---

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

              Monday, January 13, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 9

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Challender Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
ACTELION PHARMA: Baltimore Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit
ADT LLC: Sued by Gero in Massachusetts Over Debt Collection Calls
AFFINITY HOME: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE: Midwest Files Class Certification Bid

ALLERGAN INC: E.S.E. Files Product Liability Suit in New Jersey
ALLERGAN INC: F.W. Files PI Suit in New Jersey
ALLERGAN INC: Jane Doe Files PI Suit in New Jersey
ALLERGAN INC: L.Y.R. Suit Transferred to New Jersey
ALLERGAN PLC: M. F. Files PI Suit in New Jersey

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Misrepresents Use of Makena, Zamfirova Says
AMERICAN QUEEN: Rodgers-Rouzier Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANDEN MORE-GUN: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Breaks, Lost Time
APET INC: Won't Be Indemnified by Westfield in Delgado BIPA Suit
ARTIFICIAL GRASS: Bacon Seeks for Certification of Text Class

ASIAN TERRACE: Chen Files Suit in New York for Violation of FLSA
ASSET RECOVERY: Affairs on Rozani's Bid to Certify Class Stayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Files Suit in S.D. New York
BIG APPLE ARCHERY: Dominguez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BIMBO BAKERIES: Partial Dismissal Bid in Burke Labor Suit Granted

BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Williams Moves to Certify Class of Servers
BOEING CO: Court Names Bernstein as Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
BOHEMIAN CITIZENS: Dominguez Alleges Violation under ADA
BP EXPLORATION: Granted Summary Judgment in McGill Suit
BURY THE HATCHET: Dominguez Files Suit under Disabilities Act

CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR: Faces Speer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Wins Bid to Exclude Experts' Opinions in Weaver
CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Allred Suit Over Liquor License Escrow Fraud

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Henderson Hits Illegal Collection Efforts
DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
E-Z CASE LOANS: Wilczak Sues Over Loans to Made to Ill. Residents
EDOARDO MELONI: Faces Newman Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Henderson Alleges Illegal Collection Activities

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rosenbluh Asserts Breach of FCRA in New York
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Guzman Alleges Violation under FCRA
FIBER GLASS: Johnson Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
FIDELITY NAT'L: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Henson's Rule 60(b)(6) Bid

FIELDCORE SERVICES: Trottier Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRSTSOURCE: Miller-Jack Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
GLOBAL MANAGEMENT: Lowenbein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
HARBOR CLUB: Discriminates Against Russian Workers, Pastukh Says
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Claims in First Amended Garcia Suit Narrowed

HERTZ LOCAL: Ramirez Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
HM EVENTS: Mendoza Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
HORIZON ORGANIC: Lamouth Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
INDOOR EXTREME: Dominguez Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
INTEGRATED RETAIL: Fails to Pay All Final Wages, Salomon Claims

ISAMU NOGUCHI FOUNDATION: Dominguez Files Suit Under ADA
JENNIFER MANKINS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Caldwell Sues Over Cash Advance Fees and Charges
KNITTING FACTORY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LONGFIN CORP: Bid to File Third Amended Securities Suit Denied

MALLINCKRODT ARD: Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit Moved to D.N.J.
MATTEL INC: Employees Fund Hits Share Drop from Undisclosed Loss
MEDICAL SERVICES: Baker-LaRush Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
MIDLAND CREDIT: Trahan Files FDCPA Suit in Mississippi
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Continues to Face Personal Injury Suits

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Still Faces 100 Economic Loss Lawsuits
MOVIE GRILL: Patrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: LaCour Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Texas
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: LaCour Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Texas
OKLAHOMA: Judges and Court Win More Time to Respond in White Suit

PACCAR INC: Faces Bowes Suit in Wash. Over Defective Vehicles
PAINTING WITH A TWIST: Domiguez Alleges Violation under ADA
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Thomas Challenges Debt Collection Practices
PENNSYLVANIA: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in Murphy Civil Rights Suit
PURDUE PHARMA: City of Poughkeepsie PI Suit Transferred to Ohio

RED WING SHOE: Southam FACTA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RICOLA USA: District Court Narrows Claims in Comfort Suit
RINCONCITO SUPERLATINO: Staff Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Work
ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
ROYAL WASTE SERVICES: Cooper-Nolasco Files Suit Under FLSA

RUSH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Martin Claims
SALDUTTI LAW LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
SALVATION ARMY: Jones Class Settlement Denied Prelim. Approval
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Class in Pontones Suit Conditionally Certified
SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Murray Class Settlement Recommended for Denial

SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Class Action in Discovery Phase
SIMPLE CUSTODIAN: Weiss Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TAL EDUCATION: Lea Appeals Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bolden RICO Suit Transferred to Ohio
THOMAS MCSWANE: Miller Seeks Back Pay and Damages Under FLSA

THYSSENKRUPP CRANKSHAFT: Rice Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
TIFFANY & CO: Faces Thompson Securities Suit Over Sale to LVMH
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Strike Appendices Denied in Stockinger Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: Grunfeld Sues Over Published Erroneous Credit Data
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Burnett FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York

TROPIX BAR AND LOUNGE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Gibbs Suit
UNITED DEBT: Settlement in Blasi FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
UNITED PARCEL: Snow Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED ROAD SERVICES: Sales Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

WALGREEN CO: Not Obliged to Provide SEC Docs in Securities Suit
WAWA INC: Sued by Sacks for Failing to Protect Confidential Info
WOODSTOCK, VA: Bandler May Not Amend Suit, Court Rules
YARDI SYSTEMS: Maness Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZEKI ELECTRIC: Valdez Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL

ZIPRECRUITER INC: Loeb Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Calif. Labor Code
ZITOMER LLC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Challender Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Anne Challender and Cindy Shackleton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AbbVie,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-08419 (N.D. Ill., December 24,
2019), seeks restitution for all deductions taken, prejudgment
interest on unpaid wages, and statutory damages for violation of
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

AbbVie, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company located at One North
Waukegan Road, North Chicago, Illinois where Challender and
Shackleton worked as customer service support through Ambassador
Resource Specialists, a staffing agency. They provide
over-the-telephone assistance to patients taking AbbVie drugs.
AbbVie allegedly misclassified them as independent contractors
rather than employees. They sometimes earn less than minimum wage,
do not receive overtime pay, and are not paid time for mandatory
trainings, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley Manewith, Esq.
     Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
     150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel. (312) 878-3210
     Fax (312) 878-3211
     Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
            msiegel@msiegellaw.com

            - and -

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
     Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel. (617) 994 5800
     Fax (617) 994-5801
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
            apagano@llrlaw.com
            adoherty@llrlaw.com


ACTELION PHARMA: Baltimore Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and Government
Employees Health Association filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in their lawsuit entitled Mayor and City Council, et al. v.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03560-GLR,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at
Baltimore.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 19, 2019, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case.

Actelion is a pharmaceutical company that produces and sells
Tracleer, the brand name for the drug bosentan, which is used to
treat pulmonary artery hypertension. Plaintiff Mayor & City Council
of Baltimore (the "City") filed its initial Complaint against
Actelion on November 19, 2018.

Upon the City and Government Employees Health Association's
("GEHA") unopposed Motion for Consolidation and Appointment of
Interim Class Counsel, the Court consolidated Government Employee
Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-3571-GLR (D.Md. filed Nov. 20, 2018) with the present
case on January 18, 2019.

On January 25, 2019, the City and GEHA (collectively, the "Named
Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals in thirty states and U.S. territories. In
their forty-six-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege:
unlawful refusals to deal and attempts to monopolize in violation
of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 (2018) (Count
1); violations of various state antitrust laws (Counts 2-26); and
violations of various state consumer protections laws (Counts
27-46).  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable
relief.

The Plaintiffs generally allege that members of the putative class
purchased Tracleer within Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont,
and that Actelion attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of
bosentan within those states.

The appellate case is captioned as Mayor and City Council, et al.
v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-2233, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Response
Brief is due on January 15, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE and
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
          Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq.
          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS, BERMAN, SOBOL, SHAPIRO, LLP
          1 Main Street
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: 617-482-36700
          E-mail: grega@hbsslaw.com
                  hannas@hbsslaw.com
                  tom@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andre M. Davis, Esq.
          Suzanne Sangree, Esq.
          BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 North Holliday Street
          Baltimore, MD 21212
          Telephone: 410-371-9883
          E-mail: Andre.Davis@baltimorecity.gov
                  Suzanne.Sangree2@baltimorecity.gov

               - and -

          Donna M. Evans, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-838-7797
          E-mail: devans@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          A. Luke Smith, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM PC
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: 646-245-8502
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., ACTELION
PHARMACEUTICALS US, INC. and JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC
are represented by:

          Katherine Forrest, Esq.
          Damaris Hernandez, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: 212-474-1000
          E-mail: kforrest@cravath.com
                  dhernandez@cravath.com

               - and -

          Gregory T. Lawrence, Esq.
          Daniel John McCartin, Esq.
          CONTI, FENN & LAWRENCE, LLC
          36 South Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201-0000
          Telephone: 410-837-6999
          E-mail: greg@lawcfl.com
                  Dan@lawcfl.com


ADT LLC: Sued by Gero in Massachusetts Over Debt Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Gero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Systems, Case No. 19 1424
(Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., Nov. 5, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's illegal debt collection calls made to the Plaintiff and
other consumers.

ADT LLC, doing business as ADT Security Systems, is one of the
nation's largest fee-based security providers.  ADT services
include monitored security, fire and automation services to
residential, small and large businesses.

Through call centers, owned by ADT and its affiliates and
subsidiaries, ADT aggressively contacts consumers and former
customers in order to collect alleged debt.  As part of its debt
collection operation, ADT regularly places more than two collection
calls a week to Massachusetts consumers, which practice is illegal
in Massachusetts.

ADT placed more than two collection calls to Plaintiff Benjamin
Gero within a seven-day period in an attempt to collect a debt,
violating the express provisions of Section 7.04(1)(f) of the Code
of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers similarly situated,
and seeks injunctive relief to end ADT's illegal practice,
declaratory relief to make ADT's violations known to the class,
actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Zemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


AFFINITY HOME: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affinity Home
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Affinity Home Enterprises, Inc. doing business as:
Arrow Pacific Insurance Services, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00100
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Affinity Inc. is an IT services and solutions provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE: Midwest Files Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MIDWEST HEMORRHOID TREATMENT CENTER TOWN &
COUNTRY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE PHARMACY, LLC, ASHTON
T. STUTE, AMY K. STUTE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
4:19-cv-03393-RLW (Mo. Cir., St. Louis Cty.), the Plaintiff seeks
to certify a class defined as:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent by or on behalf of
     Defendants any telephone facsimile transmissions of material
     making known the commercial existence of, or making
     qualitative statements regarding any property, goods, or
     services (3) with respect to whom Defendants cannot provide
     evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the
     sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants does not
     have an established business relationship or (5) which were
     sent an advertisement by fax which did not display a proper
     opt out notice.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant statutory injunctive
relief prohibiting the Defendants from sending advertising
materials via fax to members of the class, to appoint the Plaintiff
as Class Representative, to appoint its attorneys Class Counsel, to
allow it additional time for completion of discovery related to
class certification issues, and to file an amended class
certification motion and memorandum of law.

In the alternative, if the Court determines that this class
certification motion be dismissed without prejudice as being
premature, the Plaintiff asks that the Court issue an order that
the Defendant not be allowed to make an offer of judgment or a
settlement offer until the Court sets a scheduling order and the
Plaintiff is allowed time to conduct discovery and file a future
class certification motion pursuant to the Court's scheduling order
and that the future class certification motion will relate back to
the filing of the original class certification motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


ALLERGAN INC: E.S.E. Files Product Liability Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as E.S.E., K.L., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allergan Inc.,
formerly known as: INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN
PLC, DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00003-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., Jan. 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
          Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Fax: (503) 227-6840


ALLERGAN INC: F.W. Files PI Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as F.W., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan Inc., formerly
known as: INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN PLC, DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-000015-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., Jan. 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
          125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c
          New York, NE 10038
          Phone: (917) 336-0171
          Fax: (917) 336-0177
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Guthrie, Esq.
          Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
          100 N. Tampa St., Suite 2900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 202-7100


ALLERGAN INC: Jane Doe Files PI Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan Inc., formerly
known as: INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., ALLERGAN PLC,
MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION, Inamed Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00070-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., Jan. 3, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07922
          Phone: (973) 228-9898
          Fax: (973) 328-0303

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert J. McGuirl, Esq.
          Law Offices of Robert J. McGuirl, LLC
          295 Spring Valley Road
          Park Ridge, NJ 07656
          Phone: (201) 391-8200
          Fax: (201) 391-8660
          Email: robert.mcguirl@rjmlaw.org


ALLERGAN INC: L.Y.R. Suit Transferred to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as L. Y. R., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan, Inc. formerly
known as: INAMED Corporation, Allergan USA Inc., Allergan PLC and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, was transferred from the
California Central District Court with the assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-02064 to the U.S. District Court District for the District
of New Jersey (Newark) on December 31, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-22147-BRM-JAD.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.

Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.
Allergan, Inc. was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became
a public company in 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Tina Wolfson, Esq.
   Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC
   125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c 10038
   New York, NE 10038
   Tel: (917) 336-0171
   Fax: (917) 336-0177

     - and -

   Theodore W Maya, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585

The Defendants are represented by:

   Naoki S Kaneko, Esq.
   Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP
   Jamboree Center
   5 Park Plaza Suite 1600
   Irvine, CA 92614
   Tel: (949) 475-1500
   Fax: (949) 475-0017



ALLERGAN PLC: M. F. Files PI Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, PLC, et al.
The case is styled as M.F., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN PLC, Allergan
Inc., Foreign Profit Corporation, ALLERGAN USA INC., Foreign Profit
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00005-BRM-JAD (D.N.J.,
Jan. 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan PLC was an American global pharmaceutical company focused
on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal Allan Roth, Esq.
          Natasha Santiago Cortes, Esq.
          Grossman, Roth, Yaffa, Cohen, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 442-8666
          Fax: (305) 285-1668
          Email: nar@grossmanroth.com
                 nsa@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

          Curtis Bradley Miner, Esq.
          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          Colson Hicks Eidson
          255 Alhambra Circle
          Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351
          Phone: (305) 476-7400
          Fax: (305) 476-7444
          Email: curt@colson.com
                 julie@colson.com


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Misrepresents Use of Makena, Zamfirova Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralica Zamfirova, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00152
(D.N.J., Jan. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's false
marketing, sale, and manufacturing of the drug Makena, a
hydroxyprogesterone caproate.

In connection with the sale and advertisement of Makena, AMAG
misrepresented Makena's effectiveness at preventing preterm births,
in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Ms. Zamfirova
alleges. She was prescribed, injected with, and purchased Makena.

Makena was and is marketed as an effective hormonal medication that
reduces the risks for pregnant mothers of giving birth before term.
AMAG's marketing targets mothers with testimonials of how effective
its product was for other moms. Makena's patient education brochure
extols Makena as an effective drug for mothers who had a previous
preterm birth and are at risk for another preterm delivery.

The front of the brochure reads "HELP GIVE YOUR BABY MORE TIME TO
DEVLEOP." The brochure tells mothers that "Makena helps give babies
more time to develop" and ends by reminding mothers that "Every
week counts when you're pregnant." But for such statements and but
for AMAG's material omissions, the Plaintiff says she and class
members would not have purchased and been injected with Makena.

AMAG's statements that Makena was effective in reducing preterm
births constitute unconscionable commercial conduct, deception,
fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or
concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact with intent
of reliance in connection with consumer sales of Makena in
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, says the
complaint.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Waltham, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew G. Finkelstein, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Andrew White, Esq.
          Sami Ahmad, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          Email: afinkelstein@lawampm.com
                 jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                 awhite@fbfglaw.com
                 sahmad@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-984-8100
          Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 ashlea@paulllp.com
                 Sean@PaulLLP.com


AMERICAN QUEEN: Rodgers-Rouzier Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Rodgers-Rouzier, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00004-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., Jan. 6, 2020), arises under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff says she works for the Defendant seven days a week,
and on average 12 hours or more per day, or 84 or more hours or
week per week. She alleges that the Defendant did not pay her
overtime wages for the hours she worked over 40 in each individual
work week. The Plaintiff was not and is not exempt from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendant as a
bartender.

