-4483, COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et
al.

Stephen B. Murray, Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Arthur M. Murray, Murray
Law Firm, Poydras Center, Suite 2150, 650 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al.

James A. Brown, Liskow & Lewis, 701 Poydras St., Suite 5000, New
Orleans, LA 70139, (504) 581-7979, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Michael Ishee,
Liskow & Lewis, 822 Harding Street, P.O. Box 52008, Lafayette, LA
70503, (337) 232-7424, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association.

Daniel E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com -- Zachary Holmstead
-- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300
North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654, (312) 862-2000, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.


LUNG HEALTH: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------
William Wan and Laurie McGinley, writing for The Washington Post,
report that Ed Garbutt was desperate by the time he called the Lung
Health Institute. The Dallas computer parts salesman could barely
walk the length of his house without gasping for breath. Unable to
work, Garbutt, 64, was going broke paying for trips to the
emergency room.

Lung Health Institute staffers were reassuring, Garbutt recalled,
telling him that more than 80 percent of their patients with lung
disease said they found relief through their stem cell treatments
-- which would cost him $5,500, thanks to a summer sale. He said
they told him that if he didn't have the money, he could get it
other ways, like fundraising on GoFundMe.

So Garbutt raised $1,500 in donations, tapped the last of his
savings and charged the rest on his credit card. "I spent every
dime I had," he said, "hoping it would make a difference."

Over the past decade, hundreds of clinics have sprouted across the
United States selling stem cell therapies for incurable conditions
like Garbutt's lung disease, Parkinson's disease and macular
degeneration. But often, patients say, the only thing affected is
their finances.

Former patients of the Tampa-based Lung Health Institute said they
were encouraged to take out bank loans or borrow money from family
members. Some withdrew from their retirement accounts and took up
church offerings. Others borrowed against their homes.

"What they're doing is taking a predatory approach to people with
progressive, fatal diseases," said Gregory Cosgrove, chief medical
officer for the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. His foundation
issued a warning this year against such stem cell therapies, noting
that desperate patients continue to "succumb to an onslaught of
marketing and branding."

Even in a booming industry long denounced by medical experts, the
Lung Health Institute has been singled out for its aggressive
marketing and unproven claims. In 2015, for example, pulmonologists
at Johns Hopkins wrote to the Food and Drug Administration urging
it to take action against the Lung Health Institute. "We would ask
that the FDA take necessary action to prevent the further
advertising of this unproven treatment," their letter read.

Since 2013, the company has conducted a multimillion-dollar
campaign to lure patients with targeted online ads, hyped claims
and high-pressure seminars, according to internal documents and
former staff.

In interviews, former employees responsible for fielding patients'
calls said they were given monthly sales quotas. Former company
doctors and nurses described working as "closers," using their
medical credentials to persuade wavering patients to put money
down.

In two lengthy interviews, the company's chief operating officer,
Ann Sells Miller, defended the company, saying its treatments have
helped many patients who have no other options. Miller and other
executives dismissed complaints about their marketing strategies
and treatments, saying that their critics are often people who
don't understand their stem cell procedures or lawyers looking to
make money by filing lawsuits against them.

"Our patients come to us. We don't call them. They come to us
because their current standard of care is not working for them,"
Miller said. She said the company's marketing is intended to
"educate people with the disease."

The reason the company offers financial tips, Miller said, "is to
make sure that patients understand what their treatment options are
and to discuss the associated finances with it."

The FDA has not approved most stem cell treatments and has said it
considers many of them illegal. Miller and other officials at Lung
Health Institute said they believe their treatment doesn't require
FDA approval. Nevertheless, the company now plans to apply to the
FDA for approval, said Marc Scheineson, the company's lawyer, "even
though this is a long, expensive and arduous process . . . This
action distinguishes LHI from the bulk of the other providers of
stem cell and related blood-based therapies."

This article is based on documents obtained by The Washington Post,
including internal memos, telephone scripts, emails and financial
records. The Post also interviewed 14 former employees of the Lung
Health Institute, including marketers, doctors, nurses and patient
coordinators, whose job is to talk to potential customers. All were
approached separately and spoke on the condition of anonymity; most
said they were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and feared
that the company would sue them for speaking out.

Their assertions were corroborated by The Post using documents and
accounts from patients such as Garbutt and in some cases confirmed
by the company itself.

A year and a half after receiving treatments at the Lung Health
Institute, Garbutt's health has only gotten worse. He can no longer
shop or cook. He uses his monthly Social Security disability check
to pay someone to make his meals.

Meanwhile, he is still struggling to pay off a $3,000 credit card
bill from the procedure.

"I maxed out my credit card to pay for the stem cells. I don't know
how I'll pay it back," he said. "I'm just trying to take it one day
at a time."

Origins

The Lung Health Institute -- which operates clinics in Florida,
Arizona, Texas, Tennessee and Pennsylvania and has treated, by its
own count, more than 5,800 people -- began in many ways as the
offspring of another company: the Laser Spine Institute.

Laser Spine was co-founded in 2005 by James St. Louis, an osteopath
and orthopedic surgeon who offered a minimally invasive alternative
to traditional neck and back surgery. As Laser Spine grew into a
nationwide chain, with ubiquitous cable TV ads, it claimed to have
a 98 percent patient satisfaction rate.

But the company was also the subject of dozens of malpractice
lawsuits. In 2011, nine surgeons interviewed by Bloomberg
Businessweek said many surgeries by Laser Spine were unnecessary or
inappropriate. In response, Laser Spine officials at the time cited
in-house surveys showing patient satisfaction. In 2014, a
competitor sued Laser Spine, accusing it of using illegal marketing
practices such as offering free airfare and hotels to persuade
Medicare patients to sign up for procedures. Laser Spine officials
denied the allegations in court, and the case has not yet been
resolved.

This year, Laser Spine abruptly shuttered its business after banks
froze its assets amid multiple lawsuits.

Laser Spine's chief operating officer for some years was St.
Louis's son, Jimmy St. Louis III. In 2011, the son left his
father's company and founded what would become the Lung Health
Institute, using capital raised from some of his father's
investors, according to an early email to investors. Jimmy St.
Louis also enlisted his dad as the Lung Health Institute's chief
medical officer.

In an interview last year at its Tampa headquarters, the younger
St. Louis said he started the Lung Health Institute not to make
money, but because he lost grandparents to lung disease.

"There hasn't been any movement in this space really in 30 years,"
he said. "It's an area of medicine that's been largely neglected."

A former employee -- who worked at Laser Spine and followed St.
Louis to the Lung Health Institute before leaving the company for
another job -- said, "He took the Laser Spine business and
marketing and made an exact carbon copy. The only thing we did
different was swap out the product -- stem cells instead of spine
surgery."

Marketing hope

The Lung Health Institute developed a marketing profile of its
typical customer: elderly patients suffering from incurable lung
diseases who need supplemental oxygen and are not able to leave
home easily -- and therefore spend hours online, said former
employees.

Early on, the company's marketers bought ads on search engines such
as Google and Bing so its website would appear prominently whenever
anyone searched for "cure" and "treatment" for illnesses such as
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, said three former marketing
team members.

They bought ads on solitaire and blackjack sites popular among
older patients, the former marketers said, and if a city was hit by
a snowstorm, they would quickly buy more search ads in that
location, knowing patients on oxygen tanks would be homebound. And
they targeted cities with direct flights to their clinic locations,
knowing that patients on oxygen often struggled to travel with
their equipment, former marketers said.

Patients who attended seminars held by the company said they were
offered discounts if they put down a deposit on the spot.

In a statement, the company said its marketing strategy "focuses on
patient education and advocacy .  .  . through several
platforms, such as our website, online seminars."

The ads generated hundreds of "leads" each month as patients
called, emailed or clicked for more information, internal budget
documents show. Those in charge of converting the leads into sales
were called patient coordinators.

Former coordinators said they were given a minimum quota of 10
sales each month. And as recently as last year, coordinators got
paid only if they made a sale, working purely on commission,
according to Miller, the company's COO. In recent months, the
company has returned to the practice of giving coordinators a base
salary in addition to their commission, Miller said. She disputed
former coordinators' assertions that they were given firm quotas,
saying that, "like any healthy organization, we have to have
projections."

According to a 2013 marketing script, if patients asked whether the
treatments were approved by the Food and Drug Administration,
coordinators were taught to respond: Although "the treatments are
not FDA approved .  .  . all of the drugs and equipment we use
are FDA-approved."

If patients asked why insurance wouldn't cover the procedure, the
script told coordinators to answer: "I am sure that one day it
will, however, right now we want to provide treatment to those who
want it."

If patients asked whether the treatments would work on them,
coordinators were taught to point to a handful of patient
testimonials.

Several patient coordinators said they were troubled by these
calls. "Some people wouldn't have that much money, and you're doing
everything you can to convince them to use it on something you're
not sure even works," said a woman who worked at the Lung Health
Institute for two years and left for another company after she said
she became uncomfortable with the job. "People would call afterward
and say, 'I trusted you, but I don't feel any better.' Some would
call just to yell: 'I spent all this money, and you guys said this
and that. You sold me fake medicine.' Often I'd need a drink by the
end of the day."

Encouraging debt

When patients couldn't afford the procedure, the company frequently
urged them to find other sources of money, according to its own
website.

A November 2017 company blog post explained that some patients
"have turned to relatives for a loan or a gift," while others have
held "bake sales, garage/yard sales, walkathons, potlucks and
raffles." The blog also suggested obtaining "a fixed-term loan with
monthly payments."

Crowdfunding was a frequent suggestion. A 2018 study found that
more than 13,000 people had made donations for stem cell treatment
campaigns listed on two crowdfunding platforms as of December
2017.

Almost a third of all of those campaigns were related to the Lung
Health Institute. "No one goes as far as they do in actively and
explicitly pushing their patients to crowdfund and fundraise," said
Leigh Turner, the study's co-author and a bioethicist at the
University of Minnesota, who is serving as a pro bono expert
witness in a lawsuit against the company.

Lung Health Institute COO Miller said, "We don't track information
as far as how many patients use fundraising efforts or financing
efforts in order to come here."

GoFundMe has policies that prohibit fundraising for therapies
considered illegal by a regulatory body. But last year, GoFundMe's
company blog included an upbeat post touting stem cell treatments
offered by for-profit clinics.

"Patients can find a number of clinics that promise to relieve pain
or help regain declining motor skills, all with a single stem cell
injection," the blog said. "Hundreds of conditions fall under this
umbrella, with promises of curing blood disorders like sickle cell
anemia, to autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis."

After The Post asked about the blog post, GoFundMe took it down.
The company said it also launched an audit of content on its
website. But months later, the site continues to host thousands of
campaigns raising money for stem cell treatments, including more
than a hundred that mention the Lung Health Institute by name.

Former patient Tammy Rivero, who is 62 and lives on an $800 monthly
disability check, said in court testimony that a patient
coordinator persuaded her to borrow against her home at the end of
a dirt road in Hildebran, N.C.

Since receiving the treatment in 2015, however, Rivero's illness
has gotten much worse. Doctors say she now needs a double lung
transplant to survive, which would be covered by Medicare and
Medicaid. But Rivero doesn't have the money to rent an apartment
near the transplant center for months of mandatory pre- and
post-surgery rehabilitation. That would cost about $7,000, Rivero
said -- the same amount she paid the Lung Health Institute.

"I'm going to pass away for $7,000," she said.

Rivero and 34 other former patients have filed a lawsuit accusing
the Lung Health Institute of deceptive marketing practices. The
patients are seeking class-action status, said their lawyer, Ben
Vinson. Among them is Tom Johnston, a Michigan man who recalls the
excitement of his wife, Judy, upon seeing one of the company's
online ads.

Johnston, a retired pipe welder, said that clinic staff told his
wife she would no longer need her oxygen tank after the procedure.

His wife died a year later, Johnston said, still haunted by the
cost. "She kept apologizing to me for spending our money. I said,
'We spent it together.' "

In court filings, the Lung Health Institute has denied the
allegations of deceptive and unfair practices. In a statement the
company pointed out that all patients sign an informed-consent
form, which warns that the treatment might not improve their
conditions.