The Defendant operates a cruise line with multiple American vessels
operating river cruises along the Mississippi River, Tennessee
River, Ohio River, and Columbia River in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Michael Tresnowski, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com
                 sarendt@flsalaw.com
                 mtrenowski@flsalaw.com


ANDEN MORE-GUN: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Breaks, Lost Time
--------------------------------------------------------
David Valadez Perez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anden More-Gun, L.P., Forst
More-Gun, L.P. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
19CECG04619 (Cal. Super., December 24, 2019), seeks recovery of
unpaid wages and penalties, missed breaks compensation and redress
for failure to provide wage statements under California Business
and Professions Code, California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders in addition to seeking
declaratory relief and restitution.

Defendants operate as More-Gun Farms, a farming operation of
almonds and grapes in Fresno where Plaintiff was employed as a
non-exempt laborer, pruning and tying grapevines. He was paid
solely on a piece-rate basis based on the pre-determined amount per
number of vines they completed. He regularly began work around
7:00AM to 4:30PM with no paid rest periods for every four hours
worked and did not get paid should unfavorable weather come up and
prevent them from working, asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
             bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


APET INC: Won't Be Indemnified by Westfield in Delgado BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. APET, INC., and NICHOLAS DELGADO, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Case
No. 2020CH00074 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 3, 2020), seeks a
declaration that the Plaintiff owes no duty to defend or indemnify
Apet under several policies of insurance issued to it.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that
it does not have to defend or indemnify Apet under the Policies
with respect to a class action lawsuit filed by Nicholas Delgado.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Delgado alleges that his employer, Apet,
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
unlawfully collecting his and other employees' biometric data,
specifically fingerprints.

Westfield is an insurance company incorporated under the State of
Ohio with its principal place of business located in Westfield
Center, Ohio.

Apet is an Illinois corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Osborne, Esq.
          Peter G. Syregelas, Esq.
          LINDSAY, PICKETT & POSTEL, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-800-6025
          Fax: (312) 629-1404
          Email: dosborne@lpplawfirm.com
                 psyregelas@lpplawfirm.com


ARTIFICIAL GRASS: Bacon Seeks for Certification of Text Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ADRIAN BACON, individually on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARTIFICIAL
GRASS LIQUIDATORS LOCATION 1, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:18-cv-01220-JLS-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), seeks certification of "Text Class" defined as:

     All individuals within the United States, who within four
     years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint in this
     action [July 10, 2018], were sent a text message, from
     Defendants or anyone on Defendants' behalf, to said person's
     cellular telephone number, for the purposes of promoting
     Defendants' service, without the person's prior express
     written consent.

These individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their
families; (2) the Defendants, the Defendants' subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest, and its
current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) the
Plaintiff's counsel and the Defendants' counsel; (4) persons who
properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any
such excluded persons; (6) persons whose claims against the
Defendants have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released;
and (7) individuals for whom the Defendants have record of consent
to place telemarketing calls.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, and to appoint his attorneys as Class Counsel.  To
the extent the Court finds the Motion insufficient and denies this
Motion, the Plaintiff asks that the Court do so without prejudice
so that he may refile and/or supplement the Motion with evidence
and information obtained up and through the close of discovery.

Mr. Bacon filed his case on July 10, 2018, accusing the Defendants
of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 20, 2020, at 10:30 a.m.
PST, to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James H. Bartolomei, III, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          809 W. 3rd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 228 7600
          Facsimile: (501) 228-0415
          E-mail: james@duncanfirm.com


ASIAN TERRACE: Chen Files Suit in New York for Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian Terrace
Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Ling Chen, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asian Terrace
Restaurant, Inc. and Vickie Sue Li, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07313 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Asian Terrace Restaurant, Inc. is a Mediterranean-themed restaurant
serving a hearty breakfast buffet.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




ASSET RECOVERY: Affairs on Rozani's Bid to Certify Class Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled JULIAN ROZANI v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01897-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On December 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In
this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in
the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings
on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification is
granted.  The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing
schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).  Moreover, for
administrative purposes, the Court notes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, et
al. The case is styled as Du'Bois A. Crockrom, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of
America, Bank of America Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00013 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, and Toronto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
          125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c
          New York, NE 10038
          Phone: (917) 336-0171
          Fax: (917) 336-0177
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


BIG APPLE ARCHERY: Dominguez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Apple Archery Lanes,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11936 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31,
2019).

Big Apple Archery Lanes, Inc. is an Archery range in New York City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gurrieri, Esq.
   Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
   277 Broadway Suite 408, Ste 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com



BIMBO BAKERIES: Partial Dismissal Bid in Burke Labor Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERIC BURKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO
BAKERIES USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-CV-902
(MAD/ATB) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Counts II,
III, and IV of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Plaintiffs Burke, Craig Barker, Rick Calton, Arthur Salisbury,
William Cory Tanner, Brian Tanner, and Tony Weaver, on behalf of
themselves and other employees similarly situated, commenced the
action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") (Count I), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") (Counts II,
III, IV).

The Plaintiffs allege a systematic practice of the Defendants
violating the NYLL by making unlawful deductions from their wages,
failing to comply with the record keeping and notice requirements
of the NYLL, and failing to pay an overtime premium when they
worked more than 40 hours per week.  The Plaintiffs allege both
individual claims under the FLSA and individual and class claims
under the NYLL.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other employees
similarly situated, commenced the action on July 23, 2019, with the
filing of a complaint.  Since the initial filing of the complaint,
an additional six individuals have opted-in to the case under the
FLSA.

In the Southern District of New York, a class action was brought by
Carlos M. Puello and Kim Peek against Bimbo Foods Bakeries
Distribution, LLC ("BFBD") on June 14, 2017, for the
misclassification of independent operators as independent
contractors -- Foods Bakeries Distribution, No. 17-cv-4481
(S.D.N.Y.) (Karas, J.).  The complaint was amended on July 9, 2018,
modifying the named plaintiffs to be Johanny Puello, Antony Paris,
and Thomas Paris, and now including Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
("BBUSA") as a defendant.   The complaint, as well as the amended
complaint, contain a variety of allegations against BFBD and BBUSA
brought by the New York class, including that unlawful deductions
were taken from their wages, that BFBD and BBUSA failed to send
itemized deductions in violation of the NYLL, common law
misclassification in violation of the NYLL's New York State
Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act, and unjust
enrichment.

On Oct. 4, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims alleged
in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
and based on the application of the "first-filed" rule.

While the Plaintiffs raise facts suggesting that they'd be
inconvenienced because they are likely to be deposed, or that their
legal rights would not be protected based on the Puello plaintiffs'
legal theories, Judge D'Agostino is not persuaded.  First, the
Judge reiterates that the 'first-filed' rule embodies the notion
that the plaintiff who is first to commence litigation should have
his or her choice of venue.  Second, the possibility of depositions
does not suggest an undue burden on the Plaintiffs in their ability
to access and present evidence.  Finally, application of the
'first-filed' rule in the matter would serve its intended purpose
in promoting the efficient resolution of duplicative litigation.

Given the duplicative nature of the claims in these matters, the
Judge refuses to impose a stay in the matter, as a stay would fail
to serve the purposes underlying application of the 'first-filed'
rule."  It is because retaining jurisdiction for subsequent
adjudication of the instant action would unnecessarily require the
Court to reexamine parallel issues that will be raised and decided
in Puello, and would waste considerable time and judicial
resources.

The class/collective claims raised in these two cases are so
substantially similar as to require dismissal.  First, the classes
sought to be represented are identical.  The progress of the Puello
action also militates in favor of dismissal.  The Puello case was
opened in June 2017, whereas the current action was commenced over
two years later.  It would also be patently unfair to require the
Defendants to litigate the class issues here at the same time as
those matters are being litigated in the first-filed action.  The
Plaintiffs cannot escape the first-filed rule simply because they
chose not to opt into the first-filed collective action.

Because the Judge grants the Defendants' motion on first-to-file
grounds, it is unnecessary to address their alternative arguments
regarding the Plaintiffs' designation as an employee under the Fair
Play Act and supplemental jurisdiction.

After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted the Defendants' partial motion to
dismiss.  The Judge dismissed Counts II, III, and IV of the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The Defendants will file an answer
as to Count I of the amended complaint no later than 45 days after
the entry of the Memorandum-Decision and Order.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://is.gd/mr79Pt from Leagle.com.

Eric Burke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Craig Barker, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Rick Calton, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Arthur Salisbury, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, William Cory Tanner,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Brian
Tanner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated &
Tony Weaver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Harold Lichten --
hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Matthew W.
Thomson & Samuel A. Alba -- Sam@legalsurvival.com -- Friedman &
Ranzenhofer, P.C.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. & Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Michael J. Puma --
michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis Law Firm -
Philadelphia Office.


BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Williams Moves to Certify Class of Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Williams, Doreen Walker, April McKeel, Michaela Caperna,
Lois Williams, Inez Ratcliff, Samantha Hutton, Nicole Leo, Joanne
Peabody, Christina Turner, Brittany Willis, Regina Jensen, Vickie
Rash, Rebecca Bailey, and James Woodworth, individually, and on
behalf of all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned TIFFANY WILLIAMS, et al. v. BOB EVANS
RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01353-MRH (W.D. Pa.),
seek conditional collective action certification under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of servers, who have worked for the Defendants'
Bob Evans Restaurants.

According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs and the proposed collective
have worked as servers for the Defendants, and the Defendants
imposed a "tip credit" against their minimum wages.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve the proposed notice to
the collective and order that the statute of limitations applicable
to the FLSA tip credit notice and overtime claims, as first raised
in McKeel on January 24, 2019, be tolled as of January 1,
2020.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: 847-644-3425
          Facsimile: 847-673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


BOEING CO: Court Names Bernstein as Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, appointed the
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi as Lead
Plaintiff, and approved its selection of the law firm of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as Lead Counsel in IN RE THE BOEING
COMPANY AIRCRAFT SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19 CV 2394 (N.D.
Ill.).

The matter involves securities fraud claims predicated on
statements issued by The Boeing Co. regarding the safety of its 737
MAX aircraft.  In a nutshell, the complaints filed to date allege
that during the first part of 2019, Boeing misled investors about
the financial prospects for its commercial airplanes business by
misstating and concealing information about safety problems with
the 737 MAX in the wake of investigations of the crashes of Lion
Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302
in March 2019.

Two class action complaints have been filed.  The initial complaint
(Case No. 19 CV 2394; the "Seeks" action) was filed on April 9,
2019, by plaintiff Richard Seeks on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of Boeing securities between Jan. 8, 2019 and March 21,
2019.  A subsequent complaint was filed by plaintiff Mercer Busch
(Case No. 19 CV 3548; the "Busch" action) on May 28, 2019 on behalf
of a class of persons who acquired Boeing securities between Jan.
8, 2019 and May 8, 2019.  The defendants named in the two suits
include: Boeing; Dennis Muilenburg, its Chairman, CEO, and
President; Gregory Smith, its CFO and Executive Vice President of
Enterprise Performance and Strategy; and Kevin McAllister,
President and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

By order of June 21, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases and set
a briefing schedule on the various motions for appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff submitted by members of the putative class.

Neither of the Plaintiffs who filed the complaints consolidated in
this matter have moved for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.
There is, however, no shortage of interest in the job.

A collection of seven individuals, groups, and institutions moved
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action:

     a. Ali Alibrahim, represented by Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP;

     b. Robert W. Kegley, Sr., as Trustee of the Robert W. Kegley
Sr. Revocable Living Trust, represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP;

     c. The Boeing Investor Group (comprising Richard Eads, Joseph
Fields, John Armstrong, Richard Miller, and Pierre Givenchy),
represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (TBIG-I);

     d. The Wang Family (comprising Kenny K. Wang, Kathleen Wang,
Kenny W. Wang) [41], represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and
Miller Law LLC;

     e. Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada,
represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Labourers);

     f. The Boeing Investor Group (comprising Darrell Stock and
Kin-Yip Chun), represented by Pomerantz LLP (TBIG-II); and

     g. The Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi,
represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP (MPERS).

Plaintiffs Alibrahim and The Boeing Investor Group II subsequently
withdrew their motions.  The remaining movants have filed further
briefs on behalf of their candidacies and in response to the
submissions of the other candidates.

Judge Tharp finds that at approximately $2.5 million, MPERS
suffered, by a considerable margin, the next largest loss on Boeing
stock during the putative class period.  At this stage, it is
enough to note that MPERS has the incentive to prove what every
other Plaintiff in the longest-pled class period seeks to prove.
The fact that most of MPERS' purchases of Boeing stock came toward
the end of the class period may be relevant if partially corrective
disclosures decreased the amount of inflation in the share price at
the point when MPERS purchased its shares, and thereby decreased
its losses on a per share basis, but that possibility is already
reflected in MPERS' loss calculation.  Even if its losses on a per
share basis turn out to be lower, MPERS still claims, by
substantial margin, the largest total loss in the class period of
any investor other than the Wangs.

The Judge holds that at this stage, it is enough to note that MPERS
has the incentive to prove what every other Plaintiff in the
longest-pled class period seeks to prove: that Boeing made false
and misleading statements in the class period that inflated the
price of its stock when purchased and that the value of the stock
thereafter declined when accurate information became known.  The
fact that most of MPERS' purchases of Boeing stock came toward the
end of the class period may be relevant if partially corrective
disclosures decreased the amount of inflation in the share price at
the point when MPERS purchased its shares, and thereby decreased
its losses on a per share basis, but that possibility is already
reflected in MPERS' loss calculation.  Even if its losses on a per
share basis turn out to be lower, MPERS still claims, by
substantial margin, the largest total loss in the class period of
any investor other than the Wangs.  The Judge is satisfied that
MPERS' selection of the Bernstein Litowitz firm does not undermine
MPERS' adequacy to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and that its choice
of Bernstein Litowitz as the Lead Counsel should be approved.

Having concluded that MPERS qualifies as the presumptive Lead
Plaintiff, it is not necessary to consider the applications of the
remaining movants as to that role.  

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tharp appointed the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as the Lead Plaintiff
and approves its selection of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP as the Lead Counsel.

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

Richard Seeks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Reed R. Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jason A. Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Llp.

The Boeing Company, Dennis A. Muilenburg & Gregory D. Smith,
Defendants, represented by Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Craig S. Primis -- craig.primis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis & John F. Hartmann -- john.hartmann@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP.

Mercer Busch, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLP, Andrew Szot
-- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC & Marvin Alan Miller --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC.

Robert W. Kegley, Sr., as Trustee of the Robert W. Kegley Sr.
Revocable Living Trust U/A DTD 04/16/2003, Movant, represented by
Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, Alejandro Caffarelli,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Madeline K. Engel, Caffarelli &
Associates Ltd. & Ryan T. Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice.

John Armstrong, Movant, represented by Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kenny K. Wang, Kathleen Wang & Kenny W. Wang, Movants, represented
by Lewis S. Kahn -- Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti
LLC, pro hac vice, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti LLP, Andrew
Szot, Miller Law LLC & Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC.

Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, Movant,
represented by Frank Anthony Richter, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
James E. Barz, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Danielle S.
Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Darrell Stock & Kin-Yip Chun, Movants, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Llp.

The Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, Movant,
represented by Avi Josefson, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann LLP.


BOHEMIAN CITIZENS: Dominguez Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y. is facing
a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez for
himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria
L.I.N.Y., jointly and severally and Bohemian Citizens' Benevolent
Society of Astoria Scholarship Fund, Inc., jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11932 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

The Bohemian Citizens' Benevolent Society is a private benevolent
society founded in 1892 in Astoria, Queens to support Czech and
Slovak immigrants to the area, as well as people of Czech and
Slovak ancestry. The Society is commonly known as "Bohemian Hall",
for the historic structure (NRHP) in which it is located.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gurrieri, Esq.
   Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
   277 Broadway Suite 408, Ste 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


BP EXPLORATION: Granted Summary Judgment in McGill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BLAINE McGILL, Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendants,
Cause No. 1:18CV159-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Southern Division, granted BP's Motion to Exclude the
Testimony and Opinions of Dr. Steven Stogner and the Motion for
Summary Judgment based on Lack of Causation.

From approximately May 12, 2010 to July 30, 2010, McGill, was
employed by Miller Fishing Co. to clean up oil released in the Gulf
of Mexico as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  McGill
was part of a boat crew that searched the Gulf for oil slicks.
Upon locating an oil slick, members of the boat crew would use an
oil boom to contain the oil before scooping the oil into garbage
bags kept in the boat.  As a result of his work related to the
spill, McGill is a member of the class covered by the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA").
The class members like McGill who did not opt out of the MSA
agreed not to sue BP for medical conditions caused by the oil spill
in return for defined compensation benefits.  However, the MSA
permits class members to sue BP for "Later-Manifested Physical
Conditions."  Lawsuits filed for "Later-Manifested Physical
Conditions" are called "Back-End Litigation Option" or "BELO"
lawsuits.

In 2013, McGill was diagnosed with numerous illnesses, including
pneumonia and acute respiratory failure. He followed the procedures
set forth in the MSA for filing the BELO lawsuit against BP.
Pursuant to the MSA, McGill is not required to demonstrate that he
was exposed to oil, other hydrocarbons, and other substances
released from the MC252 WELL and/or Deepwater Horizon and its
appurtenances, and/or dispersants and/or decontaminants used in
connection with the Response Activities.

In addition, McGill is not required to demonstrate that BP was at
fault for the Deepwater Horizon incident.  Nevertheless, the
parties may litigate the level and duration of McGill's exposure to
oil, other hydrocarbons, and other substances released from the
MC252 WELL and/or Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances, and/or
dispersants and/or decontaminants used in connection with the
Response Activities, and the timing thereof. The parties may also
litigate whether McGill's later-manifested physical condition was
legally caused by his exposure to the oil, dispersants, and other
chemicals.

McGill has designated Dr. Steven Stogner as an expert in the field
of pulmonology.  In his report, Dr. Stogner opined that McGill's
exposure to the dispersant Corexit during oil clean-up work more
probably than not caused or contributed to McGill's pulmonary
dysfunction and diseases.  During his deposition, Dr. Stogner also
opined that McGill's exposure to crude oil cannot be ruled out as a
cause of or contributing factor to McGill's illnesses.  BP has
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Motion to Exclude Dr.
Stogner's testimony and opinions, and numerous other motions.

BP argues that McGill cannot establish causation as required by the
MSA and general maritime law, because expert testimony is required
in toxic tort cases.  In addition, BP asserts, the expert testimony
must establish that McGill's exposure to dispersants and/or oil was
at a sufficient level and duration to cause his medical conditions.
McGill counters that BP's arguments based on toxic tort law are
precluded by the application of general maritime law.

Judge Guirola concludes that McGill has not demonstrated that the
proposed expert opinions and testimony of Dr. Stogner are reliable
and admissible; thus, Dr. Stogner's opinions and testimony must be
excluded.  McGill also has not provided admissible evidence
supporting his claim that his exposure to oil and/or Corexit caused
his medical conditions.  BP is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, Jude Guirola granted BP's Motion to Exclude.  He also
granted BP's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Lack of
Causation.  All other pending motions are terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Gvb8QK from Leagle.com.

Blaine McGill, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Stephen Lott, LAW
OFFICE OF MATTHEW S. LOTT & David Neil Harris, Jr., DAVID N.
HARRIS, JR. LAW FIRM.

BP Exploration & Production Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
W. Tardy, III -- TTardy@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY
ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC, Charles Chan E. McLeod --
CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY,
LLC, Clare Smith Rush -- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC, Edderek Linnel Cole, MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC & Ian C. Jones --
ian@prestonlegal.co.uk -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY,
LLC.

BP America Production Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas W.
Tardy, III, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC, Charles
Chan E. McLeod, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC, Edderek
Linnel Cole, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC & Ian C.
Jones, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY, LLC.


BURY THE HATCHET: Dominguez Files Suit under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bury The Hatchet Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bury The Hatchet Holdings,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11939 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

Bury The Hatchet Holdings, LLC is an indoor facility offering axe
throwing experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR: Faces Speer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Speer, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR, HEARTLAND MEDIA, KHSL, KNVN,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00034-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020), is
brought against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was required to continue his work without rest or
meal breaks in which he was relieved of all duty, according to the
complaint. He alleges that 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'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 PROFFESIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Vlasak moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER VLASAK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00001 (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


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted Plaintiffs Elizabeth R. Kay, Randall
G. Kay, David Kinney, and John Perez's unopposed motion for final
approval of the class action settlement and plan of allocation
andPlaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses in In re CAPSTONE TURBINE
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. CV 15-8914-DMG (RAOx)
(C.D. Cal.).

Judge Gee affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only,
the Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement
Class consisting of all persons and entities who or which purchased
or otherwise acquired Capstone common stock between June 12, 2014
and Nov. 5, 2015, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

The Judge also approved the Plan of Allocation.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Judge Gee fully and finally approved the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases
provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the
claims asserted against Defendants in the Action), and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate
to the Settlement Class.  The Parties are directed to implement,
perform and consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms
and provisions contained in the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members
are dismissed with prejudice.  The Parties will bear their own
costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the
Stipulation.

Judge Gee has approved the following payments:

  (a) attorneys' fees payable to Class Counsel in the matter in
      the amount of $1,454,100;

  (b) allowable costs in this matter in the amount of $78,084.47,
      and

  (c) $31,000 in reimbursements to the Lead and the Named
      Plaintiffs, in the amount of $22,500 for Lead Plaintiff
      Randall Kay, $3,500 for Lead Plaintiff Elizabeth Kay,
      $2,500 for Named Plaintiff David Kinney, and $2,500
      for Named Plaintiff John Perez.

The Settling Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to
carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Order & Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/ExuS7y from Leagle.com.

In re Capstone Turbine Corp. Securities Litigation, Plaintiff,
represented by Joni L. Ostler, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati.

David Kinney, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
SItuated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy --
LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel
Zevi Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP, Christopher Robert Fallon -- CFALLON@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP, Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G
Smith, pro hac vice, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Melissa C. Wright, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Stan Karas,
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Casey Edwards Sadler --
CSADLER@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and
Murray LLP.

Randall G. Kay, Lead Plaintiff & Elizabeth R. Kay, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay and
Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Casey
Edwards Sadler, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Christopher Robert
Fallon, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP, Kevin F. Ruf, Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP, Melissa C. Wright, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Peter A.
Binkow, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Stan Karas, Glancy Prongay
and Murray LLP.

John Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Robert Fallon,
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Kara M. Wolke, Glancy Prongay and
Murray LLP, Melissa C. Wright, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Stan
Karas, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Casey Edwards Sadler, Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP.

Kevin M. Grooms, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated [Plaintiff in Conolidated Case No. CV 15-09155 DMG
(RAOx)], Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP &
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Capstone Turbine Corp., Darren R. Jamison & Jayme Brooks,
Defendants, represented by Drew S. Liming -- dliming@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Joni L. Ostler --
jostler@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Nina Fran
Locker -- nlocker@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
LLP & Stephen Bruce Strain -- sstrain@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Wins Bid to Exclude Experts' Opinions in Weaver
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT WEAVER v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC.
and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01996-JPS (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. J. P. Stadtmueller:

   -- grants the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of
      Jon Krosnick and Colin Weir;

   -- rules that the opinions of Jon Krosnick and Colin Weir are
      excluded from the evidence in this case;

   -- denies without prejudice the Defendants' motion for summary
      judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification; and

   -- grants the parties' motions to restrict documents.

Jon Krosnick and Colin Weir are two of the Plaintiff's damages
experts.

The lawsuit is a class action alleging that the Defendants have
marketed their dog foods as being natural and of high-quality, and
sold them at a premium price, when their advertisements were
misleading at best, meaning that the products' price was unfairly
inflated.

In this lawsuit, the Defendants have filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety.  The
Plaintiff has filed his own motion for class certification.  The
parties have also moved to exclude the opinions of various experts
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Judge Stadtmueller notes that he only addresses the Motion to
Exclude because "[i]t appears to the Court that the motion is
pivotal to the case and may drastically change the parties'
approaches to the litigation moving forward."

According to the Order, the Court must exclude Mr. Krosnick's
opinion and his Survey evidence.  Weir's calculations are entirely
founded on the Survey results.  With the exclusion of those results
from this case, Weir's opinion must go as well.

Without these two opinions, the parties' approach to class
certification, summary judgment, and the litigation generally will
likely be significantly altered, Judge Stadtmueller notes.  The
Court will, therefore, deny the pending motions for summary
judgment and class certification without prejudice.

The Court will also grant various pending motions to restrict
documents.[CC]


CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Allred Suit Over Liquor License Escrow Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE E. ALLRED AND MELISSA M. ALLRED v. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY;
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; ADELLE E. DUCHARME; BETTY ELIXMAN;
GINA CHAMPION-CAIN; JOELLE HANSON; CRIS TORRES; RACHAEL BOND; AND
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-02129-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
Nov. 5, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated, who have suffered harm as a result of
the Defendants' fraudulent liquor license escrow investment
conspiracy.

Beginning in 2012 and continuing until September 2019, the
Defendants defrauded the Plaintiffs and other investors of hundreds
of millions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme in which the
Defendants falsely represented that the Plaintiffs' investment
funds were being used to make high-interest short-term loans to
California liquor license applicants through a special lending
"program" or "platform" (the "Lending Platform"), the Plaintiffs
allege.  The Defendants repeatedly reassured the Plaintiffs and
other investors that their funds were secure because they were
being safeguarded by Chicago Title, a household name and trusted
fiduciary, and held in special California liquor license escrow
accounts.

However, the Plaintiffs contend, as first revealed in a complaint
filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28,
2019, not a single investor dollar was used to fund any liquor
license application escrows.  In fact, the Plaintiffs note, none of
the Chicago Title escrow accounts used by the Defendants to
misappropriate investor monies were suitable for the transfer of
California liquor licenses, which under California law require
special escrows administered by qualified escrow agents, who are
knowledgeable about California law and ABC procedures.

Instead of funding liquor license transfer escrows, the scheme's
mastermind, the Plaintiffs allege, Defendant Gina Champion-Cain
through her company, ANI Development, LLC ("ANI Development"), and
with the assistance of the other Defendants, misused investors'
funds for personal uses and to subsidize her vast array of
businesses, including approximately 60 restaurants, coffee shops,
"lifestyle" brands, retail establishments, properties, and
commercial developments.  Ms. Champion-Cain also used subsequent
investor contributions to pay off earlier investors and, in this
way, perpetuate the scheme for at least seven years.

In this action, the Plaintiffs and the Class seek to recover their
substantial losses and other harms caused by the Defendants' fraud
and conspiracy in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and violations of California
statutory and common law.

The Allred Plaintiffs jointly invested $125,000 in the ANI Lending
Platform on October 18, 2018.

Chicago Title Company is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.  Chicago
Title Insurance Company is a Florida Corporation with its principal
place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.  Together with Chicago
Title Insurance Company, it provides various real estate-related
financial services, including escrow agent services.  Defendants
Adelle E. DuCharme and Betty Elixman are employees of Chicago
Title.

Gina Champion-Cain is a resident of the State of California and the
sole and managing member of ANI Development, a California limited
liability company.  ANI Development is an affiliate of American
National Investments, Inc. ("ANI"), a California corporation based
in San Diego, California.  The other Individual Defendants are
officers and employees of ANI.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Henderson Hits Illegal Collection Efforts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmille Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Financial Systems,
Inc. and Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02422, (M.D. Fla., December 24, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collectors assigned to collect an alleged
obligation by Henderson. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


DELTA DENTAL: Dentist Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brings this action for injunctive relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of dentists in the Delta Dental
provider network, damages on behalf of a California class of dental
service providers, against the Delta Dental Plans Association and
its subsidiary Delta USA and 39 independent Delta Dental companies
for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 4
of the Clayton Act, docketed under Case No. 19-cv-08182 (M.D. N.C.,
December 20, 2019).

Delta Dental is a network of independent companies conducting
business in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Each individual plan contracts with dental service providers
to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to patients
with Delta Dental insurance contracts. Plaintiff alleges that the
plan providers, who are meant to compete with each other, have
agreed to allocate exclusive geographic markets through license
agreements that limit and restrict competition outside of their
respective territorial markets.

Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A. operates as "Greensboro Perio," a
dental service provider located at 301 East Wendover Avenue, Suite
315, Greensboro, NC and is part of Defendants' provider network and
provides dental care services to subscribers to Delta Dental
insurance coverage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
     Jeffrey S. Southerland, Esq.
     Scott C. Gayle, Esq.
     TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
     100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600
     Greensboro, NC 27401
     Telephone: (336) 378-1431
     Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
     Email: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
            JSoutherland@tuggleduggins.com
            SGayle@tuggleduggins.com

            - and -

     Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
     Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 314-7980, 519-8306
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
            sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


E-Z CASE LOANS: Wilczak Sues Over Loans to Made to Ill. Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Wilczak, an individual, individually, and on behalf of all
other members of the class similarly situated v. E-Z CASE LOANS,
LLC, a limited liability company, GLEN TRAEGER, an individual, and
MICHELLE TRAEGER, an individual, Case No. 2020CH00092 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., Jan. 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their common endeavor to unfairly profit from loans made to
citizens and residents of the state of Illinois that are violative
of 820 ILCS 305/21, and otherwise unfair, deceptive and against the
public policy of Illinois.

In addition to charging outrageous and unlawful interest rates on
borrowed funds (potentially over 10,000 percent per annum in some
cases), E-Z CASE LOANS makes loans to persons pursuing workers'
compensation claims that are unlawful, violative of the stated
public policy of the State of Illinois (820 ILCS 305/21), unfair,
deceptive and, all the times, while hiding behind a written claim
in the loan documents that their loans are in full compliance with
the rules and regulations of the Illinois Department of Financial
and Professional Regulation, when they are not.

Specifically, E-Z CASE LOANS, G. Traeger and M. Traeger require
consumers to secure their loans with their claims and actions
against their employer under the Illinois Workers' Compensation
Act, and irrevocably assign the proceeds from any resolution of the
same to E-Z CASE LOANS, which is violative of 820 ILCS 305/21.
Litigation funding is likewise unlawful as it violates the age-old
common law doctrines of champerty, maintenance and barratry, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Wilczak borrowed one-thousand dollars in the form of
litigation funding from E-Z CASE LOANS.

E-Z CASE LOANS is engaged in the business of, among other things,
providing litigation funding to individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Voelker, Esq.
          VOELKER LITIGATION GROUP
          33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312.870.5430
          Fax: 312.254.7666
          Email: dvoelker@voekerlitigationgroup.com


EDOARDO MELONI: Faces Newman Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Newman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. EDOARDO MELONI, P.A. d/b/a THE MELONI LAW FIRM, Case No.
0:20-cv-60027-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for the benefit of Florida
consumers, who have been the subject of debt collection efforts by
the Defendant.

Part and parcel to the validation notice requirement of the FDCPA
is a 30-day window for the consumer to dispute his alleged debt,
seek verification of the debt, or seek creditor information
regarding the debt. In other words, a debt collector cannot make
contradictory demands or otherwise interfere with a consumer's
validation rights during the first 30 days after his receipt of the
validation notice, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that this case centers on such prohibited
conduct: the Defendant's overshadowing of necessary disclosures,
simultaneous threats to file liens on consumers' homes, and
deceptive and misleading representations, in its initial written
communications to Florida consumers.

Plaintiff Dr. Howard Newman is a natural person obligated, or
allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due.

The Defendant is a law firm with its principal place of business
located in Broward County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                 jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Henderson Alleges Illegal Collection Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmille Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC
and Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02424, (M.D. Fla., December 24, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collectors assigned to collect an alleged
obligation by Henderson. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rosenbluh Asserts Breach of FCRA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Chanie Rosenbluh, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07298 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com




ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESPARZA ENTERPRISES,
INC. The case is styled as Marleny Balcarcel, an individual on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. BCV-20-100014 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 3, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Esparza Enterprises, Inc. provides staffing services. The Company
offers employment services in agricultural labor, warehouse,
industrial, and dairy sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by NATALIE R. HARITOONIAN, ESQ.



EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Guzman Alleges Violation under FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Carolina Guzman, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07301 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical
tools, and marketing services. Experian Information Solutions
serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com




FIBER GLASS: Johnson Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiber Glass Systems
LP. The case is styled as Markiest Johnson, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Fiber Glass
Systems LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00001-LPR (E.D. Ark., Jan.
2, 2020).