"As with any medicine, there are no guarantees," the company said.

'Borderline propaganda'

The company's descriptions of its procedure have evolved over the
years, but the basic premise has remained the same: extract blood
from patients, spin it in a centrifuge to isolate "stem cells" or
"platelet-rich plasma platelet-concentrate," then reintroduce those
using an IV into the patient's bloodstream, where they "naturally"
find their way to damaged parts of the lung and heal them.

Lung disease experts say there is no evidence such treatments
work.

National medical groups including the American Lung Association and
COPD Foundation have warned against such stem cell treatments.

Miller said the Lung Health Institute has never been contacted by
the FDA. She noted that its clinics have never had to report a
serious adverse event. And she said that out of the 5,800 patients
the company has treated in total, very few have filed lawsuits.

In 2016, the company self-published a white paper on its website
that said almost 85 percent of patients say they experienced
improvements in "quality of life." Since then, the company has
presented similar data in academic conference presentations and
articles.

But unlike many medical studies, the Lung Health Institute's do not
include a control group of patients who received a placebo. And all
of its data, except for a one-page conference presentation, relied
on follow-up phone surveys with patients rather than physical
measurements, such as pulmonary function tests. The company's own
researchers acknowledged the limitations of the data, concluding in
one report: "There is a very real possibility that response may
simply be a placebo effect."

A stem cell researcher, Arnold Caplan -- hired by the Lung Health
Institute to testify in court as its expert -- said he found the
data convincing.

"The truth is, I don't exactly know how [the treatments] work,"
said Caplan, a biologist at Case Western Reserve University. But
after seeing the phone surveys conducted by the company, he said,
"The important point for me is, there are clearly statistically
relevant and positive outcomes from these treatments."

But three leading pulmonologists with no connection to the company
or to any legal action said they found the data unconvincing and
flawed, given its lack of comparative groups and placebo controls
and other methodological problems.

"It's borderline propaganda to suggest this information is evidence
of efficacy," said Cosgrove, a pulmonologist at National Jewish
Health in Denver, which runs one of the world's largest
interstitial lung disease programs.

The company's claims are "a nothing, a come on," said Michael
Matthay, a pulmonologist and stem cell researcher at the University
of California at San Francisco. "Those statements are not supported
by any medical data or medical studies."

"There has never been a randomized trial" for this treatment's
effect on lung diseases, said Marilyn K. Glassberg Csete, a leading
expert in lung diseases and stem cell therapies at the University
of Miami. "There's no data."

Some patients said they felt better after the cellular procedures.

During a reporter's visit to the Lung Health Institute's Tampa
offices, company executives arranged interviews with two patients
-- Larry Wood, 71, and Marie Hilton, 74 -- who said the treatment
improved their breathing.

Before the infusion, Hilton said, "I couldn't go grocery shopping.
.   .  . I couldn't clean my house or vacuum without oxygen."
She said she was able to stop using an oxygen tank after her
$12,000 treatment last year.

Wood said he paid $6,500 for the procedure in 2014 after being
offered a discount at a company seminar. "I found within about
three weeks I had improved lung function," he said. But the
improvements only lasted about 10 months, he said, and he now pays
$1,500 every three to four months for booster treatments.

Researchers said anecdotes like that are what make clinical trials
so important. "You want to rule out things like placebo effects,"
Cosgrove said. "If you as a patient paid $10,000 for treatment,
you're going to want it to work. You may even start taking care of
yourself better to try to make it work. There are all sorts of
factors that you need to control for."

Adapting to new rules

The FDA has made clear that selling unapproved stem cell therapies
is illegal and won a recent lawsuit barring a prominent clinic from
offering a treatment based on fat cells. After the FDA started
cracking down on fat-based stem cell treatments, the Lung Health
Institute stopped selling them and focused on selling its
blood-based treatments.

Company executives said they made the change not to avoid
regulation, but because they felt the blood-based treatment was
less invasive.

In the summer of 2017, Google suddenly stopped permitting the Lung
Health Institute to buy search engine ads, a crucial source of
sales leads, according to five former employees.

When asked by The Post about its actions related to Lung Health
Institute's ads, Google declined to comment. In a statement, the
company said: "If we find ads that violate our policies, we take
immediate action, which can include taking down violating ads or
suspending an account altogether."

Lung Health Institute officials denied they did anything wrong and
said that "Google began to update its internal policy and rules for
advertising related to regenerative medicine." Company officials
said, "[We] hold ourselves to the highest standards and will
continue to evolve to stay within guidelines."

The result was a sharp drop in sales leads. "They told us to start
calling back every one of our old leads, to hand out discounts and
offer booster treatments to past patients," one former coordinator
said. "We didn't know if we were going to survive."

Around the same time, the company changed its name. For years, it
had been called the Lung Institute, but in 2017, the company
inserted the word "Health" and moved to a new main website --
thelunghealthinstitute.com. Former employees said the rebranding
solved some of the search engine and ad problems. Company officials
said it was done to reflect "expanded services."

In September this year, Google announced a policy barring ads for
"unproven or experimental medical techniques such as most stem cell
therapy." Google said it was taking the step after seeing "a rise
in bad actors attempting to take advantage of individuals by
offering untested, deceptive treatments."

Amid growing scrutiny and regulation of stem cell clinics, the Lung
Health Institute made another change last year, removing all
mention of "stem cells" from its website. The company now calls its
procedure "cellular therapy" and "platelet-rich plasma
platelet-concentrate," or PRP-PC. Company officials said that their
procedure hasn't changed, and that they still believe their
treatment contains stem cells. They said their language change
reflects how "regenerative medicine has evolved."

The move, however, came after the FDA issued tougher regulations
making clear most stem cell therapies being sold are illegal and
promising to crack down on bad actors.

Attorney Scheineson, a former top FDA official who now represents
the Lung Health Institute, said in an interview that because the
company's sole treatment now is PRP-PC, it isn't subject to stem
cell regulations and instead is governed by rules for blood banks.

FDA officials declined to talk about Lung Institute, but have said
in recent months that their agency has struggled to regulate an
industry that is rapidly expanding and morphing.

FDA officials said in general that PRP isn't covered by the same
regulations as stem cells. But they also said that using a device
such as a centrifuge to manufacture PRP for an unproven medical use
— such as treating COPD -- may still require review by the FDA.
The FDA has never approved the use of a centrifuge for COPD, they
said.

In addition, generally if a product is described as something that
can "treat" a disease, then it is subject to much tougher
regulation, according to FDA experts.

"When you start saying it will improve COPD, that's an intended use
that, from FDA's perspective, would require a higher degree of
regulation," said Mark Schwartz, an attorney who served as deputy
director in FDA's Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality
between 2012 and 2015.

The company said it plans to begin the application process with the
FDA for conducting a clinical trial and getting FDA approval needed
for its stem cell treatment. At the same time, the company said, it
will keep selling its treatment even as it makes its FDA
application.

Meanwhile, Lung Health Institute executives have made plans to
expand. Late last year, the Lung Health Institute was acquired by
Medovex, a medical technology products company run by former Laser
Spine executive William "Bill" Horne. In April, the company raised
$7.2 million in new capital, and in recent weeks it raised another
$6 million. Horne has said he plans to open more Lung Health
Institute clinics.

In July, Medovex announced it was changing its name to "H-CYTE" and
had entered into a business partnership with a start-up called Rion
LLC -- run by two researchers from the prestigious Mayo Clinic --
to develop a new "proprietary cellular platform" to treat COPD.

In news releases, the company said the two researchers -- Atta
Behfar and Andre Terzic, who research regenerative medicine at Mayo
-- had joined its board of directors.

When reached by phone, Behfar said he was unaware that patients
have accused the Lung Health Institute of deceptive marketing and
sued the company he was partnering with. "To be perfectly frank, I
don't have much awareness in regards to what Lung Health Institute
has done," he said.

Behfar said the goal of the partnership is to test a new cellular
treatment for COPD -- different from the one the Lung Health
Institute currently sells -- using FDA-sanctioned clinical trials.
The new treatment will not be sold to patients until it's proved
effective by rigorous science, Behfar said.

Contrary to the news releases, however, the two Mayo researchers
never agreed to serve on the board of directors, according to
Behfar and Rion LLC's chief administrative officer, Mike Pfenning.
"We've asked them to issue a retraction to correct that," Pfenning
said. "They just agreed to serve in an unpaid advisory role."

In an interview this fall, Miller -- chief operating officer for
H-CYTE and the Lung Health Institute -- insisted that Terzic and
Behfar were indeed members of her company's board of directors. But
in a news release in December, the company said the two doctors had
resigned from the board of directors and instead become scientific
advisers.

Miller said that the company hopes to sell the new treatment it is
developing initially to COPD patients. But they plan to expand that
business model and sell it eventually to many more patients
suffering from a whole range in­tractable diseases. [GN]


MDL 1264: Lawyer Fees Redetermination in Securities Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri denied David P. Oetting's motion for
redetermination of attorneys' fees in IN RE BANKAMERICA CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:99 MD 1264 CDP (E.D. Mo.).

The issue before the Court is whether the class is entitled to a
partial refund of attorneys' fees.  When the underlying
multi-district class action settled in 2002, the Court at that time
approved an award of attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel that
equaled 18% of the net settlement fund for each respective class.
For the NationsBank classes, the net settlement fund was
$326,841,246.48, which resulted in a $58,831,424.38 award of
attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel.  The Lead Counsel for the
NationsBank classes, the law firm of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.,
was charged with the duty of distributing the fee award to the
other Class Counsel who participated in the case.  The other law
firms participating as either the Co-Lead Counsel or as an
Executive Committee Member for the NationsBank classes were
Chitworth & Hartley, Stull Stull & Brody, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP,
and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.3

The first distribution from the Fund to the NationsBank class
members began in July 2004.  In June 2008, the Court authorized a
second distribution to NationsBank class members, but that
distribution was stayed in August 2008.  The Court lifted the stay
in April 2009 and ordered the second distribution to begin under
the terms of the June 2008 Order.  Under the terms of the
settlement agreement itself, the Court was permitted in its
discretion to contribute to non-sectarian, not-for-profit
organizations all unclaimed settlement funds that remained in the
Fund after distribution was completed.

In September 2012, after three-and-a-half years of additional
proceedings, Lead Counsel Green Jacobson moved for cy pres
distribution of the nearly $3 million that remained in the
NationsBank Fund and to terminate the case with respect to the
NationsBank classes.  Green Jacobson also moved for an award of
post-settlement attorneys' fees in the lodestar amount of $97,790,
representing work performed from Dec. 1, 2004, to April 3, 2012.
With $324.34 in expenses, Green Jacobson sought a total award of
$98,114.34.

Oetting objected to the motion in toto and to the fee request in
particular, asserting that Green Jacobson did not earn these
supplemental fees.  The Court granted Green Jacobson's motion in
June 2013, ordered cy pres distribution of the remaining Fund, and
awarded Green Jacobson $98,114.34 in fees and expenses.  In January
2015, the Eighth Circuit vacated the cy pres distribution and
likewise vacated the attorneys' fee award given that, without cy
pres distribution, money from the Fund remained to be distributed
to class members thereby rendering the award of supplemental fees
premature.  The cy pres and attorneys' fee/expense monies have
since been returned to the NationsBank Fund.

In March 2015, shortly after mandate issued on the Eighth Circuit's
decision, Green Jacobson entered into bankruptcy, which was
triggered by an unrelated state-court malpractice judgment.  The
Court thereafter removed Green Jacobson as the Lead Counsel for the
NationsBank classes and appointed Frank H. Tomlinson as the Lead
Counsel.

In August 2019, NationsBank class representative Oetting filed the
motion now under consideration, requesting that the Court
redetermines the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded in the
case, in toto.  Specifically, Oetting requests that the Court
orders all the Class Counsel to forfeit and disgorge the
$58,831,424.38 in fees that were awarded back in 2002 and, further,
that it makes a determination that fees equal to the lodestar
amount calculated in 2002 -- that is, $20,188,345.75 -- are fair
and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Oetting contends that the Class Counsel is entitled to no fee other
than these lodestar fees.  The bankruptcy trustee for the Green
Jacobson law firm opposes the motion as do the law firms of
Chitworth & Hartley, Stull Stull & Brody, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP,
and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.  Individual
attorneys Martin M. Green and Joe D. Jacobson likewise oppose the
motion.

Judge Perry holds that the doctrine of laches bars NationsBank
class representative Oetting's motion for the Class Counsel to
forfeit and disgorge the nearly $59 million in attorneys' fees that
were awarded in the securities class action in 2002.  The Judge
will not redetermine the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees
initially awarded in 2002 and is precluded from doing so given that
the reasonableness of that fee has already been litigated and
decided.  The Judge will reinstate the supplemental fee award of
$98,114.34 to Green Jacobson, P.C., given that such fees are
reasonable and presently compensable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/AQsf6H from Leagle.com.

BankAmerica Corporation, In Re, represented by Brian E. McGovern
-- bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- MCCARTHY AND LEONARD, James H.
Ferrick, III -- jhf@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER,
PC, Marie Seth Weiner, COTCHETT AND PITRE, Richard M. Donaldson,
GRANT AND EISENHOFER, P.A. & Stuart M. Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com
-- GRANT AND EISENHOFER, P.A.

Joseph Hempen, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron L. Brody --
abrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Andrew J. Entwistle --
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI, Donald H.
Clooney, CLOONEY AND ANDERSON, Harold F. McGuire, Jr., ENTWISTLE
AND CAPPUCCI, Joe D. Jacobson -- Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com --
JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Jonathan F. Andres, JONATHAN F. ANDRES,
P.C., Jules Brody -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Martin
D. Chitwood, CHITWOOD AND HARLEY, Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN GREEN P.C., Robert Abrams -- abrams@whafh.com -- WOLF AND
HALDENSTEIN & Vincent R. Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
-- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI.

John M. Koehler, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron L. Brody, STULL
AND STULL, Andrew J. Entwistle, ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI, Daniel W.
Krasner, WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN LLC, Donald H. Clooney, CLOONEY AND
ANDERSON, Joe D. Jacobson, JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Jonathan F.
Andres, JONATHAN F. ANDRES, P.C., Jules Brody, STULL AND STULL,
Martin D. Chitwood, CHITWOOD AND HARLEY, Martin M. Green, LAW
OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C., Mitchell A. Margo, CURTIS AND
HEINZ, P.C., Nicole Tuman, MURTHA CULLINA, LLP, Robert Abrams,
WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN, Vincent R. Cappucci, ENTWISTLE AND
CAPPUCCI, James R. Mendillo, FREEARK AND HARVEY & W. Jeffrey
Muskopf, SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC.

David P. Oetting, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron L. Brody --
abrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Andrew J. Entwistle --
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI, Donald H.
Clooney, CLOONEY AND ANDERSON, Harold F. McGuire, Jr., ENTWISTLE
AND CAPPUCCI, Joe D. Jacobson -- Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com --
JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Jonathan F. Andres, JONATHAN F. ANDRES,
P.C., Jules Brody -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Martin
D. Chitwood, CHITWOOD AND HARLEY, Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN GREEN P.C., Robert Abrams -- abrams@whafh.com -- WOLF AND
HALDENSTEIN & Vincent R. Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
-- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI.

David P. Oetting, Plaintiff, pro se.

Selma Kaiser, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Abbey --
aabbey@abbeyspanier.com -- ABBEY AND GARDY, Clinton A. Krislov --
clint@krislovlaw.com -- KRISLOV AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., Daniel W.
Krasner, WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN LLC, James S. Notis --
jnotis@gardylaw.com --  ABBEY AND GARDY, Michael R. Karnuth,
KRISLOV AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. & Stephen T. Rodd --
srodd@abbeyspanier.com -- ABBEY AND GARDY.

Brian Markee & Walter E. Ryan, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by
Arthur N. Abbey, ABBEY AND GARDY, Clinton A. Krislov, KRISLOV AND
ASSOCIATES, LTD., James S. Notis, ABBEY AND GARDY, Michael R.
Karnuth, KRISLOV AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. & Stephen T. Rodd, ABBEY
AND GARDY.

Kevin Kloster, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron L. Brody --
abrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Andrew J. Entwistle --
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI, Donald H.
Clooney, CLOONEY AND ANDERSON, Harold F. McGuire, Jr., ENTWISTLE
AND CAPPUCCI, Joe D. Jacobson -- Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com --
JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Jonathan F. Andres, JONATHAN F. ANDRES,
P.C., Jules Brody -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- STULL AND STULL, Martin
D. Chitwood, CHITWOOD AND HARLEY, Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN GREEN P.C., Robert Abrams -- abrams@whafh.com -- WOLF AND
HALDENSTEIN & Vincent R. Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
-- ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI.

Heffler Radetich & Saitta, LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Howard
D. Scher -- howard.scher@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL, P.C.,
Scott J. Dickenson -- sdickenson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE
LLP & Thomas P. Manning -- thomas.manning@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN
INGERSOLL, P.C.

NationsBank Classes, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
David P. Oetting, DAVID P. OETTING, Frank H. Tomlinson, FRANK H.
TOMLINSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, pro hac vice, Joe D. Jacobson,
JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN
GREEN P.C. & Jonathan F. Andres, JONATHAN F. ANDRES, P.C.

BankAmerica Classes, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Joe D. Jacobson, JACOBSON PRESS, P.C., Stephen T. Rodd, ABBEY AND
GARDY & Andrew J. Entwistle, ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI.

Hugh L. McColl, Jr., James H. Hance, Jr., Marc D. Oken & Bank of
America, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell --
jsrussell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, John Michael Clear --
jmclear@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan M. Moses --
JMMoses@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL AND LIPTON, Robert B. Mazur --
RBMazur@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL AND LIPTON & Warren R. Stern --
WRStern@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL AND LIPTON.

David A. Coulter, Michael E. O'Neill & John J. Higgins,
Defendants, represented by Barry A. Short -- bshort@lewisrice.com
-- LEWIS RICE, LLC, David H. Fry -- David.Fry@mto.com-- MUNGER
AND TOLLES, LLP, Jeffrey S. Russell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, John Michael
Clear, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Jonathan M. Moses, WACHTELL AND LIPTON,
Mark H. Epstein, MUNGER AND TOLLES, Robert B. Mazur, WACHTELL AND
LIPTON, Ronald L. Olson, -- Ron.Olson@mto.com -- MUNGER AND
TOLLES & Warren R. Stern, WACHTELL AND LIPTON.

Ernesto Gumapas, Sydney Sorkin & Herman Shyken, Intervenors,
represented by Christopher P. Seefer -- chriss@rgrdlaw.com --
MILBERG AND WEISS.

Carol Mackay, Executrix of the estate of, Intervenor, represented
by Jeffrey S. Kessinger.

Joe D. Jacobson, Intervenor, pro se.

David A. Sosne, Intervenor, represented by Daniel J. Welsh --
dwelsh@summerscomptonwells.com -- SUMMERS AND COMPTON, LLC, Jill
R. Rembusch -- jrembusch@summerscomptonwells.com -- SUMMERS AND
COMPTON, LLC & Stephen C. Hiotis --
shiotis@summerscomptonwells.com -- SUMMERS AND COMPTON, LLC.

JAS Securities, LLC, Movant, represented by Andrew J. Entwistle,
ENTWISTLE AND CAPPUCCI & Vincent R. Cappucci, ENTWISTLE AND
CAPPUCCI.

Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Movant, represented
by Christopher P. Seefer, MILBERG AND WEISS.

Wachovia Bank, N. A., Movant, represented by Mark H. Levison --
mlevison@lashlybaer.com -- LASHLY AND BAER, P.C.

Donald H. Clooney, Movant, represented by Timothy R. Anderson,
CLOONEY AND ANDERSON.

Chitwood and Harley, LLC, Movant, represented by Martin D.
Chitwood, CHITWOOD AND HARLEY.


MDL 2741: Sheller v. BAYER AG Over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled AARON SHELLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER AG and MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04063 (Filed Sept. 30, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 9, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07972-VC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Mr. Sheller, who is a partial owner of Sheller Farms says that he
regularly participated in the spraying of 300-700 gallons of
Roundup on 1000-3000 acres of farmland twice per year for 15 years.
Until 2018, he only wore gloves while spraying Roundup but was not
warned and did not know he should wear any other protective gear,
he adds. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to
Roundup, Mr. Sheller is at an increased risk for developing
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other illness, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff brings the action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Sheller case is being consolidated with MDL 2741, In re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          Anne Medlin Lowe, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Ave.
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317 633-5270
          E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com
                  alowe@rwp-law.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24 th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312.741.1019
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  tim@feganscott.com

               - and -

          Lynn Ellenberger, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          500 Grant St., Ste. 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412 515 1529
          E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD
          & WEESE, P.C.,
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: 515 223 4567
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Russel Cate, Esq.
          CATE, TERRY & GOOKINS LLC
          301 East Carmel Drive, Suite C300
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone 317 564 0016
          E-mail: rcate@ctglaw.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned GEORGE VOEKS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI & KRAMER
P.A. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01895-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants)
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
asserts.

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 avers.

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


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued by Shields for Underpaying ACV Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
TASHAL SHIELDS, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
(MetLife), Case No. 1:19-cv-00222-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss., Dec. 9,
2019), challenges MetLife's practice of withholding labor costs as
depreciation in connection to MetLife's calculation of the
Plaintiff's actual cash value payment.

Ms. Shields owned a home located at 2519 North Melody Park, in
Alcorn County, Mississippi (the "Insured Premises"). She was
insured pursuant to an insurance contract whereby MetLife agreed to
insure her property located on the Insured Premises against
property damage, bearing Policy No. 0720848000 (the "Shields
Policy").

On April 10, 2017, Ms. Shields' dwelling located on the Insured
Premises suffered direct physical loss. She promptly notified
MetLife of the Loss and made a claim against the Shields Policy.
After its inspection, MetLife determined that the Loss was covered
by the terms of the Shields Policy.

When it calculated her ACV benefits owed under the Shields Policy,
MetLife withheld costs for both materials and the labor required to
repair or replace her home as depreciation, even though labor does
not depreciate in value over time, Ms. Shields contends. MetLife
withheld labor costs throughout its ACV calculations as
depreciation. She adds that MetLife also withheld labor costs as
depreciation for other work necessary to repair and replace her
property.

The Plaintiff contends that MetLife materially breached its duty to
indemnify her by withholding labor costs associated with repairing
or replacing her property in its ACV payment as depreciation,
thereby, paying her less than she was entitled to receive under the
terms of the Shields Policy.

MetLife is a national insurer that provides property coverage for
homes and mobile homes. The company is engaged in the insurance
business in the state of Mississippi and Tennessee, including
issuing insurance policies covering property in Alcorn County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com

               - and -

          Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 7th Street E., Suite 800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-312.6510
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com


MILANO MARKET: Melchor Seeks Minimum, OT Pay for Delivery Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO ESTRADA MELCHOR, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILANO MARKET PLACE INC. (D/B/A
MILANO MARKET), MILANO MARKET, INC. (D/B/A MILANO MARKET), LUISA
MARIE INC. (D/B/A MILANO MARKET), 2892 BROADWAY MARKET INC. (D/B/A
MILANO MARKET), ROCKY 123 INC. (D/B/A MILANO MARKET), CAMILLO
GALOFARO, ANTHONY GALOFARO, LUISA MARIE LICCIARDI, JOSE DOE, and
JONATHAN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11277 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9,
2019), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Estrada is a former delivery worker
of the Defendants. He was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including breading chicken,
cleaning the kitchen, cleaning the bathrooms, dish-washing, washing
the fridges, taking out the garbage, bringing up beverages, mixing
greens and meats to the main floor, stocking beverages in the main
floor, bringing down bread from the main floor down to the basement
and sweeping and mopping (the "non-tipped duties"), the lawsuit
says.