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

Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. manufactures composite pipe and fittings.
The Company provides anhydride, aliphatic, thread molds, tubing,
and casing products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
          Wilson & Haubert, PLLC
          1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 372-1212
          Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com



FIDELITY NAT'L: 9th Cir. Flips Denial of Henson's Rule 60(b)(6) Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MELISSIA HENSON; KEITH TURNER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 18-56071, 14-1240 (9th Cir.), Judge
A. Wallace Tashima of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Plaintiffs'
motion to vacate the prior dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

On Sept. 9, 2013, Plaintiffs-Appellants Henson and Turner, two
individuals who participated in separate real estate transactions,
filed the putative class action against Defendant-Appellee
Fidelity.  The Plaintiffs claimed that Fidelity's practice of
receiving payments from three overnight delivery vendors, in
exchange for referring document delivery business to those vendors
in connection with the settlement of federally related mortgage
loans, violated Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").

Fidelity moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court
granted the motion as to all claims except for Turner's claim under
RESPA Section 8(a).  The district court dismissed all of Henson's
claims on statute of limitations grounds, and also dismissed with
prejudice both Henson's and Turner's claims under RESPA Section
8(b) for failure to state a claim.  After filing an answer,
Fidelity moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to
Turner's remaining claim under RESPA Section 8(a), but the district
court denied that motion.

Turner subsequently moved for class certification.  A week later,
Turner moved in the alternative to continue the hearing on class
certification in order to allow discovery on class certification
issues.  The district court denied both the discovery and class
certification motions, finding that class member-specific questions
would predominate over any class-wide inquiries.

The Plaintiffs then entered into a detailed, negotiated stipulation
of dismissal with Fidelity.  They agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
case with prejudice so that they could appeal both the district
court's denial of class certification and the partial grant of the
motion to dismiss.

The district court entered the parties' proposed order and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the terms provided in the
stipulation.  Henson and Turner then timely filed separate notices
of appeal from the final dismissal order.  Both notices of appeal
specifically identified the order granting in part Fidelity's
motion to dismiss (as to Henson's claims and the RESPA Section 8(b)
claims), and the order denying class certification, as orders
included in the final judgment to be reviewed on appeal.

After Henson's and Turner's appeals were fully briefed, but before
they were calendared for oral argument, the cases were stayed
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v.
Baker, because that case appeared poised to address some of the
appellate jurisdiction questions raised by Fidelity in Henson's and
Turner's appeals.  On June 12, 2017, nearly three years after the
Plaintiffs had filed their stipulated voluntary dismissal, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Microsoft.  It held that the
plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a tentative
interlocutory order into a final judgment within the meaning of
Section 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice --
subject, no less, to the right to 'revive' those claims if the
denial of class certification is reversed on appeal.

In light of Microsoft, Fidelity moved to dismiss both Henson's and
Turner's appeals.  A Ninth Circuit motions panel subsequently
entered identical orders in Henson's and Turner's appeals, denying
Fidelity's motions to dismiss and remanding to the district court.
On remand, Fidelity refused to stipulate that the case should
proceed before the district court on Turner's RESPA Section 8(a)
claim, which had survived Fidelity's motion to dismiss and motion
for judgment on the pleadings, but which had been voluntarily
dismissed pursuant to the stipulation.  As a result, the Plaintiffs
moved to vacate the prior dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion.  Applying the
Phelps framework to the intervening change of law argument, the
district court ruled that the six factors set out in Phelps v.
Alameida did not warrant relief.  It did not address Henson's
separate argument that denying her relief from judgment would have
the effect of unfairly nullifying her right to appeal the district
court's earlier involuntary dismissal of her claims.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.  They argue on appeal that the
district court's denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief constituted an
abuse of discretion.  They contend that the district court erred in
its analysis of the Phelps change-in-the-law factors by assuming
that Plaintiffs were at fault for their predicament, and therefore
by giving no weight to, or even counting against them, the
Plaintiffs' legitimate reliance on the settled law of the Circuit
and the Ninth Circuit's decision to remand rather than to dismiss
the appeals.  According to the Plaintiffs, the district court's
flawed assumption -- contrary to the terms of the parties'
stipulation -- that Fidelity was entitled to rely on the finality
of the judgment, based on the expectation that Ninth Circuit
precedent would be overruled, tainted the district court's analysis
of three of the six Phelps factors.

Judge Tashima holds that the district court's analysis of the
change-in-the-law, reliance interest, and comity factors -- those
which it found weighed against relief -- rested upon an incorrect
view of the law.  The change-in-the-law factor is neutral or
slightly favors relief because the Plaintiffs relied on
well-established circuit law and did not knowingly risk permanent
finality, even though they knew Fidelity would challenge appellate
jurisdiction and they could have taken a different course of
action.  Properly interpreted and applied, the factor considering
the parties' reliance interest in the finality of the judgment
weighs heavily in favor of Rule 60(b)(6) relief, because the change
in the law occurred while the appeal was pending, before the
judgment became final and before Fidelity developed any reliance
interest in the finality of the judgment.  In addition, because the
instant case does not implicate principles of comity between state
and federal courts, the comity factor is inapplicable and does not,
as the district court found, weigh against granting relief.

Weighing all the Phelps factors, correctly analyzed, it is clear
that all the relevant circumstances in the case heavily tip the
scale in favor of granting Rule 60(b)(6) relief, the Ninth Circuit
opines. Although by the district court's reasonable calculus the
nature in the change of the law factor weighed "slightly against"
granting relief, all the other factors are neutral or weigh in
favor of granting relief.  Together, the circumstances of the case
are therefore sufficiently "extraordinary" that granting relief
from judgment "is appropriate to accomplish justice.

Because the district court's denial of the Plaintiffs' Rule
60(b)(6) motion rested upon an erroneous view of the law as to
several significant factors, Judge Tashima holds that the district
court's ruling was an abuse of discretion.  Moreover, in light of
all the circumstances of the case, Judge Tashima is left with a
definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a
weighing of relevant factors.

Judge Tashimatherefore reversed the district court's denial of the
Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment, and
remanded with directions to grant the Rule 60(b)(6) motion and for
further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Nov. 15, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/cabqBN from Leagle.com.

Cyril V. Smith -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- (argued), Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Taras Kick --
taras@kicklawfirm.com -- and Robert J. Dart -- Robert@kicklawrm.com
-- The Kick Law Firm APC, Los Angeles, California; for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael J. Gleason -- mgleason@hahnlaw.com -- (argued), Hahn Loeser
& Parks LLP, San San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellee.


FIELDCORE SERVICES: Trottier Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Trottier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, and GRANITE SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00077 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 3,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California law and
the New York law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff works overtime while
working for the Defendants. The Defendants pay the Plaintiff the
same hourly rate for all hours worked including those in excess of
40 in a workweek. The Defendants did not pay these workers overtime
for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a Technical
Advisor since January 2017, seeks back wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, costs, and all other remedies available under the
FLSA, California law, and New York law.

FieldCore is a newly formed company bringing together the field
service resources from Granite and GE Power Services into one field
services organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Fax: 713 999 1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


FIRSTSOURCE: Miller-Jack Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Hopelyn Miller-Jack,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00057 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020).

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

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          Barshay Sanders, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


GLOBAL MANAGEMENT: Lowenbein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Management
Acquisition Firm, Inc. The case is styled as Boruch Lowenbein, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Global Management Acquisition Firm, Inc. also known
as: Global Management Premier Client Servicing, Hood & Thompson
Associates, Inc., Hapnel Financial Group, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00015 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2020).

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

Global Management Acquisition Firm, Inc. is an American private
equity firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


HARBOR CLUB: Discriminates Against Russian Workers, Pastukh Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Pastukh and Andrey Pastukh, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. HARBOR CLUB OWNERS ASSOCIATION
INC. and LEGACY VACATION CLUB SERVICES LLC d/b/a LEGACY VACATION
CLUB, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 6:20-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla.,
Jan. 6, 2020), accuses the Defendants of engaging in unlawful
employment practices and retaliation on the basis of national
origin against their employees of Russian origin or from countries
of ex-USSR, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants for over 12 years,
starting from April 2006 until they were wrongfully terminated on
August 31, 2018.

The Defendants operate a chain of time share resorts in Florida and
several other states, including Colorado, New Jersey and Nevada.

In April 2017, the Defendants implemented several staffing and
policy changes at their Resort, including hiring a new Resort
Manager, Diana Yost. Shortly after being hired, Ms. Yost began to
display an openly hostile attitude towards the Russian-speaking
Staff, including the Plaintiffs. Despite the Staff having worked
and communicated with over seven different managers without any
problems over the years, Yost often refused and avoided speaking
with the Staff, stating that she "did not understand their Russian
accents" and could not work with them.

Ms. Yost was habitually rude, demeaning, hostile and discriminated
against the Plaintiffs and the Staff, says the complaint. The
Plaintiffs and other employees complained numerous times about her
and the change in working conditions to the Defendants and
requested for the upper management team to come to the Resort from
the Orlando headquarters to observe the hostile working conditions,
but their multiple complaints went unanswered for over a year.

Despite all the complaints, the Defendants condoned Ms. Yost's
discriminatory behavior and did not remove her from working with
the Staff, which was extremely demoralizing to the Staff and caused
emotional anguish, anxiety and distress, the Plaintiffs aver.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott M. Wellikoff, Esq.
          Aaron S. Adler, Esq.
          ADLER WELLIKOFF, PLLC
          1300 N. Federal Highway, Suite 107
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561.923.8600
          Email: swellikoff@adwellgroup.com
                 aadler@adwellgroup.com

               - and -

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: 212.392.4772
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 milana@lipskylowe.com


HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Claims in First Amended Garcia Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case RONALD GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02054-JCS (N.D.
Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part Harley-Davidson's motion to dismiss Garcia's first
amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Under the putative class action, Plaintiff Garcia alleges that
several models of motorcycles sold by Defendant Harley-Davidson
included a defective antilock braking system ("ABS") prone to
premature failure during normal operation of the motorcycle.  He
purchased a new 2008 Harley-Davidson Street Glide motorcycle
equipped with ABS from a dealer in Oakland, California, in 2008,
and paid a premium as compared to motorcycles without ABS.  

Harley-Davidson represented in promotional materials that the ABS
feature performed effectively and increased emergency braking
performance.  Unbeknownst to Garcia, Harley-Davidson was aware at
that time of internal tests showing that normal operation of the
motorcycle -- specifically, turning the front wheel back and forth
-- would cause a wire necessary to the ABS system to break well
before the expected useful life of the product.  If the wire broke,
the ABS would not function, and while the motorcycles were equipped
with a warning light to indicate issues with the ABS, Garcia
alleges that the light would not work to reveal this issue.

Although Harley-Davidson was aware of the issue with the ABS wiring
harness in 2008 and began working to change the design, it did not
inform owners of the affected motorcycles, and continued to use the
same wiring harness in several motorcycle models for the 2008,
2009, and 2010 model years, only replacing the wiring harness for
the 2011 model years.  In 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration investigated a separate ABS issue affecting certain
Harley-Davidson motorcycles, including the motorcycles at issue in
the case.  Harley-Davidson conducted a recall of the affected
motorcycles, but the investigation did not relate to the purported
wiring harness defect at issue in the case, and Harley-Davidson did
not make the public aware of the wiring harness issue.

Garcia asserts the following claims, for which he seeks to
represent a class of California purchasers: (1) unlawful, unfair,
and fraudulent business practices, in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); (2) breach of express warranty
under section 2313 of the California Commercial Code; (3) breach of
implied warranty under section 2314 of the California Commercial
Code; and (4) breach of implied warranty in violation of
California's Song-Beverly Act.  For the following remaining claims,
Garcia seeks to represent a nationwide class: (5) violation of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7)
a claim for declaratory judgment.

Harley-Davidson moved to dismiss Garcia's first amended complaint.
The Court hearing was on Nov. 15, 2019.

Magistrate Judge Spero granted in part and denied in part
Harley-Davidson's motion to dismiss Garcia's first amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Harley-Davidson's motion is granted as to Garcia's UCL
claim to the extent that it is based on affirmative
misrepresentations and as to his claim for breach of express
warranty, which are dismissed with leave to amend.  The motion is
also granted as to Garcia's UCC implied warranty claim, which is
dismissed with prejudice.  The motion is otherwise denied.

Among other things, Magistrate Judge Spero holds that while he
agrees that Garcia need not allege with particularity why he relied
on a particular representation, his failure to identify which
representations he relied on, or even which representations he
viewed before purchasing his motorcycle, warrants dismissal even if
the Court applies the normal pleading standard of Rule 8 and Iqbal.
Without such allegations, Harley-Davidson lacks notice of the
particular representations that give rise to Garcia's claims, and
thus lacks the ability to raise potential arguments specific to
those representations—for example, that they were truthful, were
mere puffery, or otherwise cannot support a claim, Judge Spero
says.

Magistrate Judge Spero also holds that although Garcia disputed
whether the Court could properly take notice of that document at
this stage of the case, his counsel conceded at the hearing that
the document is likely authentic and applicable to Garcia's claims,
and agreed to dismiss the claim for breach of express warranty
without prejudice to seeking leave to amend if evidence arises to
support such a claim at a later stage of the case.

If Garcia wishes to pursue a claim based on affirmative
misrepresentations, he may file a second amended complaint.  Garcia
may move for leave to amend later in the case if he becomes aware
of evidence supporting a claim for breach of express warranty.

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

Ronald Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Garrett Owens, Price Armstrong LLC, pro hac vice,
Jacob Tubbs, Price Armstrong LLC, pro hac vice, Lucas Williams,
Lexington Law Group LLP & Nicholas W. Armstrong, Price Armstrong
LLC.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael Alan Preciado -- mpreciado@buchalter.com -- Buchalter,
Ernest Hadley Eubanks, Jr. -- seubanks@rumberger.com -- Rumberger,
Kirk and Caldwell, pro hac vice & Samantha Crawford Duke --
sduke@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, pro hac vice.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Abirami Gnanadesigan, DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP, John Mark Thomas, Dykema
Gossett PLLC & Michael Alan Preciado, Buchalter.


HERTZ LOCAL: Ramirez Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Daniel Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP.; HERTZ LOCAL
EDITION TRANSPORTING, INC.; HERTZ LOCAL EDITION TRANSPORTING; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 19STCV37091, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 3, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00061 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of the putative classes, alleges that he
and the class are entitled to recover (among other things): (1)
unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime wages; (3) unpaid premium
wages for meal and rest break violations; (4) unpaid waiting time
penalties; (5) restitution under California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200; (6) penalties pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 226, etc.; and (7) attorneys' fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard E. Bromley, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 909-7775
          Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
          Email: rbromley@constangy.com

               - and -

          Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq.
          Cody T. Stroman, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 918-3000
          Email: bantonucci@constangy.com
                 cstroman@constangy.com


HM EVENTS: Mendoza Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
Lilian Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HM EVENTS & HOSPITALITY LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60028-RS
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff was sent marketing text messages without the
Plaintiff's express written consent, according to the complaint.
The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because said
text messages encourage the future purchase of the Defendant's
products by consumers.

At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with
express written consent to be contacted by text for marketing
purposes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and was a resident of Broward
County, Florida.

The Defendant is an event marketing and management company
headquartered in Weston, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORIZON ORGANIC: Lamouth Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Organic
Dairy, LLC. The case is styled as Wendy Lamouth, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Horizon
Organic Dairy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11928 (S.D., N.Y.,
Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant as a Diversity-Fraud case.

Horizon Organic is an American company, founded in 1991, that
produces organic milk and other organic food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
   Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
   505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 303-0552
   Fax: (516) 234-7800
   Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com



INDOOR EXTREME: Dominguez Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Extreme Sports Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Indoor Extreme Sports Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11933 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

Indoor Extreme Sports Inc. is a Recreation center in New York City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gurrieri, Esq.
   Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
   277 Broadway Suite 408, Ste 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


INTEGRATED RETAIL: Fails to Pay All Final Wages, Salomon Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boby Salomon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. INTEGRATED RETAIL
SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV39720 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 5, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating
the California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay
all final wages.

Mr. Salomon, a former employee of the Defendants, alleges that the
Defendants have consistent policy of failing to pay all final wages
due at termination or within seventy-two (72) hours after
separation to all employees in California and failing to provide
employees with accurately itemized wage statements, in violation of
Section 226(a) of the Labor Code.  He adds that he and all other
aggrieved employees were forced to continue working through their
rest breaks to assist the Defendants' customers.

Integrated Retail Services, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability
Company doing business in Glendale, California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Meghan@OLFLA.com


ISAMU NOGUCHI FOUNDATION: Dominguez Files Suit Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
The Isamu Noguchi Foundation, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Isamu Noguchi
Foundation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11931 (S.D. N.Y.,
Dec. 31, 2019).