Mr. Estrada contends that the Defendants employed and accounted for
him as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his
duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the
alleged non-tipped duties.

Under both the FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants were not entitled to
take a tip credit because his non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of
each workday, or two hours per day, whichever is less in each day,
Mr. Estrada contends.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian grocery, located
at 2892 Broadway, in New York City, under the name "Milano Market."
Individual Defendants Camillo Galofaro, Anthony Galofaro, Luisa
Marie Licciardi, Jose Doe, and Jonathan Doe, serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MUTUALFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Suit Over Sale to Northwest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MUTUALFIRST FINANCIAL, INC., WILBUR R. DAVIS, MICHELLE
A. ALTOBELLA, MARK L. BARKLEY, JAMES M. BERNARD, LINN A. CRULL,
DAVID W. HEETER, BRIAN C. HEWITT, WILLIAM V. HUGHES, RICHARD J.
LASHLEY, EDWARD C. LEVY, MICHAEL J. MARIEN, CHARLES J. VIATER, and
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00008-UNA (D. Del.,
Jan. 3, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
MutualFirst will be acquired by Northwest Bancshares, Inc.

On October 29, 2019, MutualFirst's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Northwest. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
MutualFirst's stockholders will receive 2.4 shares of Northwest for
each share of MutualFirst they own.

On December 20, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that the Registration
Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts
of interest of KBW, and that it fails to disclose the amount of
compensation KBW received for acting "as financial advisor to
MutualFirst Financial in connection with its February 2018
acquisition of Universal Bancorp." The Registration Statement also
fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications
regarding future employment and directorship of the Company's
officers and directors, including who participated in all such
communications.

The Plaintiff is the owner of MutualFirst common stock. The
Plaintiff asserts 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 plaintiff
and the Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed
Transaction.

MutualFirst is the holding company of MutualBank, an Indiana-based
financial institution operating since 1889 with assets of $2.1
billion as of September 30, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Morganti Notes of March 2 Hearing on Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Morganti & Co, P.C., announces that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court") has scheduled a hearing to be held
on March 2, 2020 at 10 am at the courthouse located at 161 Elgin
Street in Ottawa, Ontario (the "Settlement Approval Hearing") to
approve a settlement among all of the parties to the class
proceeding styled as Ronald Tarrant v. Namaste Technologies, Inc.,
Sean Dollinger and Philip Van Den Berg, bearing Court File No.
CV-18-78184 (the "Action").

Background

The Action was commenced on behalf of persons and entities who,
during the period from November 29, 2017 to February 4, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), acquired shares of Namaste
Technologies Inc. ("Namaste") on the TSX and/or FSE and held some
or all of such shares as of the close of trading on any of October
3, 2018, October 15, 2018 or February 3, 2019. In the Action it is
alleged that during the Class Period, the defendants made
misrepresentations concerning Namaste's divestiture of its US
operations in December of 2017.

At the conclusion of full day mediation in July 2019, the parties
agreed to settle the Action to fully, definitively and permanently
resolve all claims asserted against the defendants, subject to
approval of a written Settlement Agreement by the Court at the
Settlement Approval Hearing.

The Settlement

The terms of settlement ("Settlement") include the defendants'
consent to certification of the Action for settlement purposes
only, payment of the amount of $2.15 million USD on behalf of the
defendants, a full and final release of all claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted against the defendants by
class members in the Action, and the defendants' express denial of
any liability in respect of the claims alleged in the Action and of
any kind whatsoever. The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at
www.morgantico.com/namaste-technologies/,
www.namastesecuritiesclassaction.com, or in the investor relations
section of www.namastetechnologies.com.

If the Settlement is approved at the Settlement Approval Hearing, a
further notice will be published which will include instructions on
how Class Members can file Claim Forms to participate in the pro
rata distribution of the net settlement funds and the deadline for
doing so.

The Class

If you acquired securities in Namaste Technologies, Inc., on either
the TSX in Canada or the FSE in Germany on or after November 29,
2017, and held some or all of those shares until after the close of
trading on October 3, 2018, October 15, 2018, or February 3, 2019,
you will likely be entitled to participate in the settlement after
the Court has approved it.

Objections

At the Settlement Approval Hearing, the Court will consider any
objections to the proposed Settlement by the Class Members if the
objections are submitted in writing in the manner described in the
Notice of Certification and Proposed Settlement of the Namaste
Securities Class Action located at
www.namastesecuritiesclassaction.com.

Opting-Out

Class Members who wish to pursue their own action or who do not
want to be bound by the outcome of this Action MUST OPT-OUT of the
Action.

If you want to opt-out of the Action, you must send an OPT-OUT FORM
stating that you elect to opt-out of the Class in the Namaste Class
Action.

The Opt-Out Form is available at
www.namastesecuritiesclassaction.com and must be received by the
Administrator on or before February 21, 2020.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, each Class Member who
does not opt-out of the Action will be bound by the terms of the
Settlement, including a release of all claims against the
defendants, and will not be allowed to pursue an independent
action.

Attending the Settlement Approval Hearing

Class Members may attend the Settlement Approval Hearing whether or
not they deliver an objection. The Court may permit Class Members
to participate in the Settlement Approval Hearing whether or not
they deliver an objection. Class Members who wish for a lawyer to
speak on their behalf at the Approval Hearing may retain one to do
so at their own expense.

Questions

Morganti & Co., P.C. is a law firm that investigates, litigates and
resolves economic and financial disputes. You may learn more about
Morganti & Co., P.C., at www.morgantico.com.

Contact:

         Ian Literovich, Esq.
         Morganti & Co., P.C.
         21 St. Clair Ave. East, Suite 1102
         Toronto, ON M4T 1L9
         Tel: (647) 344-1900 x9
         Fax: (416) 352-7638
         E-mail: iliterovich@morgantico.com
[GN]



OHIO: Allen Moves for Certification of Two Unit Employees Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Jared Allen, Christina Cole,
Jeremy Dunaway, Eric Hendrickson, Jennifer Tom, on their own behalf
and a class of similarly situated v. Ohio Civil Service Employees
Association AFSCME, Local 11, Mike DeWine, in his official capacity
as Governor of the State of Ohio, Matthew M. Damschroder, in his
official capacity as Director of the Ohio Department of
Administrative Services, Case No. 2:19-cv-03709-SDM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), move the Court to:

   (1) certify a class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B),
       and/or (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
       consists of:

       all unit employees who are subject or were subject to
       Section 4.03 of Defendants' collective bargaining
       agreement or any similar maintenance-of-membership
       requirement;

   (2) certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3)
       that consists of:

       all unit employees from whom, at any time after June 27,
       2018, Defendants deducted or collected union dues after
       receiving notification from the individual that he or she
       did not consent to paying union dues; and

   (3) appoint William Messenger, Esq., and Donald Brey, Esq., as
       class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

In the alternative, Plaintiff Employees ask that the Court certify
the class or subclass, or appoint the class counsel, the Court
deems appropriate.

The Plaintiff Employees are employed by the State of Ohio.  They
and over 30,000 other state employees are subject to a collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the State Defendants and Ohio
Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11 ("OCSEA"),
effective May 12, 2018, to February 28, 2021.

On June 27, 2018, roughly a month after the CBA became effective,
the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448,
2486 (2018) held that state employees have a First Amendment right
not to subsidize union speech. The Court further held that states
cannot deduct payments for union speech from employees' wages
unless they waive that right.

The State Defendants and OCSEA prohibit most state employees from
exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus.  Section 4.03
of the Defendants' CBA requires all employees, who were OCSEA
members when the CBA became effective in May 2018, or who became
union members thereafter, to remain OCSEA members as a condition of
their employment until the CBA expires in February 28, 2021.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald C. Brey, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 340-7457
          E-mail: dbrey@isaacwiles.com

               - and -

          William Messenger, Esq.
          C/O NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Rd., Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Deceptive Practices Could Lead to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Duggan, writing for Benzinga, reports that former Kase
Capital Management hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson called out
Paypal Holdings Inc for practices that he said could leave the
company vulnerable to a class action lawsuit.

When recently using the payment app to send funds to a friend,
Tilson said he came across "highly deceptive practices" that are a
"total scam."

Tilson's Allegations On PayPal
Tilson's beef has to do with PayPal attempting to charge him its
2.9% fee for buying goods from a merchant even though he was merely
sending cash to a friend, a service PayPal offers free of charge.

After entering his friend's information, a screen popped up that
offered purchase protection and gave two clickable options: "Send
to someone you trust" or "Continue," with "Continue" seemingly the
default option. Tilson said he didn't want purchase protection, so
he clicked continue, and his friend was charged a 2.9% fee for the
transfer. Given the transfer was a large one, Tilson said this fee
amounted to hundreds of dollars.

Tilson realized he apparently should have chosen "Send to someone
you trust," but PayPal didn't make clear what was happening or that
he would be charged the fee.

"I have three problems with this: a) It wasn't visible on my screen
when I went to click the 'Send Payment Now' button -- I had to
scroll up to the top to see it . . . b) Only in the fine print does
it say 'Paying for an item or service' . . .  and c) There is no
disclosure anywhere on the page that PayPal is going to charge a
fee on this transaction," Tilson said.

In addition, the confirmation email Tilson received from PayPal
claimed his friend would receive the full amount, which wasn't the
case.

"Every sophisticated company carefully designs and tests every
element of their website and purchase/payment process, so I'm
certain that this is a carefully orchestrated plan -- what I call a
scam -- to increase the number of people paying fees
unnecessarily," he said.

Legal Fallout?
Tilson suggested lawyers looking for a potentially huge class
action case against a big company could have a major opportunity in
PayPal.

He said he called PayPal to complain and they advised him to tell
his friend to cancel the transaction, which allowed Tilson to
re-send the money free of charge.

"I don't think that this, by itself, is sufficient grounds to short
the stock of this rapidly growing company . . . but I'd want to
look into it if I were a shareholder, especially given the stock's
nosebleed valuation (7.2 times revenue, 37.7 times EBITDA, and 50.7
times trailing earnings)," Tilson wrote.

Benzinga reached out to PayPal for comment on Tilson's comments.

Benzinga's Take
There's a thin line between steering customers in the right
direction and deceiving them into paying for services they don't
want. If PayPal has crossed that line, it could ultimately be a
costly mistake for the company and its investors. [GN]




PLANTRONICS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Plantronics, Inc.
("Plantronics" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLT) investors who
purchased securities between July 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On November 5, 2019, the Company disclosed a $65 million reduction
in channel inventory "by reducing sales to channel partners" and
slashed its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting revenue between $1.72
billion and $1.81 billion and adjusted EBITDA between $282 million
and $323 million. Plantronics also reported that its Executive Vice
President of Global Sales was leaving the Company.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $14.44 per share, or
nearly 37%, to close at $25.00 per share on November 6, 2019,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to
artificially boost sales; (2) that the Company's internal control
over inventory levels was not effective; (3) that the Company had
not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product
launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging
products; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plantronics securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
January 13, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                lportnoy@glancylaw.com
[GN]


PLANTRONICS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Jan. 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-plt/   


Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-yj/
            

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-afi/    
        

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wsg/


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



PLANTRONICS INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Plantronics, Inc. (PLT). There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: July 2, 2018 to November 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 13, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Plantronics,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in channel
stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) the Company's internal
control over inventory levels was not effective; (3) the Company
had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple
product launches, where the new models would displace demand for
aging products; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in PLT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/plantronics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=4762&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Gross Law Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.


Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)

Investors Affected : February 15, 2019 - August 2, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Prudential Financial, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's reserve
assumptions failed to account for adversely developing mortality
experience in the Individual Life business segment; (b) the Company
was not over-reserved, but instead, its reported reserves,
particularly for the Individual Life business segment, were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefits liabilities; and
(c) the Company had materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income as a result of flawed assumptions in
calculating mortality experience.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/prudential-financial-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4871&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         CONTACT:
         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]




PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU). There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered
a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)
Class Period: February 15, 2019 to August 2, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 27, 2020

Throughout the class period, Prudential Financial, Inc. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (b) the Company was not
over-reserved, but instead, its reported reserves, particularly for
the Individual Life business segment, were insufficient to satisfy
its future policy benefits liabilities; and (c) the Company had
materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income as
a result of flawed assumptions in calculating mortality
experience.

Learn about your recoverable losses in PRU:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/prudential-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?id=4762&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]




PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Prudential
Financial. To determine your eligibility and get free access to our
shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates,
automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please
contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU)
PRU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 15, 2019
- August 2, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/prudential-financial-inc-loss-form?prid=4853&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Prudential Financial, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's
reserve assumptions failed to account for adversely developing
mortality experience in the Individual Life business segment; (b)
the Company was not over-reserved, but instead, its reported
reserves, particularly for the Individual Life business segment,
were insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefits
liabilities; and (c) the Company had materially understated its
liabilities and overstated net income as a result of flawed
assumptions in calculating mortality experience.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]


QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02004 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 9,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully placed unsolicited automated text messages to his
cellular phone. The Plaintiff brings the class action lawsuit for
damages resulting from the unlawful actions of QuoteWizard.

On October 22, 2019, QuoteWizard sent an automated text message to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone from the telephone number (360)
334-3 7897, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff contends that he did
not give "prior express consent" to receive text messages from the
Defendant or an ATDS.

QuoteWizard, founded in 2007, is a sales lead generator that offers
online interactive marketing for insurance companies. The Defendant
offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home, life,
health, and renters insurances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 800 400 6808
          Facsimile: 800 520 5523
          E-mail: abbas@kazlg.com


REALREAL INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of The RealReal, Inc. (REAL). There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

The RealReal, Inc. (REAL)
Class Period: all persons and entities who purchased RealReal
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's June
27, 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 24, 2020

The REAL lawsuit alleges The RealReal, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the
class period that: (1) the Company's employees received little
training on how to spot fake items; (2) the Company's strict quotas
on its employees exacerbated product authentication issues; (3)
consequently, the potential for counterfeit or mislabeled items to
make it through Company's authentication process was higher than
disclosed; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in REAL:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/the-realreal-inc-loss-submission-form?id=4762&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:
         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Resideo Technologies, Inc. between
October 10, 2018 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 7, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Resideo investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Resideo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1719.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the negative operational effects of the Honeywell
spin-off were more substantial and persistent than disclosed and
had negatively affected the Company's product sales, supply chain,
and gross margins, putting Resideo's fiscal 2019 financial
forecasts at risk; (2) as a consequence, Resideo's financial
guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track
to make its fiscal 2019 guidance as defendants had claimed; and (3)
as a result, Resideo's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 7,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1719.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013.   Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]

RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, Case No. 1:19-cv-02237, on behalf of public common
shareholders of Restoration Robotics, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAIR) who held
Restoration Robotics securities as of the record date on September
6, 2019 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Restoration
Robotics and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the
Company to Venus Concept, Inc. ("Venus").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Venus
Concept will be converted into the right to receive 8.6506 shares
of Restoration Robotics common stock. In result of the transaction,
Restoration Robotics and Venus Concept shareholders will own
approximately 15% and 85% of the combined company ("Merger
Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger
Consideration is inadequate and that the Proxy Statement/prospectus
on form 424B3 provided shareholders with materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company's financials and the
Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
contained materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the financial projections for Restoration Robotics, Inc.
The special meeting of Restoration Robotics stockholders to vote on
the Merger was held on October 4, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 10, 2020. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/restoration-robotics-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
[GN]


RING LLC: Sells Faulty Security Devices and Systems, LeMay Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley LeMay, Dylan Blakeley, Todd Craig, and Tania Amador, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. RING LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00074 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020), is brought to
hold Ring responsible for its defective devices and systems,
require that Ring take all necessary measures to secure the privacy
of user accounts and devices, and compensate the Plaintiffs and the
class members for the damage that its acts and omissions have
caused.

Intended for use inside the home, Ring's devices feature
motion-activated cameras; a "live view" that allows users to "check
in on" their homes remotely; and a two-way talk feature that allows
users to communicate through the devices. According to Ring, its
home security devices offer "smart security here, there,
everywhere." Ring promises users that it takes security seriously
and will safeguard users' private information. But instead of
helping families protect their homes, Ring security devices have
had the opposite effect by permitting hackers to exploit security
vulnerabilities in the Ring system to spy on and harass Ring
customers inside their own homes.

Plaintiffs Ashley LeMay and Dylan Blakeley are residents of
Mississippi. Plaintiffs Todd Craig and Tania Amador are residents
of Texas.

The Plaintiffs purchased Ring indoor security cameras to try to
protect their homes and feel safer. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege,
the Ring devices created a living nightmare by allowing intruders
to come into their homes and harass them and their families.

To this day, Ring has not disclosed the identity of this unknown
hacker to the Plaintiffs, who have no way of knowing the motives of
the digital intruder or whether he still poses a threat to the
safety of their family, says the complaint. Ring's failure to
properly safeguard access to user accounts is even more egregious
in light of the presence of hacking forums and podcasts dedicated
to hacking Ring devices, the Plaintiffs add.

Ring markets and sells home security devices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: agold@tzlegal.com

               - and –

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6807
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                 moore@stuevesiegel.com


SEQWATER: Flood Engineers Failed to Follow Guidelines, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
insuranceNEWS.com.au reports that flood engineers hired by the
operators of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams failed to follow
guidelines, which ultimately contributed to the severity of the
2011 Brisbane floods, the NSW Supreme Court ruled on Nov. 29.

Justice Robert Beech-Jones found Seqwater, Sunwater and the State
of Queensland "vicariously liable for any breaches of the duty of
care owed by the flood engineers that they each employed".

The class action claimed the three defendants are legally
responsible for the actions of the four flood engineers who were in
charge of operations at the two dams from January 2-11 in 2011.

Seqwater owned the dams and employed two of the engineers at that
time. Sunwater was contracted to provide flood management services
to Seqwater and the boss of one of the engineers. The state
employed the fourth engineer.

"At the heart of the plaintiff's case is the contention that during
the period . . . the flood engineers were obliged but failed to
evacuate water from the dams in advance of rainfall predicted by
rainfall forecasts," the ruling says.

"The plaintiff contended that the flood engineers comprehensively
failed to apply the manual throughout the flood event.

"The identified failings of the flood engineers do not concern
decisions they made in the heat of the moment. Instead, they derive
from a failure of approach, specifically a failure to follow the
very manual that they had drafted or participated in drafting
almost 18 months previously."

A spokesman for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which filed the class
action in 2014, told insuranceNEWS.com.au "a significant portion of
loss in this case is held by insurers".

Insurers paid out more than $1.5 billion in claims (in today's
dollars) following the 2011 floods catastrophe, according to the
Insurance Council of Australia (ICA).

"[Insurers] will review [the] decision for its commercial
implications," ICA spokesman Campbell Fuller told
insuranceNEWS.com.au. [GN]


SOL MEXICAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss EEOC Discrimination Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. SOL MEXICAN GRILL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 18-2227 (CKK) (D. D.C.), Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (i) denied the
Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss, (ii) denied the EEOC's
Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, and (iii) granted the EEOC's
Motion to Strike and to Seal certain sections in the Defendants'
Reply in support of its partial Motion to Dismiss.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")
commenced the lawsuit against Defendants Sol Mexican Grill LLC and
Sol Mexican Grill II LLC, asserting claims of unlawful employment
practices on the basis of sex and retaliation on behalf of Claimant
Johanna Cruz-Gomez, Claimant Glenda Leiva, and a class of similarly
situated female employees.

The EEOC alleges that Claimant Cruz-Gomez filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC based on sex discrimination and
retaliation.  On July 3, 2018, the EEOC issued to the Defendants a
Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that
Defendants violated Title VII by subjecting Claimant Cruz-Gomez and
a class of similarly situated female employees to sex
discrimination and retaliation.  The letter invited the Defendants
to engage in informal conciliation with the EEOC to eliminate
voluntarily the violations and to provide appropriate relief.  The
EEOC then alleges that it engaged in communications with the
Defendants in an attempt to voluntarily remedy the violations, but
the EEOC was unable to secure a conciliation agreement.  On July
23, 2018, the EEOC issued to the Defendants a Notice of Failure of
Conciliation.  And on Sept. 26, 2018, the EEOC filed the lawsuit.

As evidence of sex discrimination and retaliation, the Amended
Complaint includes allegations involving Claimant Cruz-Gomez.  The
EEOC alleges that Claimant Cruz-Gomez was hired as a food preparer
at the Defendants' H Street restaurant, owned by Sol Mexican Grill,
in April 2016.  Claimant Cruz-Gomez was supervised by Manager
Maycol Salina.  The EEOC alleges that shortly after she was hired
and continuing through her termination in June 2017, Claimant
Cruz-Gomez was subject to harassment due to her sex.  The
harassment included sexual comments, unwelcome touching, as well as
retaliation when Claimant Cruz-Gomez complained about the
harassment.

The Amended Complaint also includes allegations involving Claimant
Leiva.  Claimant Leiva was also hired as a food preparer at the H
Street restaurant, owned by Sol Mexican Grill, and was supervised
by Manager Salina.  The EEOC alleges that from approximately
September 2016 through April 2017, the Defendants subjected
Claimant Leiva to harassment due to her sex.  The harassment
included sexual comments and unwelcome touching as well as
retaliation for complaining about the harassment.  The EEOC alleges
that Claimant Leiva was transferred from the H Street location in
April 2017 and was ultimately terminated in May 2017.  In November
2017, Claimant Leiva was hired at Defendants' George Washington
University restaurant, owned by Sol Mexican Grill II.  The EEOC
claims that when Claimant Leiva reported the harassment which had
previously occurred at the H Street restaurant, her hours at the
George Washington University restaurant were reduced and she was
ultimately terminated.

On June 13, 2019, in the midst of discovery, the EEOC filed an
Amended Complaint removing claims which pertained to another
individual claimant.  Following the Amended Complaint, the
Defendants filed a partial Motion to Dismiss.  In their Motion, the
Defendants argue that the claims brought on behalf of Claimant
Leiva and a class of similarly situated female employees should be
dismissed because the EEOC has not complied with class action
requirements and because those claimants did not exhaust their
administrative remedies.  The Defendants further argue that any
claims against Sol Mexican Grill II should be dismissed because Sol
Mexican Grill II was not named in Claimant Cruz-Gomez's originating
charge of discrimination.

Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal
authorities, and the record as a whole, Judge Kollar-Kotelly will
deny the Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss.  Because the EEOC's
claims are not brought by a private litigant, the EEOC was not
required to comply with class action requirements and the claimants
on behalf of whom the EEOC brings claims were not required to
exhaust their administrative remedies.  Additionally, even though
Sol Mexican Grill II was not included by name in the originating
charge of discrimination, it remains a proper Defendant because it
had notice of the EEOC proceedings, an opportunity to participate
in conciliation, and an identity of interest with the named party.

In resolving the Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss, the Judge
must also resolve two derivative motions.  First, upon
consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and
the record as a whole, the Judge will deny the EEOC's Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply.  The arguments in the EEOC's Sur-Reply
are not necessary to the Court's resolution of the Defendants'
partial Motion to Dismiss, and the EEOC faces no prejudice from a
denial.  Second, upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant
legal authorities, and the record as a whole, she will grant the
EEOC's Motion to Strike and to Seal certain portions of the
Defendants' Reply in support of its partial Motion to Dismiss.  She
finds that the Defendants' Reply and attached exhibit contain
improper evidence of what was said and done during the EEOC's
conciliation with tge Defendants.  By statute, such information
cannot be used as evidence in the lawsuit.

Accordingly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the Defendants' partial
Motion to Dismiss.  Because the EEOC's claims are not brought by a
private litigant, the EEOC was not required to comply with class
action requirements and the claimants on behalf of whom the EEOC
brings claims were not required to exhaust their administrative
remedies.  Additionally, even though Sol Mexican Grill II was not
named in the originating charge of discrimination, it remains a
proper Defendant because it had notice of the EEOC proceedings, an
opportunity to participate in conciliation, and an identity of
interest with the named party.