The Isamu Noguchi Foundation, Inc. is a Non-profit organization in
New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JENNIFER MANKINS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennifer Mankins Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jennifer Mankins Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020).

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

Jennifer Mankins Inc was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of women's,
children's, and infants' clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Caldwell Sues Over Cash Advance Fees and Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CALDWELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-09518 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 5, 2019), is brought on behalf of all persons in
California, who incurred cash advance fees and/or cash advance
interest charges on a consumer credit card issued by the Defendant
upon purchasing a cryptocurrency from Coinbase.com or another
online crypto merchant.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is one of the largest credit card issuers
in the United States.  On May 24, 2019, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
merged with Chase Bank USA, N.A., with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
the surviving entity. The behavior complained of includes the
pre-merger actions of both JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank
USA, N.A and the post-merger actions of the merged entity.

The Plaintiff says he used his Chase credit card to buy various
"cryptocurrencies," some of which were from Coinbase.  From 2017
until early 2018, Defendant Chase properly classified his
acquisitions of cryptocurrency as "purchases" transactions for
purposes of his operative credit card agreement.  He notes that
Chase assessed no transaction fees and applied the same interest
charges that it applied for all non-cash advance credit card
Purchases.  He made numerous crypto purchases during early 2018,
which Chase affirmatively designated, disclosed, and billed to them
as "Purchases."

Then, between January 23, 2018, and February 2, 2019 (inclusive),
the Plaintiff says he made additional cryptocurrency purchases
using his same Chase credit card, under the same credit card
agreement.  He contends that Chase changed how it classified the
crypto transactions occurring between those dates and categorized
them as "Cash Advances," in contravention of the plain language of
its credit card agreements.

Mr. Caldwell alleges that Chase assessed hundreds of dollars in
surprise Cash Advance fees and interest charges against him in
breach of the terms of the Defendant's Written Agreements and
refuses to reverse them.  He argues that the Defendant's acts and
omissions breached its contract with him and violated the federal
Truth in Lending Act.  He adds that the Defendant's wrongful
conduct was a direct and proximate result of him and the Class
incurring millions of dollars in improper Cash Advance fees and
interest charges on their Chase credit cards for the purchase of
cryptocurrencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 212-5124
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mcecunewright.com


KNITTING FACTORY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knitting Factory
Brooklyn, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Knitting Factory Brooklyn, Inc., Knitting Factory Entertainment,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00032 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020).

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

The Knitting Factory is a nightclub that was opened in New York
City and that featured eclectic music and entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


LONGFIN CORP: Bid to File Third Amended Securities Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Plaintiffs' (i) motion seeking relief
from the Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and Order, and (ii) motion
for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in the securities class
action complaint IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
LITIGATION, Case No. 8cv2933 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.).

The federal securities class action, filed on April 3, 2018, is
brought against Defendants Longfin, Andy Altahawi, other Longfin
executives and insiders on behalf of investors who purchased
Longfin's stock, and Network 1 Financial Securities, Inc.'s.
Network 1 is a registered broker-dealer.  Altahawi, who was
Longfin's secretary for much of the period at issue in the suit,
was a registered representative in Network 1's office from 2014 to
2015.  Network 1 acted as Longfin's underwriter for the stock
offering that gave rise to the litigation.

The class action is one of several stockholder suits filed in the
wake of an investigation of Longfin by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  On April 4, 2018, the SEC filed suit against Longfin
and its executives and insiders, and shortly thereafter acquired a
court order freezing $27 million in proceeds from sales of Longfin
Class A stock.  The SEC filed a second action against Longfin and
its founder, Venkata S. Meenavalli, on June 5, 2019.  Network 1 is
not named as a defendant by the SEC in either of these lawsuits.

On Sept. 13, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs in the class action filed a
motion seeking relief from the Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and
Order pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and for leave to
file their proposed TAC pursuant to Rule 16(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The July 29 Opinion granted Network 1's motion for reconsideration
of the Court's April 11, 2019 Opinion and Order and dismissed
Network 1 from the litigation.

The Plaintiffs argue that the following is "newly discovered"
evidence that satisfies the standard of Rule 60(b)(2): (1) monthly
statements for three of Longfin's TD bank accounts for periods
between summer 2017 through Dec. 31, 2018; (2) Longfin's general
ledger for the period Jan. 1, 2018 through Nov. 29, 2018; (3) the
control log of Longfin's transfer agent for Longfin's Class A
common stock, as of Dec. 21, 2017; (4) monthly statements for the
Longfin escrow account at Key Bank entitled "Colonial Transfer Co.
Inc. Escrow #10" for the period July 24, 2017 through Dec. 31,
2017; and (5) the record of wire transfer transactions to and from
the Longfin escrow account established by Continental Stock
Transfer & Trust.

Judge Cote concludes that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to have
Network 1's claim dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs were
given numerous opportunities and extensions to amend their
complaint in response to the deficiencies identified by Network 1
in its motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.  The
Plaintiffs initiated the action on April 3, 2018 and were given
until Oct. 26, 2018 to decide whether to pursue a second amended
complaint.  They were warned that they were unlikely to have a
further opportunity to amend.  Still, on June 21, 2019, the
Plaintiffs were again afforded the opportunity to amend their
complaint to add allegations from the June 5 SEC Action, which they
did on June 28.  In opposing Network 1's motion to dismiss and
motion for reconsideration, Network 1 neither requested that
dismissal be without prejudice nor presented a proposed third
amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified by Network 1.
No court can be said to have erred in failing to grant a request
that was not made.

Accordingly, Judge Cote denied the Plaintiffs' (i) motion for
relief from the July 29 Opinion, and (ii) request for leave to
amend their complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/yZCJX2 from Leagle.com.

Mohammad A Malik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright
-- denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James
Kupka -- ckupka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Karthik Reddy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by -- RSWARTZ@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM --
Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Christopher James Kupka, Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM --
Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Loong Chee Min, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Robert E. Miller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Chen Wei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP.

Frank J. Fish, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Daniella Quitt, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Robert I. Harwood, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

LongFin Corp., Defendant, pro se.

Venkat S. Meenavalli, Defendant, pro se.

Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, pro se.

Andy Altahawi, Defendant, represented by Robert Gerard Heim --
rheim@tarterkrinsky.com -- Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP.

Dorababu Penumarthi, Defendant, pro se.


MALLINCKRODT ARD: Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit Moved to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL
322 OF SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, LLC; f/k/a
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. f/k/a Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MALLINCKRODT PLC; CIGNA HOLDING COMPANY; CIGNA CORPORATION; EXPRESS
SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CURASCRIPT, INC.;
CURASCRIPT SD; PRIORITY HEALTHCARE CORP. AND PRIORITY HEALTHCARE
DISTRIBUTION, INC., doing business as CURASCRIPT SD AND CURASCRIPT
SPECIALTY DISTRIBUTION SD, respectively; ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP,
INC.; UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION now known as UNITED BIOSOURCE
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of UNITED BIOSOURCE HOLDINGS, INC.;
and LISA PRATTA, Case No. CAM-L-004696, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00188 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges seven statutory and common law causes of
action: (1) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (2)
violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act; (3) violation of the New
Jersey RICO statute; (4) conspiring to violate the New Jersey RICO
statute; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) conspiracy/aiding and
abetting; and (7) unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Weiss, Esq.
          Matthew J. Behr, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 5429
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054


MATTEL INC: Employees Fund Hits Share Drop from Undisclosed Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mattel, Inc.
and Joseph J. Euteneuer, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10860, (C.D.
Cal., December 24, 2019), seeks redress for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mattel is an international toy manufacturing company. It allegedly
understated its net loss by over $109 million for the third quarter
of 2017 and failed to disclose this to the investing public through
an accounting sleight of hand in the next quarter. This news caused
Mattel's common stock to drop $2.12 per share or almost 12% in a
single day of trading, wiping out over $730 million in market
capitalization.

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System acquired and held shares
of Mattel at artificially inflated prices and lost upon this
revelation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob A. Walker,
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: jake@blockesq.com


MEDICAL SERVICES: Baker-LaRush Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Barbara Baker-LaRush, On behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Services, Inc.
d/b/a Hayward Area Memorial Hospital & Water's Edge, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CV000152 was removed from the Sawyer County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin on Jan. 2, 2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00002.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Medical Service Inc. offers a wide range of respiratory products,
home medical equipment and other specialized products including
hospital beds, support surfaces, wheelchairs, bathroom safety
products, enteral nutrition systems and supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
          Lein Law Offices
          P.O. Box 761
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Phone: (715) 634-4273
          Fax: (715) 634-5051
          Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erin Leigh Hoffman, Esq.
          Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
          90 S. 7th Street, Ste 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Phone: (612) 766-7000
          Fax: (612) 766-1600
          Email: erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com



MIDLAND CREDIT: Trahan Files FDCPA Suit in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Andre Trahan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00998-LG-RHW (S.D., Miss., Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher E. Kittell, Esq.
   THE KITTELL LAW FIRM
   P. O. Box 568
   2464 Church Street, Suite A
   Hernando, MS 38632
   Tel: (662) 298-3456
   Fax: (855) 896-8772
   Email: ckittell@kittell-law.com



MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Continues to Face Personal Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
several hundreds of actions remain pending against the new General
Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc. ("New GM"), in
various courts in the United States and Canada seeking compensatory
and other damages and other relief for personal injury and other
claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result
of the underlying condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls
initiated by New GM.

The Company said, "Certain of these cases, or the Ignition Switch
Personal Injury Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls."

The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust ("GUC Trust") is a
successor to Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General
Motors Corp.) ("MLC") within the meaning of Section 1145 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code ("Bankruptcy Code").  The GUC Trust
holds, administers and directs the distribution of certain assets
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Second Amended and
Restated Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement (the "GUC
Trust Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2015, and as amended from
time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan (the "Plan"), dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates (collectively, along with MLC, the "Debtors"), for the
benefit of holders of allowed general unsecured claims against the
Debtors ("Allowed General Unsecured Claims").  The GUC Trust was
formed on March 30, 2011, as a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, for the purposes of implementing the Plan and
distributing the GUC Trust's distributable assets.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Still Faces 100 Economic Loss Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
more than 100 putative class actions were pending against the new
General Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc. ("New GM"),
in various courts in the United States and Canada seeking
compensatory and other damages and other relief for economic losses
allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those
recalls.

The Company said, "Certain of these over 100 cases, or the Ignition
Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls"

The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust ("GUC Trust") is a
successor to Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General
Motors Corp.) ("MLC") within the meaning of Section 1145 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code ("Bankruptcy Code").  The GUC Trust
holds, administers and directs the distribution of certain assets
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Second Amended and
Restated Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement (the "GUC
Trust Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2015, and as amended from
time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan (the "Plan"), dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates (collectively, along with MLC, the "Debtors"), for the
benefit of holders of allowed general unsecured claims against the
Debtors ("Allowed General Unsecured Claims").  The GUC Trust was
formed on March 30, 2011, as a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, for the purposes of implementing the Plan and
distributing the GUC Trust's distributable assets.


MOVIE GRILL: Patrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Patrick, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees Plaintiff v. MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS TRADEMARK HOLDINGS LLC,
MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS XX LLC, Case No. 2:20-at-00015 (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 3, 2020), is brought against Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were non-exempt
under FLSA and California Labor Code but were treated as exempt and
paid via salary. However these employees worked far in excess of 40
hours per week and 8 hours per day, yet did not receive overtime.
The Defendant failed to pay the statutory wages and overtime wages,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an employee, who worked in Rocklin, California, as
a cook at Studio Movie Grill.

The Defendants operate a chain of movie theaters with restaurants
that incorporate dining into the movie-going experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: LaCour Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas LaCour, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit Inc and American Express Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-03075-C (N.D., Tex., Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group LTD
   2500 S Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 x115
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: Jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: LaCour Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas LaCour, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit Inc and American Express Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-03073 (N.D., Tex, Dec. 31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OKLAHOMA: Judges and Court Win More Time to Respond in White Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jodi W. Dishman grants the Defendants' Unopposed Motion
for Extension to File Responsive Pleading in the lawsuit entitled
MISTY WHITE, JERMAINE BRADFORD, JANARA MUSGRAVE, LANDON PROUDFIT,
BRADLEY BARBER, JR., and DAKOTA KAPPUS, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and OKLAHOMA STATE CONFERENCE, NAACP
v. HON. PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as presiding District
Court Judge, HON. JACK MCCURDY, in his official capacity as
District Court Judge, HON. BARBARA HATFIELD, HON. CHARLES GASS,
HON. KHRISTAN STRUBHAR, in their official capacities as Special
District Judges in the Canadian County District Court, and CANADIAN
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Case No.
5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.).

For good cause shown and under Rules 1 and 6(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and LCvR7.1(h), the Court grants the
Motion and orders the extension of deadlines as follows:

   1. The deadline for the Defendants to file their answer,
      response, and/or motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
      Complaint shall be extended twenty (20) days, or until
      January 22, 2020; and

   2. If the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
      Complaint, then the deadline for the Defendants' response
      to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be
      thirty (30) days following the Court's order that decides
      the motion to dismiss.  If the Defendants file an answer or
      some other response to the Plaintiffs' Complaint that is
      not a motion to dismiss, then the Defendants' response to
      the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be due
      thirty (30) days from January 22, 2020, or February 21,
      2020, unless further extended by the Court.[CC]


PACCAR INC: Faces Bowes Suit in Wash. Over Defective Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BOWES, BRIAN HIPSHER, S&L CARTAGE, INC., INTERNATIONAL
LOGISTICS GROUP, INC., M&S FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., and WESTERN
PROVISIONS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. PACCAR, Inc. PACCAR Engine Company, KENWORTH TRUCK
COMPANY, and PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01794 (W.D.
Wash., Nov. 5, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to
disclose to the Plaintiffs and other customers that certain
Peterbilt or Kenworth vehicles are defective when sold.

The lawsuit is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of current and former
owners and lessees of Peterbilt or Kenworth trucks and other
heavy-duty vehicles containing PACCAR MX-13 diesel engines
("Defective Vehicles" or "Vehicles").  The PACCAR MX-13 engine
("Engine(s)") includes an Emissions Aftertreatment System ("EAS")
which include Exhaust Gas Recirculation within the engine section
("EGR") and an Aftertreatment System with integrated systems and
their parts and components ("ATS").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Engines with the EAS were produced
by the Defendants, who jointly developed, designed, manufactured,
marketed, assembled, and sold the Vehicles and Engines to comply
with the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 2010 Heavy-Duty
On Highway Emissions Standard, as well as the California Air
Resources Board emissions standards, and includes the Model Years
beginning in 2010.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs contend that the defects cause
the Vehicles to lose power and stop, forcing the driver of the
Vehicle to pull to the side of the road and be towed to a
PACCAR-authorized repair shop.  They assert that this creates a
serious safety concern to the drivers of the Vehicles, the
occupants of other vehicles, and the public.

According to the complaint, damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and
other consumers include diminished value of the Vehicles,
out-of-pocket costs, such as repairs and related hotel/taxi
charges, towing charges, and the costs to re-power the Vehicles
with suitable replacement diesel engines.

PACCAR, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington.  PACCAR is the third-largest manufacturer of medium-
and heavy-duty trucks in the world and sells tractor-trailer and
vocational trucks in the United States and within the state of
Washington, and throughout the United States under the names of its
subsidiaries, Kenworth and Peterbilt.

PACCAR Engine Company is a Mississippi corporation with its
principal address in Bellevue, Washington.  PEC is a subsidiary of
PACCAR, which manufactures the Engine.

Kenworth Truck Company is a division/subsidiary of PACCAR
headquartered in Bellevue that markets and sells Kenworth vehicles,
many of which utilize the Engine.  Peterbilt Motors Company is a
division/subsidiary of PACCAR headquartered in Bellevue that
markets and sells Peterbilt vehicles, many of which utilize the
Engine.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: 856-858-1770
          Facsimile: 866-300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          Facsimile: 866-300-7367
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Trimble, Esq.
          TRIMBLE & ARMANO
          900 Route 168, Suites B1-B2
          Turnersville, NJ 08012
          Telephone: 856-232-9500
          Facsimile: 856-232-9698
          E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: 561-515-1400
          Facsimile: 561.515.1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          14 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: 847-433-4500
          E-mail: rich@qulegal.com
                  zachary@qulegal.com


PAINTING WITH A TWIST: Domiguez Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Painting with a Twist, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Painting with a Twist,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11938 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31,
2019).

Painting with a Twist is a company in the paint and sip industry,
with headquarters in Mandeville, Louisiana. Founded in 2007,
Painting with a Twist offers live painting events accompanied by
wine or cocktails within its studio locations. Events are held in
local studios owned and operated by independent franchisees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gurrieri, Esq.
   Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
   277 Broadway Suite 408, Ste 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Thomas Challenges Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Thomas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PATENAUDE & FELIX APC, TD BANK USA N.A., and TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00012-LA (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 3, 2020),
seeks redress from the Defendants' debt collection practices that
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin
Consumer Act.

The Defendants mailed debt collection letters to the Plaintiff
regarding an alleged debt owed to "Target Card Services, Inc.,
servicer to TD Bank USA, N.A." On January 7, 2019, Patenaude mailed
a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding the same
alleged debt.

The letter is false, deceptive, and misleading as to the character,
amount, and legal status of the debt, and is an attempt to coerce
the Plaintiff into paying portions of the account that are not yet
due, and which Patenaude had no right to demand, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Brandi Thomas is an individual and a consumer.

Patenaude is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using
the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed
to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENNSYLVANIA: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in Murphy Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert J. Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Robert Murphy v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-01239, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Murphy v. Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, et al., Case No. 19-3526, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is titled Robert Murphy v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al.,
Case No. 17-3627.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT J. MURPHY, ESQUIRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, represents himself:

          Robert J. Murphy, Esq.
          7 Coopertown Road
          P.O. Box 39
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 896-5416
          E-mail: rjmlaw@earthlink.net

Defendant-Appellee OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL is represented
by:

          Andrew J. Coval, Esq.
          Michael Daley, Esq.
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300
          E-mail: michael.daley@pacourts.us


PURDUE PHARMA: City of Poughkeepsie PI Suit Transferred to Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as City of Poughkeepsie, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company Inc.,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. now known
as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan PLC
formerly known as: Actavis plc, Actavis Inc formerly known as:
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis
LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.,
Insys Therapeutics Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health
Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, American Medical
Distributors, Inc., Bellco Drug Corp., Blenheim Pharmacal Inc.,
Eveready Wholesale Drugs Ltd, Kinray, LLC, PSS World Medical Inc.,
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Darby Group Companies, Inc.,
Raymond Sackler Family, MORTIMER SACKLER FAMILY, Richard S.
Sackler, Jonathan D. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe A.
Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler, Theresa Sackler,
David A. Sackler, RHODES TECHNOLOGIES, Rhodes Technologies Inc.,
Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., Rhodes Pharmaceuticals Inc., Trust for
the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family, The P.F.
Laboratories, Inc., Stuart D. Baker, Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC,
SpecGX LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp
now known as Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Noramco Inc, John N. Kapoor, Anda Inc, Discount Drug Mart,
Inc., HBC Service Company, Morris & Dickson Co LLC, Publix
Supermarkets, Inc., SAJ Distributors, Value Drug Company, Smith
Drug Company, CVS Health Corporation, Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc.
doing business as: Rite Aid Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center,
Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Walgreen
Eastern Co., Walgreen Co, Wal-Mart Inc., Miami-Luken Inc, The
Kroger Co., Henry Schein Inc. and Henry Schein Medical Systems,
Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the Southern District of New
York with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06800 to the U U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
December 31, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-op-46163-DAP.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product
Liability.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
founded by John Purdue Gray. It is owned principally by descendants
of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
   Napoli Shkolnik - Melville
   400 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 305
   Melville, NY 11747
   Tel: (212) 397-1000
   Fax: (646) 843-7603
   Email: hunter@napolilaw.com

      - and -

   Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
   Napoli Shkolnik - Melville
   400 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 305
   Melville, NY 11747
   (212) 397-1000
   Fax: (646) 843-7603
   Email: sbadala@napolilaw.com

The Defendant Cardinal Health Inc. is represented by:

   Kevin P. Mulry, Esq.
   Farrell Fritz
   1320 Reckson Plaza
   Uniondale, NY 11556
   Tel: (516) 227-0620
   Fax: (516) 336-2262
   Email: kmulry@farrellfritz.com

The Defendants Amerisource Bergen Drug Corporation and Bellco Drug
Corp. are represented by:

   Paul Edward Asfendis, Esq.
   Gibbons
   37th Floor
   One Pennsylvania Plaza
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 613-2000
   Fax: (212) 333-5980

The Defendant John N. Kapoor is represented by:

   Kurt M. Mullen, Esq.
   Nixon Peabody - Boston
   53 State Street
   Boston, MA 02109
   Tel: (617) 345-1113
   Fax: (866) 394-9156
   Email: kmullen@nixonpeabody.com

The Defendant Value Drug Company is represented by:

   Nelson Perel, Esq.
   Webster Szanyi
   1400 Liberty Building
   Buffalo, NY 14202
   Tel: (716) 842-2800
   Fax: (716) 845-6709

The Defendant CVS Health Corporation is represented by:

   Conor Brendan O'Croinin, Esq.
   Zuckerman Spaeder
   100 E. Pratt Street, Ste. 2440
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 332-0444
   Fax: (410) 659-0436

RED WING SHOE: Southam FACTA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled James Lucas Southam, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. RED
WING SHOE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 34-2019-00269947-CU-OE-GDS, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-60030-KMW to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleged a single violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act, stemming from a single receipt provided to
the Plaintiff on May 2, 2019.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 212-4949
          Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
          Email: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan S. Kosches, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 416-6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6997
          Email: jordan.kosches@gray-robinson.com


RICOLA USA: District Court Narrows Claims in Comfort Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMY COMFORT, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RICOLA USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-6089 CJS (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Charles J.
Siragusa of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Ricola's motion to
dismiss.

Amy Comfort has alleged on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated that Ricola cough drops packages contain a
misleading statement: "Naturally Soothing."  She contends it is
misleading because the ingredients list on the package shows that
the cough drops contain artificial ingredients and are not entirely
made from natural ingredients.

Comfort's complaint contains four causes of action: (i) Count I,
Violation of the New York General Business Law Section 349
(Unlawful Deceptive Acts and Practices); (ii) Count II, Violation
of the New York General Business Law Section 350 (False
Advertising); (iii) Count III, Unjust Enrichment; and (iv) Count
IV, Negligent Misrepresentation.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action.

The crux of Comfort's claim is that despite the presence of
unnatural ingredients, the Defendant knowingly markets the Products
as 'Naturally Soothing' and fails to disclose material information
about the Products -- that some of the ingredients are synthetic or
otherwise artificial.  The Defendant's non-disclosure is deceptive
and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.  

In its supporting memorandum, Ricola counters that Comfort has
omitted a portion of the phrase on the packaging, which reads in
its entirety: "'Naturally Soothing Relief that Lasts' with the word
'Naturally' modifying 'Soothing Relief,'" and citing to the exhibit
attached to the complaint.  In support of her position, Comfort
relies heavily on the Second Circuit's decision in Mantikas v.
Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018).  

Judge Siragusa finds that the Second Circuit's decision in Mantikas
does not support Ricola's argument that labeling on the front of a
package could be ambiguous and that additional labeling on the
sides or back could clarify the ambiguity and render the front of
the package not deceptive.  All the Plaintiffs need to show is that
the deceptive conduct was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably under the circumstances.  The Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer
could be misled into believing that all the soothing ingredients
were natural.

The Judge turns to Comfort's claims for unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation.  He finds that the complaint has no
allegations that Comfort has a "special relationship" with Ricola.
He does not find that Comfort has plausibly alleged a "special
relationship" between her and Ricola merely because of the wording
on the packages of cough drops.  The package makes nowhere near the
representations that were present in the Hughes case and the
writings on the Ricola packages do not plausibly show that Ricola
was holding itself out to be a medical advisor to Comfort or any
other consumer of their cough drops.   The complaint shows that
Comfort was a buyer, and Ricola a seller -- nothing more.
Accordingly, the Judge will grant Ricola's motion to dismiss the
negligent misrepresentation cause of action as well as the others.

For reasons noted, Judge Siragusa granted in part Ricola's motion
to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment & negligent
misrepresentation claims for failure to state a claim.  The Judge
denied Ricola's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's New York
General Business law claims.  Therefore, the first and second
causes of action may go forward.  The Plaintiff's third and fourth
causes of action are dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/w2EkOY from Leagle.com.

Amy Comfort, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese --
mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP, George V. Granade, II, Reese LLP,
Jason Sultzer, The Sultzer Law Group, P.C. & Joshua Harris Eggnatz,
Eggnatz Pascucci, P.A.

Ricola USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul Wendell Garrity --
pgarrity@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Shin Young Hahn -- shahn@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.


RINCONCITO SUPERLATINO: Staff Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Puerto, Veronica Luna, Hazell Mejia, Iris Calix and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rinconcito Superlatino 4, LLC and
Benedicto Moreno, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-25282 (S.D. Fla.,
December 24, 2019), requests double damages and reasonable attorney
fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs,
interest and any other relief.

Defendants operate a restaurant where Plaintiffs worked as food
servers/preparers. They claim to have worked over 40 hours a week
and were not paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked
over 40 hours in a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Gary Sifuentes, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ROOFLINE, INC., d.b.a. ROOFLINE SUPPLY &
DELIVERY, an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 34-2019-00269947-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Jan. 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00022 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven causes of action: (1)
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
(3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Wages
Due at Separation of Employment; (5) Failure To Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses; and (7) Violation of Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Aurisch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
                 alexandra.aurisch@ogletree.com


ROYAL WASTE SERVICES: Cooper-Nolasco Files Suit Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Waste Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Keiro J Cooper-Nolasco, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Waste
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07311 (E.D., N.Y., Dec.
31, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Royal Waste Services, Inc. is a Waste management service in New
York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



RUSH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Martin Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Martin, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RUSH, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00005 (E.D. Tex.,
Jan. 3, 2020), is an action brought against the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt
from overtime under the FLSA.

The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector from April
2018 to July 2018.

Rush, LLC is an oilfield services company that provides specialized
inspection services to its clients in the drilling and pipeline
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Phone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


SALDUTTI LAW LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Weiss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Saldutti Law, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-07216 (E.D. N.Y., December 24, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Saldutti Law, LLC operates as Saldutti Law Group. Defendants are
debt collectors assigned to collect an alleged obligation by Weiss.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Tel: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



SALVATION ARMY: Jones Class Settlement Denied Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LASHANNDA JONES, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE
SALVATION ARMY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-804-J-32JRK (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, (i) denied the
parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement; (ii) granted in part and denied in part Defendant The
Salvation Army's Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) denied as moot The
Salvation Army's Motion to Strike.

In the Fair Credit Reporting Act class action complaint commenced
by Lashannda Jones, the Court must determine whether a prospective
employer's background check disclosure was compliant with statutory
requirements, and if not, whether such violation, without more,
constitutes an injury in fact for Article III standing.

On approximately Jan. 31, 2018, Jones applied for and was hired as
an assistant store manager at The Salvation Army.  As part of the
application process, The Salvation Army gave Jones several
documents related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970
("FCRA"), all of which were presented simultaneously.  On Feb. 23,
2018, The Salvation Army fired Jones without notice.   Confused
about why she was fired, Jones called The Salvation Army's Georgia
office, which informed her that she was fired because of credit
issues identified in her background report.  Although Jones does
not contest the accuracy of the report, she wanted to explain the
circumstances that caused her credit issues before being
terminated.

Jones contends that The Salvation Army routinely violated the FCRA
in its hiring process by providing confusing, non-compliant
disclosures.  Furthermore, Jones asserts that the authorization she
gave The Salvation Army to obtain a consumer report was invalid
because one cannot meaningfully authorize her employer to take an
action if she does not grasp what the action entails.  She also
claims that The Salvation Army violated the FCRA when it fired her
based on information contained in her credit report without first
providing her with a copy of the report.

Jones filed a class action complaint in Florida's Fourth Judicial
Circuit, claiming that The Salvation Army's FCRA violations harmed
two classes: a Pre-Adverse Action Class and a Background Check
Class.

Jones then filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which contends
that The Salvation Army violated the FCRA by (1) failing to provide
Jones a copy of her consumer report before taking an adverse
employment action (First Class Claim for Relief - "pre-adverse
action" claim), (2) failing to make a proper disclosure of Jones's
rights regarding the background check (Second Class Claim for
Relief - "disclosure" claim), and (3) failing to obtain proper
authorization to conduct the background check (Third Class Claim
for Relief "authorization" claim).  Additionally, Jones alleges
various injuries she suffered as a result of The Salvation Army's
alleged FCRA violations.  The Salvation Army moved to dismiss again
under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  In response, Jones moved to remand,
arguing that The Salvation Army has the burden of establishing
jurisdiction and thus, the Court should remand if The Salvation
Army believes that Jones lacks Article III standing.

After reviewing the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court,
concerned about its jurisdiction, directed each party to file a
memorandum discussing whether Jones, the class representative, has
Article III standing. The parties filed their respective briefs,
and the Court held a hearing on the motion.  Following the hearing,
the Court deferred ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Approval
and directed Jones to respond to The Salvation Army's motion to
dismiss.  Jones filed her response, arguing that the parties want
to settle, she has standing, and the complaint states claims for
relief.  The Salvation Army then moved to strike portions of Jones'
response that referenced settlement discussions, to which Jones
responded in opposition.

Judge Corrigan finds that Jones' inability to provide context
concerning her negative credit information that could have possibly
changed The Salvation Army's mind is a concrete injury for her
pre-adverse action claim.  Had Jones been given a copy of her
report before being fired, she would have been able to explain the
causes of her credit issue.  The lack of that opportunity -- what
the statute intends to protect -- is a concrete injury.

Judge Corrigan also finds that as a matter of law, Jones did not
suffer a concrete injury related to her disclosure and
authorization claims.  She received a clear and conspicuous
disclosure in a form consisting solely of the disclosure, and her
authorization was knowing and voluntary.  As the class
representative, she fails to bring an actual case or controversy
under Article III for her disclosure and authorization claims
(Second and Third Class Claims for Relief), and therefore those
claims will be remanded or dismissed.

The Salvation Army also filed a motion to dismiss Jones's claims as
failing to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6).  Because of the his
finding that Jones lacks standing to bring her disclosure and
authorization claims, Judge Corrigan need not examine The Salvation
Army's motion under Rule 12(b)(6).  However, because he has
determined that Jones has not alleged a FCRA violation as to the
disclosure and authorization claims, Judge Corrigan also
effectively finds that those claims fail to state a cause of
action.

Judge Corrigan need not determine whether the inclusion of the
email was proper because it did not consider it in resolving the
motion to dismiss.  Furthermore, contrary to Jones' assertion,
whether The Salvation Army agreed to settle has no bearing on the
Court's jurisdiction to approve the settlement.  Thus, The
Salvation Army's motion to strike portions of Jones' response in
opposition to the motion to dismiss because it includes settlement
discussions in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and the
Middle District of Florida's discovery rules is moot.

The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement contemplates two classes, one with 28,579 members
(Disclosure and Authorization Class), and another with 1,537
members (Pre-Adverse Action Class, who are also members of the
other class).  As part of the proposed settlement, The Salvation
Army agreed to set aside $500,000 to be distributed pro rata among
the members of both classes.  However, given that Jones lacks
standing to bring the Disclosure and Authorization Class claims,
only the Pre-Adverse Action Class remains.

Because the Court cannot approve a settlement pertaining to the
disclosure and authorization claims, and the parties' settlement is
a single, commingled fund that did not contemplate one class
representing roughly 5% of the original claims, the Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement must be denied.
However, at the parties' request, Judge Corrigan would be willing
to consider a motion for preliminary approval for settlement of the
Pre-Adverse Action Class's claim.

Accordingly, Judge Corrigan denied the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The Judge granted
in part and denied in part The Salvation Army's Motion to Dismiss.
The Motion to Dismiss is granted in that Plaintiff Lashannda Jones
lacks Article III standing for her Second and Third Class Claims
for Relief.  The Motion to Dismiss is otherwise denied.  The Judge
denied as moot The Salvation Army's Motion to Strike.  

The parties were directed to file a joint notice recommending how
the case should proceed.

A full-text copy of Judge Corrigan's Nov. 15, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/rTOsLB from Leagle.com.

Lashannda Jones, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon J. Hill --
bhill@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA & Luis A. Cabassa --
lcabassa@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA.