The Judge further denied the EEOC's Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply.  The arguments in the EEOC's Sur-Reply are not necessary
to the Court's resolution of the Defendants' partial Motion to
Dismiss, and the EEOC faces no prejudice from a denial.

Finally, the Judge granted the EEOC's Motion to Strike and to Seal
certain sections in the Defendants' Reply in support of its partial
Motion to Dismiss.  The Judge finds that the Defendants' Reply and
attached exhibit contain improper evidence of what was said and
done during the EEOC's conciliation with the Defendants.  By
statute, such information cannot be used as evidence in the
lawsuit.  The Defendants' Reply in Support of its partial Motion to
Dismiss remains sealed at this point.  The Defendants will file a
redacted version of the Reply omitting the stricken portions
relating to conciliation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/fIQAB4 from Leagle.com.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
represented by Joshua Edward Zugerman, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & Ashley Marie Martin, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

SOL MEXICAN GRILL LLC & SOL MEXICAN GRILL TWO, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Gregory L. Lattimer, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY L.
LATTIMER, PLLC.


ST-JEAN-LONGUEUIL DIOCESE: New Class Suit Requests Allege Sex Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that four requests for authorization of
class-action suits against religious congregations in Quebec on
behalf of victims of alleged abuse were filed in court.

At a news conference in Montreal, lawyer Alain Arsenault said the
new requests target the diocese of St-Jean-Longueuil, the diocese
of Joliette, the religious order of St-Vincent-de-Paul and the
Freres de St-Gabriel.

The lawsuits are seeking $300,000 per victim for moral damages -
the maximum allowed - $150,000 in damages for monetary losses and
$150,000 in punitive damages.

"The two religious congregations were given the responsibility of
educating children," Justin Wee said. "More often these children
were underprivileged, and so, vulnerable, more easily victimized by
sexual assaults. It is time justice was done, that the truth break
through and society listen.

"The thousands of lives broken following these sexual assaults
deserve that these religious institutions respond with empathy for
their acts and those of their staff, with humanity, and not the
usual denial."

Arsenault said he hoped ongoing talks with the religious
institutions could find a common ground for an agreement on
compensation for the victims.

He noted that 14 other class-action lawsuits had been filed by
various legal firms against other religious institutions. Those
lawsuits cover more than 1,000 people, although Arsenault said the
actual number of victims could be much higher. [GN]


STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Sliger Seeks OT Pay for Mobile Phlebotomists
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGAN SLIGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER MEDICAL
LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 4:19-cv-03212 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri
Wage Law.

The Defendants violated the wage laws by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and proposed members of the Missouri Class at the
statutory minimum wage and overtime pay rate of one and one-half
times their regular pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the lawsuit says. As the direct and proximate result of
Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Missouri Class
have suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of income in the
form of lost overtime pay, the lawsuit added.

Ms. Sliger was employed by the Defendants from Dec. 3, 2015, until
February 26, 2018, as a mobile phlebotomist. Mr. Sliger's work for
the Defendants was based out of O'Fallon, Missouri, and she
traveled to collect blood, stool, and urine samples from patients
in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky,
usually hundreds of miles each day. The Plaintiff and other
"similarly situated" are current and former workers of the
Defendants, who worked within the State of Missouri.

The Defendants offer mobile phlebotomy services currently in 18
states. The Defendants operate/have operated their mobile
phlebotomy business under the names Stover Medical Support
Services, Stover Medical Support Services, Inc., Stover Diagnostic
Laboratory, Inc., Stover Diagnostics, and Stover Diagnostics
Laboratories, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          4600 Madison, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
                  dan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Emily Alcorn, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com


STURM FOODS: Settlement Claim Forms Must be Submitted by May 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burke Harvey, LLC and Ward & Cooper, LLC disclosed that a
settlement has been reached with Sturm Foods, Inc. and Treehouse
Foods, Inc. in a class action lawsuit about whether labeling of
Grove Square Coffee ("GSC") products for use in Keurig(R) brewing
machines misled consumers into believing that GSC light, medium and
dark roast coffee contained premium, ground coffee. Defendants deny
any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided which side is right.

You are included in the settlement as a "Class Member" if you
purchased GSC products from a retail store in Alabama, California,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, or
Tennessee any time from September 30, 2010 through September 30,
2014.

Defendants have agreed to create a $25,000,000 Settlement Fund,
which, after deducting attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
administrative expenses, and service awards, will be used to pay
Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms.  Class Members who
submit a valid Claim Form for purchases made in: (1) Alabama will
receive up to $100 per Claim Form regardless of the number of GSC
products purchased; (2) New York will receive up to $275 per Claim
Form regardless of the number of GSC products purchased; and (3)
California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Tennessee will receive $25 per GSC product purchased, for up to
three purchases, for up to $75 per Claim Form. Payment amounts may
be reduced on a proportionate basis, if needed, to pay all valid
claims.

You must submit a valid Claim Form by May 7, 2020.  Claim Forms may
be submitted online at www.InstantCoffeeLawsuit.com or printed from
the website and mailed to the address on the form. Claim Forms are
also available by calling 1-866-800-0337.

If you do nothing, you will not get a settlement payment.  You may
object to the settlement and notify the Court that you or your
lawyer intend to appear at the Court's Fairness Hearing. Objections
are due March 23, 2020.

Complete information, including the Settlement Agreement, is
available at www.InstantCoffeeLawsuit.com.


SUN COMMUNITIES: Sued for Claiming Mobile Home without Consent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Travis, writing for Traverse City Record Eagle, reports that
Sun Communities faces a lawsuit claiming the company took a former
Traverse City man's mobile home without his knowledge or consent --
and claiming the company has done the same to many others.

Timothy Yamaoka is suing the company, which operates dozens of
mobile home parks in Michigan, said Philip Rosi, Yamaoka's
attorney. The man used to live in Town and Country, one of Sun
Communities properties, until he moved to Cadillac.

Yamaoka tried to sell his mobile home but the company insisted he
pay back rent, Rosi said. He refused because his home was worth
more than he owed. Then, Yamaoka heard from someone interested in
buying the home that it looked as though someone was living there.

"The former owner goes up to take a look, and sure enough, there's
somebody living in there," Rosi said.

The company got title to the mobile home through the Secretary of
State by claiming it was abandoned and sold it to its new resident,
Rosi said. He likened it to the owner of a private parking lot
taking someone's car after they failed to pay to park -- there's a
lengthy procedure for selling abandoned autos.

Joe Burgett and Tina Phillips joined Yamaoka as plaintiffs on what
Rosi and other attorneys working with the litigants hope to become
a class action lawsuit, Rosi said. The two claim a Sun
Communities-run mobile home park in Muskegon took their home
through the same process.

The practice appears to be far more widespread, said Greg Abler, an
attorney with Center for Civil Justice. The legal services program
became involved after Rosi and his firm partner asked for their
help, Abler said.

"The more we looked into it, we saw that this happens on a fairly
regular basis," he said. "That certainly got our attention because
any time you have a mobile home park just simply taking the title
to your mobile home without you knowing about it or without
compensating you for it, that's a problem, and so that's why we got
involved."

Town and Country resident William LaParr said he wasn't aware of
the lawsuit, nor had he heard of any of his neighbors facing a
similar situation. But he wasn't shocked.

"From living there and seeing the way they act and stuff, none of
this surprises me," he said.

LaParr has had his own run-ins with management, once having to show
bank records to prove he paid his rent after management claimed he
hadn't, he said. He claimed the office at Town and Country is
frequently empty, so getting a receipt for rent payments is often
out of the question.

Judge Timothy Hicks of 14th Circuit Court in Muskegon rejected the
request to certify the suit as class action, ruling that lease
language Burgett and Phillips signed was different enough to
consider them a separate class from Yamaoka, Rosi said. Hicks also
ruled the two signed a lease that included language allowing the
mobile home park owner to take ownership of Burgett and Phillips'
trailer.

Rosi said he rejects both rulings, and hopes the state Court of
Appeals will do the same. That has the case on hold until the court
decides whether to hear it.

David Adler, an attorney for Sun Communities, didn't return
multiple requests for comment. Messages left with Sun Communities
weren't returned either.

Yamaoka also is suing the Secretary of State in U.S. District
Court, Rosi said, arguing there's no state law authorizing the
department's process for obtaining title to an abandoned mobile
home.

Applying for title to a mobile home, and the Secretary of State's
authority to issue one, is laid out in the Mobile Home Commission
Act, State Attorney General Communications Director Kelly
Rossman-McKinney said via email. She declined to comment further.

Shawn Starkey, Michigan Department of State communications
director, declined via email to comment on the pending litigation.
[GN]


SYNTHORX INC: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Sale to Sanofi
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SYNTHORX, INC., PRATIK SHAH, JAY LICHTER, VICKIE CAPPS,
PETER KOLCHINSKY, LAURA SHAWVER, PETER THOMPSON, ANDREW POWELL,
SANOFI, and THUNDER ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00010-UNA
(D. Del., Jan. 3, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Synthorx will be acquired by Sanofi and Thunder
Acquisition Corp.

On December 7, 2019, Synthorx's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sanofi.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to purchase all of Synthorx's outstanding common
stock for $68.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on January 22, 2020.

On December 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement.

The Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor (Centerview Partners LLC) in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Synthorx common stock. The Plaintiff
contends that the omissions in the Solicitation Statement are
material in that a reasonable shareholder will consider them
important in deciding whether to tender their shares in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor
will view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering
the total mix of information made available.

Synthorx is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on
prolonging and improving the lives of people with cancer and
autoimmune disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: March 31 Fairness Hrg. Set in Isolde Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Trinity Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

RICHARD J. ISOLDE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

     vs.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-02093-K
(CONSOLIDATED)
CLASS ACTION

Judge Ed Kinkeade

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TRINITY
INDUSTRIES, INC. ("TRINITY" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
("SECURITIES") BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 2012 AND APRIL 24, 2015,
INCLUSIVE ("CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, a hearing
will be held on March 31, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Ed Kinkeade, United States District Judge, at the Earle Cabell
Federal Building, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1625, Dallas, Texas
75242, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the Action for the sum of Seven Million, Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000.00) in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this
Action being dismissed with prejudice against the Released Parties
as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated September 23,
2019; (2) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only,
the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the
Class, Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for
the Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel
for the Class; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with this Action, together with interest thereon, and
the application of Plaintiffs for an award of their costs and
expenses in representing the Class.

If you purchased or acquired Trinity Securities during the Class
Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
Settlement thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to Trinity Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43300, Providence, RI 02940-3300,
or by downloading this information at
www.TrinitySecuritiesSettlement.com.  If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form by mail (postmarked
no later than March 25, 2020), or online at
www.TrinitySecuritiesSettlement.com (no later than March 25, 2020),
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to
be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked no later than
March 10, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than March 10, 2020,
and received by the following no later than March 10, 2020:

Counsel for Plaintiffs
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
NATHAN R. LINDELL
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

Counsel for Defendants
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
MERYL L. YOUNG
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  November 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Johnston Not Allowed to File Reconsideration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the labor lawsuit captioned TODD JOHNSTON, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03134-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration.

On Sept. 16, 2019, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Individual Arbitration.  On Sept. 24, 2019, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration.

The Plaintiff first notes that the Court's Order states that both
parties agreed that it would be inappropriate for the Court to
decide the employee issue.  To be clear, the Plaintiff does not
agree that it would be inappropriate for the Court to decide the
employee issue, and accordingly seeks reconsideration on this
point.

Upon review, Judge Chen finds that the record is less clear and the
Court may have overstated the Plaintiff's position.  The Plaintiff
argued that the question of arbitrability should turn on legal
analysis of the WARN Act, and not on the determination of a
putative employee's classification, and thus the Plaintiff did not
seek resolution of classification status as a threshold question.
In any event, the Judge does not find sufficient cause to grant the
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

The Plaintiff also argues that the Court's Order requiring
individual arbitration is "problematic" for two reasons: First,
because the employment status issue is an element of his WARN Act
claims therefore should be pursued in court, not by arbitration.
Second, the Court's ruling to compel arbitration would change the
"posture of the case" because, regardless of the arbitrator's
determination, Uber will attempt to enforce the class action waiver
on individual basis.  These points were presented to the Court
before it issued its Order.  The Judge holds that reconsideration
is not permitted for arguments that were presented to and
considered by the Court prior to the issuance of its Order.

Accordingly, Judge Chen denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File a Motion for Reconsideration.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0jPp9M from Leagle.com.

Todd Johnston, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Brandi --
info@brandilaw.com -- The Brandi Law Firm, Brian J. Malloy, The
Brandi Law Firm, John Randolph Davis, Slack Davis Sanger, LLP &
Michael L. Slack, Slack Davis Sanger, LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Carlos Jimenez -- cajimenez@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam Jacoby --
kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


UNDER ARMOUR: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE:UA; UAA) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the District of Maryland, and docketed under 19-cv-03502, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Under Armour securities from August 3, 2016
through November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Under Armour securities
during the class period, you have until January 6, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Under Armour purports to develop, market, and distribute branded
performance apparel, footwear, and accessories for men, women, and
youth. In addition, the Company also purports to offer accessories,
which include gloves, bags, and headwear; and digital fitness
subscriptions, as well as digital advertising through MapMyFitness,
MyFitnessPal, and Endomondo platforms.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the following
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Under Armour shifted
sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier, including to
keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue
growth; (ii) undisclosed to the investing public, the Company had
been under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") since at least July 2017; and (iii) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on DOJ and
SEC investigations into Under Armour's accounting practices and
related disclosures. The article, entitled "Under Armour Is Subject
of Federal Accounting Probes," noted that the investigations
concerned whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to
quarter to appear healthier.

That same day, the Company confirmed to the Wall Street Journal
that it had been cooperating with the DOJ and SEC since July 2017.

On this news, Class C shares of Under Armour (UA) fell $3.47 per
share, or 18.35%, to close at $15.44 per share, and Class A shares
of Under Armour (UAA) fell $4.00 per share, or 18.92%, to close at
$17.14 per share, on November 4, 2019, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and
Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.
[GN]



VIBRANT CREDIT: Tayborn Sues Over Charging of Overdraft, NSF Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL TAYBORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VIBRANT CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:19-cv-04247-SLD-JEH
(C.D. Ill., Dec. 9, 2019), arises from Vibrant's routine practice
of assessing overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually
overdraw a checking account, and assessing more than one
non-sufficient funds fee on the same item.

The Plaintiff alleges that Vibrant misleadingly and deceptively
misrepresents these assessment practices, including in its own
account contracts. Vibrant also omits material facts pertaining to
each of the practices, including its account contracts.

The Defendant's improper scheme to extract funds from
accountholders already struggling to make ends meet has victimized
him and thousands of others, the Plaintiff contends. Unless
enjoined, the Defendant will continue to engage in these schemes
and cause substantial injury to its checking account holders, he
argues.

Mr. Tayborn has a personal checking account with Vibrant, which is
governed by a Deposit Agreement.

Vibrant is one of the largest credit unions in Illinois. The
Company has $600 million in assets and maintains its headquarters
in Moline, Illinois. The Company provides retail banking services
to customers, including the Plaintiff and members of the putative
Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Todd Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991


VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Gentry Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Gentry moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled BROOKE GENTRY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VITAL RECOVERY
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01896-NJ (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 asserts.

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


WAG: Faces Class Action Over Dead-Pooch Controversy
---------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Fonrouge, writing for New York Post, reports that the
beleaguered dog-walking app Wag -- which has been accused of
killing or losing at least 15 pets -- has another dead-pooch
controversy on its hands.

Angela Composto, a 52-year-old Long Island native, told The Post
she used the app in November to hire a dog-walker for her
8-year-old Yorkshire Terrier, Bella, and 3-year-old Cavalier King
Charles Spaniel, Chloe -- and the Yorkie ended up dead.

"I couldn't understand how a little dog goes out on a walk and
comes back dead," Composto said.

Composto, who lives in Miramar, Fla., said she hired the
dog-walker, only known as Hannah, through the app Oct. 20 while she
was out of town.

Hannah picked up Composto's pooches from her house around 7:30 a.m.
and returned at 8:18 a.m. with Chloe on a leash -- and a limp and
seemingly lifeless Bella in her arms, according to Composto's home
surveillance video.

As required after a walk, the Wag worker sent an update to the
dog-owner through the app: in this case, a photo of both dogs with
their tongues out and tails wagging, with Hannah adding that the
stroll was over and went "great," according to a screenshot of the
message.

The walker did note that Bella "took a fall" after Chloe chased a
bird but said she put both dogs in their crates and would "stay a
while to make sure [Bella's] ok," the screenshot shows.

Composto then got a call from Wag around 9:30 a.m. reiterating the
"fall" and what Hannah had told her, according to the dog owner and
a lawyer she is consulting with, Susan Chana Lask.

That's when the homeowner checked her outside security camera
remotely and saw that Hannah had left the home at 8:24 a.m.,
meaning she stayed around for only 6 minutes, Composto said.

The dog-walker then spent the next 6 minutes pacing around
Composto's driveway talking on her phone before heading off,
Composto said, noting the surveillance video.

Wag then contacted Hannah, who now added that Bella may have gotten
winded, Composto said. Wag called back Composto to say it was
sending another dog-walker to check on Bella, the pooch owner
said.

The second dog-walker arrived round 10:17 a.m. and found Bella dead
in her crate, Composto said.

"I wanted to scream, and I burst out crying. I couldn't even
breath," Composto said.

"I can't get it out of my mind that [Hannah] possibly could've
saved [Bella] . . . and I'll never know if Bella was alive and just
needed to get to a vet . . . or if she was already dead," Composto
said.

Composto had a necropsy performed on Bella, and the dog was found
to have suffered trauma to the left side of her skull and her leg,
although her cause of death was unclear.

"All I have is ashes and no answers," Composto said, adding that
she plans to file a lawsuit against Wag.

Bella is at least the 15th dog Wag has lost or killed since 2015,
according to records kept by The Post.

One recent case involved a Yorkie named Whiskey who was killed
while out with a Wag dog-walker in Manhattan.

The dog-walker claimed that the pooch had slipped from its harness
and ran into traffic June 13, but cops allegedly told Whiskey's
owners that it had no collar on it when it was taken out.
Surveillance video also showed the dog-walker later slipping into
the owners' home to take the forgotten collar to "cover his
tracks," according to a class-action lawsuit against Wag.

Wag said in a statement about Composto's dog that it had offered
her "support and [to] address . . . concerns," adding that Hannah
has been removed from the platform.

Composto said the app asked her to send her vet expenses to them
but that she cut off communication and is now looking for a lawyer.
[GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Bryant Moves to Certify Two COBRA Notice Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JAMIE BRYANT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case
No. 1:16-cv-24818-JEM (S.D. Fla.), Lead Plaintiff Jamie Bryant and
Proposed Named Plaintiffs Dawn Smith, Curtis Baker, and Earnest
Penedianco move the Court for an Order certifying two classes:

   * Class # 1:

     The January 26, 2016 to December 14, 2016 Deficient COBRA
     Notice Class All participants and beneficiaries in the
     Defendant's Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by
     Defendant or on behalf of Defendant from January 26, 2016 to
     December 14, 2016, in the form attached to the Motion as
     Exhibit A, as a result of a qualifying event, as determined
     by Defendant's Plan's records, and (2) did not elect
     continuation coverage; and

   * Class # 2:

     The June 1, 2013 to January 25, 2016 Deficient COBRA Notice
     Class All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's
     Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant
     or on behalf of Defendant from June 1, 2013 to January 25,
     2016, in one of the forms attached to the Motion as
     Composite Exhibit B, as a result of a qualifying event, as
     determined by Defendant's Plan's records, and (2) did not
     elect continuation coverage.

In this lawsuit, the Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Walmart
failed to provide her with a COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985) notice that complies with the law.
Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, the Defendant chose not to use the model form--presumably to
save money by discouraging people from electing COBRA coverage.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, to appoint their counsel, Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.,
and Brandon J. Hill, Esq., of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., as class
counsel, and to allow them to notify the Class members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


WALMART INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Yashtinsky TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN YASHTINSKY on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC. Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-CV-5105 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
Fayetteville Division, denied Walmart's Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, to Stay the Action.

On April 10, 2019, Mr. Yashtinsky received a two-part text message
on his wireless phone from Walmart without giving prior consent to
Walmart to call or text him.  Walmart sent the text messages from
the short code number 455-00.  Mr. Yashtinsky is not a Walmart
Pharmacy customer, has never received prescriptions from a Walmart
Pharmacy, and has never enrolled in Walmart's prescription
messaging program.  Mr. Yashtinsky has included his cellular number
on the Do Not Call Registry since March 31, 2013.  Mr. Yashtinsky
further asserts that these text messages were sent "en masse."

Following receipt of these text messages, Mr. Yashtinsky filed a
class action complaint and demand for jury trial against Walmart on
May 29, 2019, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
seeking damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.  The Complaint alleges two causes of action:
(1) negligent violations of the TCPA; and (2) knowing and/or
willful violations of the TCPA. Subsequently, Walmart filed its
present motion, in which it argues that Mr. Yashtinsky failed to
plausibly allege Walmart's use of an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS"), a required element of Mr. Yashtinsky's TCPA
claims, or, alternatively, that the Court should issue a stay under
the primary jurisdiction doctrine or pursuant to its inherent
authority and defer resolution until the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") issues a ruling on the scope of the statutory
definition of an ATDS.

Mr. Yashtinsky filed a Response, contending that the Court should
not dismiss or stay this action because his allegations are
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief and because the
majority of district courts have declined to stay proceedings in
anticipation of the FCC's guidance on the definition of an ATDS.
Thereafter, Walmart filed its Reply, claiming that Mr. Yashtinsky
lacks standing under Article III to bring the present claims
because he did not suffer a concrete injury, that the targeted text
messages received by Mr. Yashtinsky could not support an inference
that they were sent using an ATDS, and maintaining that the Court
should issue a stay of the proceedings.  Mr. Yashtinsky then filed
a Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority, which argues that he has
made sufficient allegations and that Walmart's Article III standing
argument is barred by precedent.   Walmart responded to the filing,
arguing that the authority cited by Yashtinsky is distinguishable
from the facts at hand.

Judge Brooks has reservations that Mr. Yashtinsky's factual
allegations regarding the waste of his data and electricity are
enough by themselves to establish Article III standing.  Taking all
of his factual allegations together, however, he concludes that Mr.
Yashtinsky pleaded facts that plausibly establish that he suffered
a particularized and concrete injury-in-fact which is adequate to
establish Article III standing.

Next, Judge Brooks concludes that Mr. Yashtinsky's Complaint
sufficiently alleges that Walmart used an ATDS to send the
offending text messages, even if the Court were to adopt the Second
and Third Circuit interpretations of that term.  Mr. Yashtinsky has
not only alleged that Walmart used an ATDS, but he has also
included factual allegations which, if taken as true, support that
contention. Mr. Yashtinsky alleged the content of the text messages
he received from Walmart and that those text messages appear
generic rather than directed specifically at Mr. Yashtinsky.  Mr.
Yashtinsky also alleged that the text messages came from a
short-code number owned by Walmart, 455-00, that he had never
enrolled to receive messages from Walmart, and that he had included
his cellular number on the Do Not Call Registry since March 31,
2013.  

Admittedly, these allegations are not robust and may not survive
summary judgment scrutiny, but if taken as true, they are
sufficient to give rise to the inference that the text messages Mr.
Yashtinsky received were sent via an auto-dialer with the present
capacity to randomly generate telephone numbers.  Furthermore,
without the benefit of discovery, it would be unreasonable to
require Mr. Yashtinsky to plead "specific technical details" of the
alleged ATDS.  In the Judge's view, for the purposes of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, Mr. Yashtinsky's Complaint includes sufficient
allegations to draw the inference that an ATDS was used.  Whether
these allegations can be proven is a question to be decided at the
summary judgment stage.