The Salvation Army, Defendant, represented by Katherine Patricia
O'Shea -- koshea@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison, LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick Daniel Coleman -- pcoleman@fordharrison.com -- Ford &
Harrison, LLP & Shane T. Munoz -- smunoz@fordharrison.com -- Ford &
Harrison, LLP.


SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Class in Pontones Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Dever III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina granted conditional certification to
class claims in the case captioned LAURA PONTONES, Plaintiff, v.
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:18-CV-219-D. (E.D.N.C.).

Pontones is a former server.  She sues San Jose Restaurant
Incorporated; San Jose Management, Inc., d/b/a San Jose Mexican
Restaurant and Sports Cantina; San Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of
Lumberton, Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Elizabethtown,
Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of N.C. Inc.; San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of
Raleigh Inc.; San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Shallotte, Inc.; San
Jose of Rocky Mount #2 Inc., d/b/a San Jose Tacos and Tequila; San
Jose of Zebulon, Inc.; San Jose of Roanoke Rapids, Inc.; San Jose
Wakefield, Inc., d/b/a San Jose Mex and Tequila Bar; Plaza Azteca
Raleigh, Inc., d/b/a San Jose Tacos and Tequila; Hector Flores;
Alberto Flores; Josue Flores; Jose Perez; Vicente Perez; Pablo
Meza; Edgardo Flores; and Edgar Flores (collectively, "defendants")
for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation.

Defendants own and operate Mexican restaurants in North Carolina,
Virginia, and South Carolina.

On May 17, 2018, Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated plaintiffs, filed a complaint against a group of allegedly
related Mexican restaurants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
("NCWHA").  By June 2018, Pontones amended her complaint.  On April
26, 2019, Pontones moved for conditional class certification and
filed a memorandum in support.

Pontones seeks to bring a collective action under section 216(b) of
FLSA for:

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

Pontones also seeks to certify a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following
proposed class:

   All current and/or former employees of Defendants in North
   Carolina whose primary duty is/was non-exempt work, who
   are/were not paid for all of their hours worked, including
   promised regular and/or overtime wages, and who are/were
   subjected to unlawful deductions of a fixed percentage of
   all credit and cash purchases made by Defendants' customers,
   at any time within the two (2) year period prior to the
   filing of this lawsuit.

As for Pontones's motion for conditional class certification under
section 216(b), the Court finds that Pontones has met the standard
required for court-facilitated notice to putative class members
under the FLSA.  Specifically, Pontones has "made a sufficient
factual showing that the [San Jose] defendants subjected putative
class members to a common policy that violated FLSA" and raises
"similar legal issues" under FLSA "arising from a similar factual
setting."

As for Pontones' motion for class certification of her NCWHA claim
under Rule 23, the Court finds that Pontones has satisfied
requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality, adequacy,
predominance and superiority.

In sum, Judge Dever grants Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification and court-authorized notice concerning plaintiff's
FLSA claim and for conditional class certification concerning her
NCWHA claim.  The parties shall meet and confer concerning future
proceedings, the contents of the proposed notice, and submit a
proposed schedule.  The parties also shall participate in a
court-hosted settlement conference with United States Magistrate
Judge Gates.

A full-text copy of Judge Dever's October 31, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzje7fzq from Leagle.com

Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez , The Law
Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite
130
Cary, NC 27513

San Jose Restaurant, Incorporated, San Jose Management, Inc, San
Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc., San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Elizabethtown, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of
N.C. Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Oak Island, Inc, San Jose
Mexican Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc., San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Raleigh Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of
Shallotte, Inc, San Jose of Rocky Mount #2 Inc, San Jose of
Zebulon, Inc, San Jose of Roanoke Rapids, Inc, Hector Flores,
Alberto Flores, Josue Flores, Jose Perez, Vicente Perez, Pablo
Meza, Edgardo Flores, Edgar Flores, San Jose Wakefield, Inc. &
Plaza Azteca Raleigh, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Larry
Stine , Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, P.C., 3400
Peachtree Rd NE Ste 400, Lenox Towers, Atlanta, GA, 30326-1170,
Henry W. Jones, Jr. , Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC
& Lori Peoples Jones , Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton,
PLLC, 1951 Clark Avenue Raleigh, NC 27605.


SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Murray Class Settlement Recommended for Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RODERICK MURRAY, an individual, on behalf of
the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCELZI
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01492-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommended that Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement be denied without prejudice.

Defendant Scelzi Enterprises designs and manufactures truck bodies,
including flatbeds, dump trucks, and water trucks, at its
production facilities in California.  It employed the Plaintiff as
a "break press operator," an hourly, non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to have a lawful
rest period policy in place that informed its employees of their
right to take duty-free rest periods and to make rest breaks
available to its employees.  Instead, according to the Plaintiff,
the Defendant's rest period policy mandated that its employees
adhere to specific rules during their rest period, including the
direct order that they may not leave the work premises during the
rest period.  He also alleges that employees were required to
remain on-call for any supervisorial instruction at any time while
on the Defendant's premises.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class and representative action on
Oc. 26, 2018, alleging violations of California law.  On Jan. 14,
2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.  He
filed his First Amended Complaint on Jan. 31, 2019, thereby mooting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The First Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in
the action, alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to
provide off-duty rest periods and/or pay rest break premiums, in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and California
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders; (2) failure to
issue accurate itemized wage statements, in violation of Labor Code
Sections 226 and 226.3; (3) failure to pay all wages due upon
termination, in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203;
(4) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 7200 et
seq.; and (5) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.

Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to engage in informal
discovery and participate in a private mediation.  On May 28, 2019,
the parties participated in a private medication with mediator Lisa
Klerman.  They were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation
but continued to engage in settlement discussions.

On June 7, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion seeking to compel the
Plaintiff to submit his individual claims to arbitration and to
dismiss his class and representative claims.  While the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration was pending, the mediator informed the
parties that a settlement had been reached.  The parties thereafter
stipulated to vacate the hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration and executed the settlement agreement currently before
the Court.

For settlement purposes, the class is defined as the Plaintiff and
all non-exempt hourly individuals who are or were employed by
Scelzi or its predecessor or merged entities in California who were
classified as non-exempt and who worked at least one shift longer
than 3.5 hours at any time from Oct. 26, 2014 through the date upon
which the Court grants preliminary approval.  The Settlement Class
was estimated to include 682 members as of April 28, 2019.

Under the Proposed Settlement, the Defendant agrees to establish a
non-reversionary gross settlement fund of $350,000.  The parties
propose allocation of the Gross Settlement as follows:

    (i) An amount not to exceed $116,666.66, one-third of the
        Gross Settlement, for the class counsel as attorney's
        fees;

   (ii) an amount not to exceed $14,000 for the class counsel for
        costs and expenses;

  (iii) an amount not to exceed $10,000 for the Plaintiff in
        consideration of his work as the named Plaintiff;
  
   (iv) an amount estimated to be $15,000 to the third-party
        settlement administrator, CPT Group, Inc.; and

    (v) a $35,000 PAGA penalty, 75% ($26,250) of which would
        be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
        Development Agency ("LWDA"), and 25 ($8,750) of which
        would be paid to the Settlement Class.

The accounting for all proposed distributions described, the
Plaintiff estimates a net settlement amount of $168,083.34.  The
parties propose distribution of the Net Settlement to the
Settlement Class members who do not request exclusion from the
class based on the number of verified weeks worked during the class
period.  No claim form submission is required for the Settlement
Class members to receive their shares of the settlement.  Any
unpaid or unclaimed funds will be disbursed subject to the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section
384(b)(3).

Magistrate Judge Oberto finds that the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that conditional class certification under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3) or preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement is
warranted.  While she is mindful of the strong judicial policy
favoring settlements, the Magistrate holds that the settlement
cannot be approved without additional information and significant
amendment.  She therefore recommended that the Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement be denied
without prejudice to the Plaintiff renewing the motion to address
the issues and concerns identified.

Among other things, the Magistrate Judge questions how an absent
class member would know what claims fall within the category of
"similar" to the other sources of law enumerated in the Class
Release.  Without knowing what claims are deemed "similar," the
class member has no way of knowing what claims they are agreeing to
release.  Beyond the inclusion of the vague term "similar," the
Class Release is overbroad: it releases claims under entire areas
of law such as "state or federal law, statutory, constitutional,
contractual or common law" and types of relief that Plaintiff did
not allege in his First Amended Complaint and did not litigate in
the action.

Also, due process requires that any class member bound by a class
action settlement, at a minimum, be afforded the opportunity to
remove himself from the class.  The Proposed Settlement is devoid
of any provision that would exclude members from the Settlement
Class who do not receive the notice of the litigation.

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the Plaintiff's counsel
will make a separate application to the Court for an award of
attorney's fees "up to" one-third of the Gross Settlement.  It is
unclear what is meant by "up to," and the Magistrate assumes that
the Plaintiff will be requesting 33.3%.   In light of the
foregoing, she cannot recommend approval of the attorney's fee
award based on the record before the Court.  Should the Plaintiff
renew his motion for preliminary approval and seek attorney's fees
in excess of 25 percent of the gross settlement, the counsel will
explain the "special circumstances justifying a departure" from the
benchmark, see Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942, and include sufficient
information to enable the Court to cross-check the requested amount
with the lodestar amount based upon counsels' submission in order
to determine whether the award of an above-benchmark percentage in
fees is reasonable.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the proposed $10,000 Incentive
Award appears to be excessive under the circumstances of the case.
It is two times the amount that the Ninth Circuit has considered
reasonable. As with the attorney's fees award, she cannot recommend
approval of an Incentive Award in the amount of $10,000 at this
time.  Should the Plaintiff renew his request for an incentive
award that amounts to a similarly high proportion of the overall
settlement amount or is disproportionate relative to the recovery
of other class members, he will submit evidence that the requested
award is warranted, including evidence of the specific amount of
time the Plaintiff spent on the litigation, the particular risks
and burdens carried by the Plaintiff as a result of the litigation,
and the particular benefit that Plaintiff provided to the counsel
and the class as a whole throughout the litigation.

The Proposed Settlement provides that unclaimed Funds returned as
undeliverable and California Individual Settlement Payment checks
remaining un-cashed for more than 180 days after issuance will be
disbursed subject to the provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 384(b)(3), with that portion of the unclaimed
funds allocated under Section 384(b)(3)(C) allocated to the Justice
Gap Fund established by the California State Bar.  This cy pres
provision conforms to an outdated version of Section 384, which was
amended effective June 27, 2018.  In order for the Court to approve
the Proposed Settlement with a cy pres distribution provision, it
must be amended to bring such provision in compliance with the
amended Section 384.

Finally, Page 1 of the "Class Member Information Sheet" indicates
that the case is pending in the "United States Superior Court,
Eastern District of California."  It appears to be a typographical
error that needs to be corrected, should the parties wish to renew
their request for preliminary approval of a settlement.

The findings and recommendation are submitted to the district judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B) and the Court's Local Rule 304.  

A full-text copy of Magistrate Judge Oberto's Nov. 15, 2019
Findings & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/PfEXmu from
Leagle.com.

Roderick Murray, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Melmed -- jm@melmedlaw.com -- Melmed Law Group P.C. & Craig Justin
Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC.

Scelzi Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton
Hague Law Corporation, P.C.


SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Class Action in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Minimum Wage Act, among other related provisions,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the action
entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.;
Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth,
Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court
of the Southern District.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions
of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of
Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated
the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the
wage statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs
in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from
tips in violation of the NYLL.

Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants.

The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase.  The Company, along with
the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit.  The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome is remote because the Company's records show,
inter alia, that the Plaintiff never worked more than 25 hours per
week.

Scores Holding Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
licenses the Scores trademarks and other intellectual property to
gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment in the United
States.  It licenses its trademark to 21 clubs, which are operating
under the Scores name in New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Tampa, New
Orleans, Savannah, Jacksonville, Houston, Harvey, Gary,
Mooresville, Greenville, Columbus, Queens, Palm Springs, Raleigh,
Providence, Buffalo, Tonawanda, New Haven, and Manitowoc.  The
Company was founded in 1981 and is based in New York, New York.


SIMPLE CUSTODIAN: Weiss Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Weiss, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIMPLE CUSTODIAN SERVICES, LLC and JULIETTE GRAVES,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00001-JRG (E.D. Tex., Jan. 3, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Weiss worked exclusively for Simple as a custodian from
December 1, 2018, until to August 31, 2019. The Plaintiff allege
that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the putative
class members proper overtime wages of time and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during
each seven day workweek while working for the Defendants.

Simple is a company offering custodial and housekeeping service to
homes and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAL EDUCATION: Lea Appeals Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dios Asset Management PTE. LTD. and Edward Lea filed an
appeal from the District Court's opinion and order dated September
25, 2019, and judgment dated September 26, 2019, dismissing their
lawsuit entitled Lea, et al. v. TAL Education Group, et al., Case
No. 18-cv-5480, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) and Section 101(b) of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") in the case styled
EDWARD LEA and DIOS ASSET MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAL
EDUCATION GROUP, BANGXIN ZHANG, YUNFENG BAI, and RONG LUO,
Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 5480 (LAP) (S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Lea and Dios Asset bring the instant securities class
action complaint against TAL Education Group ("Company"), Bangxin
Zhang, Yunfeng Bai, and Rong Luo.  The Plaintiffs assert claims of
securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  They also allege violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their purchase of Ohr common
stock.  The Company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and
provides education services in China.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Company and its executives committed securities fraud based on
two grounds--what they call the GZ 1-1 fraud and the Shunshun
fraud.  They allege that as a result of the alleged sham
transaction, the Company improperly increased net income by $37.5
million.  When these alleged frauds were exposed by the
short-selling research firm Muddy Waters, the stock price
precipitously declined.

The Plaintiffs say that the various materially false or misleading
statements demonstrate that the fraud was either made knowingly or
severely recklessly.  They say that because the individual
Defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme and had knowledge
of the untrue facts, they participated in the alleged fraudulent
schemes.

The appellate case is captioned as Lea, et al. v. TAL Education
Group, et al., Case No. 19-3549, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Edward Lea, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Dios Asset Management PTE. LTD.
are represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TAL Education Group is represented by:

          Scott Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-735-3000
          E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bolden RICO Suit Transferred to Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lawrence Bolden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, Cephalon Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health
Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis PLC, Actavis
Inc, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal
Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation and Watson Laboratories
Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the Georgia Northern
District Court with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05354 to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
December 31, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-op-46173-DAP.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is an Israeli American
multinational pharmaceutical company with dual headquarters in
Petah Tikva, Israel and Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
   Keller Lenkner
   150 North Riverside Plaza
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 741-5220
   Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com


THOMAS MCSWANE: Miller Seeks Back Pay and Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Miller, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
THOMAS MCSWANE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00004-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Jan. 6,
2020), seeks to recover back pay, liquidated damages, attorney
fees, costs of litigation and other relief from the Defendant for
its violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of
contract.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was to be paid on an
hourly basis; however, the Defendant did not pay him for at least
the last 70 hours he worked. The Defendant has, since the beginning
of the Plaintiff's employment, willingly, deliberately and
intentionally refused to pay him  and others for all of their hours
at a rate of at least minimum wage and at a rate of time and
one-half when they worked more than 40 hours in a week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a barista in
November 2019.

The Defendant was an individual, who made payroll decisions
regarding employees, such as the Plaintiff and owned and operated a
shop called Sweet Cup Cafe in Gainesville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Phone: (352) 244-2069
          Fax: (352) 372-3464
          Email: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


THYSSENKRUPP CRANKSHAFT: Rice Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THYSSENKRUPP CRANKSHAFT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2019CH14117 (Ill. Cir., Dec. 9,
2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires workers at one of Defendant's locations to use
their fingerprints as a means of authentication. When the
Defendant's Illinois workers begin their time with the Defendant,
it requires them to scan their fingerprints into a time management
database, says the complaint.

The Defendant never informed the Plaintiff of the specific purposes
or length of time for which the Defendant has collected, stored,
and used the Plaintiff's fingerprints, the lawsuit says. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's scanning and retention of its
workers' fingerprints without informed consent is clearly unlawful
in Illinois.

Stephanie Rice has worked at the Defendant's Danville, Illinois
facility from August 16, 2010, to the present. The Plaintiff
asserts the Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed
to the harms and risks created by the Defendant's violations of
BIPA.