Finally, the Judge holds that issuing a stay in the present case
will not promote judicial economy.  As indicated in the preceding
section, any stay issued would likely be indefinite in length.
Further, issuance of a stay likely will not simplify or settle the
issues implicated in the case.  Additionally, there is no guarantee
that the FCC will produce an order that resolves the issues
specifically raised in this litigation.   Moreover, staying the
case would prejudice Mr. Yashtinsky by delaying the resolution of
his claims.  It is Walmart's burden to "make out a clear case of
hardship or inequity in being required to go forward," and Walmart
has failed to meet this burden.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to
issue a stay pursuant to its inherent authority because such a stay
would not promote judicial economy and would unduly prejudice Mr.
Yashtinsky.

For these reasons, Judge Brooks denied Walmart's Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinon &
Order is available at https://is.gd/e6DKOp from Leagle.com.

Kevin Yashtinsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis Wood --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald Marron, James
Albert Streett -- James@StreettLaw.com -- Streett Law Firm, Joe P.
Leniski, Jr. -- joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings
PLLC, pro hac vice, Kas Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron &
Ron Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

WalMart, Inc., Defendant, represented by Karen P. Freeman --
kfreeman@mwlaw.com -- Mitchell Williams Selig Gates Woodyard PLLC,
Meredith Connie Slawe -- mslawe@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
HAUER & FELD LLP & Michael W. McTigue, Jr. -- mmctigue@akingump.com
-- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P..


WANDA SPORTS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Jan. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-plt/   


Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-yj/
            

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-afi/    
        

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wsg/


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



WANDA SPORTS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

WSG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

ACB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

HEXO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)

WSG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased Wanda Sports'
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and related prospectus issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July
26, 2019 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the lack of major sporting
events for its Digital, Production, Sports Solutions ("DPSS") and
Spectator Sports segments for its second quarter of 2019, ending
before the initial public offering, would negatively impact revenue
for the second quarter of 2019; (2) Wanda Sports had suffered a
year-over-year decrease in revenue in its second quarter ended June
30, 2019 and would for its fiscal year 2019, primarily related to
lower reimbursement revenues accounted for in its DPSS segment and
lack of Spectator Sport segment offsets; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB)

ACB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 11,
2019 - November 14, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Aurora
Cannabis Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as opposed to the Company's
representations, Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) the Company
would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun
facilities; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

HEXO Corp. (HEXO)

HEXO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 25, 2019
- November 15, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hexo-corp-loss-form?prid=4873&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HEXO
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) HEXO's reported inventory was
misstated as the Company was failing to write down or write off
obsolete product that no longer had value; (2) HEXO was engaging in
channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



WAWA INC: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa A. Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00080-JHS (E.D.
Pa., Jan. 3, 2020), arises from Wawa's failure to properly secure
and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable information, which
it collected from its customers at its various locations.

On December 19, 2019, Wawa publicly acknowledged that a
cybersecurity incident affecting most of its stores' systems
throughout the country had occurred. Wawa disclosed that malware
was discovered on its payment processing servers at potentially all
of its locations beginning at different points in time after March
4, 2019, until it was purportedly contained on December 12, 2019.

Wawa acknowledged that it discovered the unauthorized access on
December 10, 2019, but failed to inform the public why it delayed
notification of the Data Breach to consumers. The Plaintiff
contends that upon learning of the breach, in which this PII was
unlawfully obtained, Wawa failed to provide timely, accurate and
adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other putative class or
subclass members that their PII had been stolen, and the types of
information that were stolen.

The PII for Plaintiff and the Class was compromised due to Wawa's
acts and omissions and its failure to properly protect the PII.
Wawa could have prevented this Data Breach, as the Data Breach was
the inevitable result of Wawa's inadequate approach to data
security and the protection of the PII that it collected during the
course of its business, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff asserts that Wawa disregarded the rights of Plaintiff
and Class and/or Subclass members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to
disclose to its customers the material fact that it did not have
adequate computer systems and/or payment processor servers and
security practices to safeguard PII, failing to take available
steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and
failing to monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis. As a
result of the Wawa Data Breach, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class
members has been exposed to criminals for misuse, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Newton has been a frequent Wawa customer, shopping at
multiple Wawa locations several times a month, ever month, for
years.

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:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
                 klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 292-4441
          Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com


WOOD-MODE INC: Suit vs Former Owners of Factory Now a Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for Penn Live Patriot-News, reports that a
federal judge has certified as a class action the suit accusing the
former owners of a Snyder County custom wood cabinet manufacturer
of violating the law that requires employees be given a 60-day
notice of closing.

The action taken December 12 by U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew
W. Brann means William Swede, Curtis Trego and Tina Clapper will
represent all 938 employees who lost their jobs when Wood-Mode Inc.
abruptly closed May 13.

Swede, Trego and Clapper had filed individual suits but they were
consolidated into one in July.

Wood-Mode, which has reopened under the ownership of Middleburg
businessman Bill French, is not a party in the suit.

The consolidated suit accuses the former company, its CEO Robert L.
Gronlund and president and chief operating officer R. Brooks
Gronlund of violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act.

That law, commonly known as WARN, requires employees be given a
60-day notice of closing. The suit seeks payment of wages and
benefits for those 60 days.

The former Wood-Mode, in responding to two of the individual suits,
claimed providing the 60-day notice would have precluded it from
being able to sell the business or obtain needed capital to keep
operating.

Neither occurred, so the company that had been in business for 77
years abruptly closed May 13. The closing caught employees, dealers
and the community by surprise.

The former Wood-Mode also contends it falls under exceptions to the
WARN Act, including an exception for unforseeable business
circumstances.

It claims in shuttering the plant it acted lawfully, in good faith
and without malice or reckless indifference to the employees'
protected rights. [GN]



YUNJI INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Plantronics, Inc. (PLT)
Class Period: 7/2/2018 - 11/5/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-plt/   


Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Class Period: American Depository Shares issued either in or after
the May 2019 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 13, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-yj/
            

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)
Class Period: 3/6/2018 - 11/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-afi/    
        

Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the July 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 17, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wsg/


If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



[*] Class Action Seeks Ban on Traditional Cigarettes in India
-------------------------------------------------------------
PTI reports that after the government banned electronic cigarettes
citing health risks, two NGOs are planning to move the Supreme
Court seeking a similar action against conventional cigarettes and
other carcinogenic tobacco products, arguing they are more
harmful.

Delhi-based NGO URJA (United Residents Joint Action) and
Hyderabad-based group VchangeU are in the process of filing a writ
and class suit in which they will also demand compensation of 5
lakh for those suffering medical costs due to smoking-related
ailments, and INR10 lakh for those who lost an earning member of
the family.

The government recently issued an ordinance making the production,
import, export, transport, sale or advertisements of "alternative"
smoking devices a cognizable offence, and attracting a jail term
and fine "in the interest of public health to protect the people
from harm."

The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture,
Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and
Advertisement) Bill, 2019, which seeks to replace the ordinance
issued on September 18, was passed by the Lok Sabha on Nov. 27.

E-cigarettes promoting trade bodies, users and other stakeholders
have been vehemently opposing the government's decision to ban
e-cigarettes, claiming they were far less harmful than traditional
cigarettes and the prohibition was brought to protect the
conventional cigarette industry.

Founder and president of VchangeU, Vijay Bhasker Yetapu, who is
also one of the petitioners, said the government's decision has
opened up a favourable opportunity for activists and people
suffering from tobacco addiction as a government "sensitive to the
ills of nicotine addiction would not discriminate between different
forms of the same."

"Health ministry figures say that 12 lakh deaths are reported each
year by tobacco smoking. No such figure or linkage is yet medically
or scientifically established as regards to the use of
e-cigarettes. Thus, it is imperative that this ban acts as a viable
precedent to ban cigarettes as well, at the very least," Mr. Yetapu
said.

The NGOs said they have approached senior Supreme Court lawyer
Prashant Bhushan and he has agreed to take up their case.

"It is really remarkable that the government has chosen to ban
e-cigarettes which are firstly used by less than 0.1% of the
population and secondly are much less harmful than traditional
cigarettes because they do not have the tobacco or tar and only
contain nicotine. So the health effects of conventional cigarettes
are far more harmful than e-cigarettes. Also, this ban on these
alternative smoking devices seems to be helping the tobacco
industry since e-cigarette users are likely to go back to
traditional cigarettes and that is why the shares of tobacco
companies jumped by 20 per cent on this Bill being passed in Lok
sabha," Mr. Bhushan said.

Explaining the basis for the class-action suit, Atul Goyal,
president of URJA, alleged that the government through wholly owned
entities is a participant in companies that produce, promote and
sell cigarettes.

"A government that profits from the sale of cigarettes, promotes
addiction . . . Since the government has been earning dividends for
such sale that has promoted and caused deaths, it has a macabre but
social responsibility to offer compensation to those suffering or
the families of the dead due to cancer or smoking related
diseases," Mr. Goyal alleged.

People who are currently suffering from smoking addiction related
diseases and undergoing treatment and families of those who have
died due to smoking addiction related medical reasons will be asked
to become co-petitioners and implead in the suit, he said.

"At the outset, the suit demands that the 60 lakh people who have
died during the tenure of the current government over the last 5
years of its tenure should be compensated.

"Thus the class action suit will demand INR3 lakh crores be kept
aside as a pool for disbursement to those affected and those who
implead in the suit," he said. [GN]


[*] Ontario Joins Opioid Class Suit Launched by British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Times Colonist reports that Ontario is joining five other provinces
in a class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers in a bid to
recoup costs the government alleges can be directly attributed to
the overdose crisis.

The province passed legislation late December 11 allowing it to
join the British Columbia-led suit, which alleges that drugmakers
falsely marketed opioids as less addictive than other pain drugs.

Attorney General Doug Downey, Esq. said the class-action suit is a
way to hold the firms accountable for their actions, which he says
contributed to increased addiction rates and deaths.

"We're going after 40 manufacturers and wholesalers because of the
damage they caused to our communities, to our people," he said.
"The increased costs in corrections. The increased costs in the
health system, in emergency departments. It is an epidemic."

British Columbia's suit seeks to recover costs from manufacturers
and distributors dating back to 1996, when the pain drug OxyContin
was introduced in the Canadian market.

None of the allegations made in the lawsuit have been tested in
court.

No statement of defence could be found on the B.C. Supreme Court
website Thursday, but Purdue Pharma Inc. - which makes OxyContin -
said it followed all of Health Canada's regulations and it's very
concerned about the opioid crisis in B.C. and across Canada.

"This crisis is a complex and multifaceted public health issue that
involves both prescription opioids and, increasingly, illegally
produced and consumed opioids," the company said in a statement.
"All stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry, have a
role to play in providing practical and sustainable solutions."

Downey said the province would invest any potential awards from the
litigation into front-line mental health and addiction services.

"The costs are enormous," Downey said Thursday of addressing
addictions. "I'm not going to give an actual number, but it is in
the hundreds of millions of dollars."

Ontario joins New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador,
Saskatchewan and Alberta who have already announced their support
for the lawsuit.

The latest numbers from a national advisory committee studying the
opioid crisis show close to 14,000 Canadians have been killed by
the drugs over the last four years.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she supports the government's move,
but urged the Progressive Conservatives not to wait for the
resolution of the court case to fight the addictions crisis.

The province should start by lifting the cap it's placed on the
number of safe consumption and treatment sites permitted across
Ontario, she said.

"There's no doubt Ontario belongs as part of that lawsuit," said
Horwath. "The damage that has been done to people's lives is
horrific. However, there's a lot more that needs to be done to
support folks who are still struggling with opioid addictions."

Interim Liberal Leader John Fraser said the government should join
the lawsuit but must also continue to invest in addictions
treatment.

"Recouping those costs is critical," he said. "That money's already
been spent. ... When they do recoup those costs, they should
actually direct them towards things where opioids had an impact."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 12,
2019. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

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 ***