The Defendant operates a manufacturing facility located at 1000
Lynch Road, Danville.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          E-mail: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com


TIFFANY & CO: Faces Thompson Securities Suit Over Sale to LVMH
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TIFFANY & CO., ROGER N. FARAH, ALESSANDRO BOGLIOLO,
ROSE MARIE BRAVO, HAFIZE GAYE ERKAN, JANE HERTZMARK HUDIS, ABBY F.
KOHNSTAMM, JAMES E. LILLIE, WILLIAM A. SHUTZER, ROBERT S. SINGER,
and ANNIE YOUNG-SCRIVNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00009-UNA (D. Del., Jan.
3, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Tiffany will be acquired by LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE,
Breakfast Holdings Acquisition Corp., and Breakfast Acquisition
Corp.

On November 24, 2019, Tiffany's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with LVMH.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Tiffany's
stockholders will receive $135.00 in cash for each share of Tiffany
common stock they own.

On December 18, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections,
including failure to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate
(a) EBITDA and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement
also omits material information regarding the analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC and Goldman Sachs Co. LLC. The
Proxy Statement also fails to disclose the circumstances under
which the "additional discretionary fee of up to approximately $16
million" is payable to Goldman, and whether the Individual
Defendants intend to pay Goldman this fee, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Tiffany common stock. He asserts that
the omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction. He adds that the Proxy Statement is an essential link
in causing him and the Company's stockholders to approve the
Proposed Transaction.

The Defendant was founded in 1837 and, along with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets jewelry, watches, and luxury
accessories.[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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Strike Appendices Denied in Stockinger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Paul Stockinger, et al. v. Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00035-VAP-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Honorable Virginia A. Phillips issued a minute order denying the
Plaintiffs' ex parte application to strike the appendices to the
Defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff's use of an ex parte application--rather than a
regularly noticed motion--to request the Court strike the
appendices is procedurally improper, Judge Phillips notes.  As
indicated in the Court's Standing Order, the Court "allows ex parte
applications solely for extraordinary relief."  Among other things,
the party applying must provide evidence "show([ing] that the
moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the
underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion
procedures," Judge Phillips opines, citing Mission Power
Engineering Co. v. Cont' Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal.
1995).

"Plaintiffs fail to satisfy this requirement.  Despite repeatedly
asserting they will suffer prejudice if the Court declines to
strike the appendices, Plaintiffs misunderstand the point with this
conclusory argument.  The required showing is not simply that the
movant may be prejudiced by an adverse result on the underlying
motion, but that prejudice would occur if the movant were forced to
follow the procedures for regularly noticed motions," Judge
Phillips explains.

Judge Phillips notes that the Plaintiffs make no showing why they
could not have made a noticed motion to strike.  The Plaintiffs
filed the instant Application on November 8, 2019, nearly three
weeks after the Defendant filed its opposition to class
certification and nearly five weeks before the Plaintiffs' reply
brief was due. There was more than enough time for the Plaintiffs
to ask the Court to strike the appendices without seeking emergency
relief, Judge Phillips adds.

The Court also finds that the underlying motion is without merit.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' arguments, the appendices do not
contain "matters which properly belong in the body of the
memorandum of points and authorities," according to the Minute
Order.

The Court agrees with the Defendant that the appendices provide
useful and relevant summaries of differences in relevant state law,
not legal argument.  Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs'
Ex Parte Application to Strike Appendices.[CC]


TRANSUNION LLC: Grunfeld Sues Over Published Erroneous Credit Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Grunfeld, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Transunion, LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11781 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 24, 2019), seeks  damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Transunion, LLC is a consumer reporting agency in the business of
assembling, evaluating and disbursing information concerning
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third
parties while U.S. Bank, N.A. is a financial services company based
in Minneapolis, MN.

Plaintiff claims that Transunion published inaccurate information
about a US Bank debt with a balance, despite the fact that US Bank
previously discharged this debt and provided Grunfeld with a 1099
as proof of the discharged debt which required the Plaintiff to
report this discharged debt as income. Plaintiff has suffered a
decreased credit score as a result of the inaccurate information on
his credit file. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Burnett FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raven Burnett, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems, Inc.,
John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 525670/2019 was removed from
the Kings County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Jan. 2, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00034.

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kirsten H. Smith, Esq.
          Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C.
          3850 N Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 846-7943
          Fax: (504) 828-3737
          Email: ksmith@sessions-law.biz


TROPIX BAR AND LOUNGE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tropix Bar and Lounge, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yovanny Dominguez for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tropix Bar and Lounge, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11943 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019).

Tropix Bar and Lounge, Inc. is a tropical-themed lounge serving
festive cocktails & pub food in a brick-walled space with
hookahs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Gibbs Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dana M. Sabraw denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned LAURENCE GIBBS, an
individual, MATTHEW LUTACK, an individual, BRENT QUICK, an
individual, and JESSICA HUENEBERG, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TWC ADMINISTRATION,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01513-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

Judge Sabraw opines that the Plaintiffs fail to meet the
commonality requirement for their off-the-clock claims.  The
Plaintiffs also fail to meet requirement for predominance under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs sought class certification on all current and former
nonexempt employees of Defendant who worked in a call center as a
Customer Service Professional, Customer Service and Billing
Professional, Technical Support Professional, Technical Support and
Billing Professional, and/or Call Center Lead, between April 20,
2013 and the date of class certification, who have not signed an
arbitration agreement with Defendant as of the date the complaint
was filed.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of employees from
the Defendant's San Diego, California, and Ontario, California
offices.  The Defendant's corporate records indicate 536 putative
class members in their San Diego office, and over 300 in their
Ontario office.  Of this larger group, the Plaintiffs moved for
class certification for these individual sub-classes:

   (1) the "off-the-clock subclass," including employees who were
       not paid for all hours worked, in any pay period within
       the class period;

   (2) the "overtime subclass," including employees who were not
       provided with overtime pay during the class period,
       including only employees who worked more than eight hours
       in any given day and more than forty hours in any given
       week during the class period;

   (3) the "meal break subclass," including employees who worked
       more than five hours and were not provided with
       uninterruptable meal periods of at least 30 minutes or
       delayed meal periods that began after the fifth hour of
       work;

   (4) the "rest break subclass" of employees who were not
       provided with uninterruptable rest breaks of at least ten
       minutes for each four hours of work;

   (5) the "wage statement subclass" including employees who were
       not provided with accurately itemized wage statements for
       all hours worked; and

   (6) the "waiting time subclass" of employees who were not paid
       all wages due and owing at the time of separation.[CC]


UNITED DEBT: Settlement in Blasi FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Peter Blasi, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United
Debt Services, LLC, et al. Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-83 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Class
Representatives' Incentive.

The complaint is a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case.  Named
Plaintiffs Blasi, Jordan Brodsky and Michael Cassone, are
individual consumers residing in Ohio.  They assert, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, that Defendants
United Debt Services ("UDS"), New Wave Lending Corp., Benjamin
Rodriguez, Equifax Information Services, Inc., Name Seeker, Inc.,
and AMG Leadsource ("AMG") violate the FCRA by providing, accessing
and misusing consumer financial reports to market debt relief
services to Ohio residents.  The Plaintiffs seek class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Equifax is a consumer
reporting agency that collects consumer credit data.  Such data
includes, but is not limited to, consumers' names, addresses, FICO
scores, debt loads, partial Social Security Numbers and credit
history.  Based upon that information, Equifax sells "prescreened
lists" of names and addresses of individual consumers who meet
certain criteria specified by buyers.  Resellers access and
purchase those lists from consumer reporting agencies like Equifax
to sell to marketing and/or lead generating firms.  Name Seeker,
New Wave and AMG are or were resellers of such consumer credit
information.  Name Seeker is Equifax's agent for the relevant
transactions.  New Wave is or was a mortgage broker that is or was
owned by Rodriguez.  Rodriguez is or was New Wave's Owner.  AMG is
another marketing and lead generating company that purchases
prescreened lists.

The Named Plaintiffs aver that Equifax sold pre-screened lists of
166,000 Ohio residents in financial distress to New Wave.  They
assert New Wave sold the lists to Name Seeker, who, in turn, sold
the information to AMG.  They allege AMG sold the data to UDS, the
"end-user" of the consumer data.  UDS markets and solicits
debt-relief services.  The Named Plaintiffs claim UDS unlawfully
used that data to market debt relief services, not to make a firm
offer of credit.

UDS, Name Seeker and Equifax each lodged general denials.  New Wave
and Rodriguez failed to appear, and a default entry was lodged
against each.  The Plaintiffs then moved for default as to those
two Defendants, but Rodriguez's and New Wave's subsequent Motion to
Vacate the Default Entries was granted.  AMG moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court
denied the motion without prejudice to allow for appropriate
discovery to occur on the topic.  AMG did not re-file its motion to
dismiss.

The Named Plaintiffs ultimately dismissed their claims against New
Wave and Rodriguez but pursued class certification against UDS.
Within their motion to certify, the Plaintiffs argued that Equifax
sold the prescreened lists to Name Seeker, who sold the lists to
AMG, who then sold the lists to UDS.  The Plaintiffs then settled
and dismissed their claims against Equifax and Name Seeker.  The
Plaintiffs also dismissed their counts against AMG.

The Named Plaintiffs and UDS reached a settlement in October 2017.
The Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement in April 2019.  That motion
indicated the Plaintiffs had settled their claims with UDS for
$500,000, from which $150,000 for attorney's fees, $22,496.69 for
costs, and $9,000 for incentive payments would be deducted.  Costs
for class notice and administration would also be drawn from the
$500,000 figure.  The Settlement Class Members would receive a pro
rata share of the net settlement amount.  The Named Plaintiffs
sought certification of nearly 167,000 Ohio citizens whose consumer
reports were used and/or obtained by UDS via prescreen marketing
lists providing by AMG Lead Source from June 1, 2011 through June
30, 2014.  The Named Plaintiffs indicated certification was sought
for settlement purposes only.  They provided a proposed postcard
notice and claim form to be mailed to the potential class members
and to be posted on a website.  They also submitted a proposed
schedule to complete the Settlement.

Judge Smith granted the motion.  His May 2019 Order conditionally
certified the Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, authorized
the distribution of the notice, labeled Named Plaintiffs Blasi,
Brodsky and Cassone as the Class Representatives and named
attorneys Mark Lewis, Elizabeth Mote, Jeremiah Heck and Brian
Garvine as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.  Judge Smith
additionally set forth the process for objections, scheduled a
hearing for final certification on Aug. 28, 2019 and stayed the
case pending final resolution of the settlement proceedings.

The Plaintiffs' resultant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Class
Representatives' Incentive indicated that JND Class Action
Administration ("JND"), the claims administrator, mailed 166,597
notices to the class and had 10,377 notices returned as
undeliverable.  Of those, JND re-mailed 2,306 to updated addresses.
In addition, the website hosted 3,606 users who registered 10,170
page views.  As of Aug. 14, 2019, JND had received 11,178 claim
forms that remained under review.  Not one objection was lodged,
and no one sought exclusion.

The Court conducted a fairness hearing as to the Motion for Final
Approval on Aug. 28, 2019.  Because the class administration
process was not complete at that time, the Court's Aug. 30, 2019
Order required the Class Counsel to file a notice with the Court on
Oct. 28, 2019 detailing the final number of the class members who
filed a claim form, the final number of class members who opted out
and the final pro rata share of the settlement amount each class
member will receive.  That same order noted that the Court would
hold ruling on the Motion for Approval in abeyance pending receipt
of the directed filing.

The Plaintiffs' Status Report on Class Action Administration was
filed on Nov. 1, 2019.  That report details the July 29, 2019
Objection deadline and the October 15, 2019 Opt-out deadline both
passed without responses.  JND states that 16,104 claim forms were
received with 15,698 of those being eligible for payment.  This
totaled a 9.7% claims rate.  The final pro rata share for each
approved Class Member should be $12.42.

The Court now turns to an examination of the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval with the benefit of having conducted the Aug. 23,
2019 hearing and reviewed the Nov. 1, 2019 update.

Judge Morrison granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Expenses,
and Class Representatives' Incentive.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), Judge Morrison
certified the following Settlement Class, consisting of: All Ohio
citizens whose consumer reports were used and/or obtained by UDS
via prescreened marketing lists provided to UDS by AMG Lead Source
from June 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Peter Blasi, Jr.,
Jordan Brodsky, and Michael J. Cassone are appointed as Class
Representatives.  

The following attorneys are appointed as the Class Counsel:

   Mark D. Lewis
   Elizabeth Mote Kitrick
   Lewis & Harris Co., LPA
   445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
   Columbus, OH 43235

   Jeremiah E. Heck
   Katherine Wolfe
   Luftman, Heck & Associates
   580 East Rich Street
   Columbus, OH 43215
   
   Brian M. Garvine
   Law Office of Brian M. Garvine, LLC
   5 East Long Street, Suite 1100
   Columbus, OH 43215

   Robert J. Wagoner
   Robert J. Wagoner, Co., L.L.C.
   445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100  
   Columbus, OH 43235

Pursuant to the Settlement, UDS has agreed to pay the Settlement
Amount of $500,000 into an account maintained by the Settlement
Administrator.  Amounts awarded to the Class Counsel and to the
Class Representatives, and the Notice and Administrative Expenses
will be exclusively paid from the Settlement Amount.  The members
of the Settlement Class who have timely submitted valid Claim Forms
will receive a pro-rata share of the Settlement Amount after the
Class Counsel's fees and costs, the Class Representatives' award,
and the Notice and Administrative Expenses are deducted from the
Settlement Amount.  n addition to payments of the Settlement
Amount, UDS has also agreed that it has taken steps to ensure
compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) going forward
with its target marketing practices.

Judge Morrison granted final approval of the Settlement.  She
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against UDS with prejudice and
without costs (except as otherwise provided herein and in the
Agreement).

Judge Morrison approved payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses to the Class Counsel in the amount of $150,000 in
attorneys' fees and $22,496.69 in costs.  This amount will be paid
from the Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.  

Judge Morrison also approved the incentive fee payment of $3,000
for each of the Class Representatives, Peter Blasi, Jr., Jordan
Brodsky, and Michael J. Cassone.  This amount will be paid from the
Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Morrison's Nov. 5, 2019 Opinion, Order &
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/ecGiwO from Leagle.com.

Peter Blasi, Jordan Brodsky & Michael J. Cassone, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark D. Lewis -- MLewis@kitricklaw.com -- Kitrick,
Lewis & Harris Co LPA, Brian M. Garvine -- brian@garvinelaw -- Law
Office of Brian Garvine LLC, Elizabeth Alice Mote -- liz@klhlaw --
Kitrick, Lewis & Harris, Co., L.P.A., Jeremiah E. Heck --
jheck@lawLH.com -- Luftman & Heck and Associates, Katherine L.
Wolfe -- swolfe@wvwlegal.com -- Luftman Heck & Associates, LLP &
Robert J. Wagoner -- bob@wagonerlawoffice.com -- Robert J. Wagoner
Co., L.L.C.

United Debt Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley L.
Oliker -- aoliker@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Zackary Lane
Stillings -- zstillings@fbtlaw.com -- One Columbus, Beth-Ann E.
Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
pro hac vice & Lawren A. Zann -- lawren.zann@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice.

AMG Lead Source, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Melber,
Personius Melber LLP, pro hac vice.

Name Seeker, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Richik Sarkar,
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Aaron Paul Heeringa, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Eric Gottlieb, Manatt, Phelps
& Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.

AMG Lead Source, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian M. Melber,
Personius Melber LLP, pro hac vice.

Name Seeker, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Richik
Sarkar, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Aaron Paul Heeringa, Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, LLP & Richard Eric Gottlieb, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.


UNITED PARCEL: Snow Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Cycely M. Snow, on behalf of herself and other
aggrieved employees v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio
corporation; UPS, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1935045, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Jan. 3, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00025 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action against UPS--Civil
Penalties and Wages Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, Labor Code section 2698, et seq., seeking penalties for
alleged wage and hour violations, including: (1) failure to pay
minimum wage or overtime wages, if applicable, for all hours worked
to non-exempt employees; (2) failure to provide all legally
required and/or legally compliant meal breaks, or pay premium wages
for missed meal breaks; (3) failure to provide all legally required
and/or legally compliant rest breaks, or pay premium wages for
missed rest breaks; (4) failure to pay all vacation wages due in
violation of Labor Code; (5) pay stub violations; (6) failure to
timely pay former California non-exempt employees all wages due at
time of termination/resignation; and (7) failure to maintain
temperature providing reasonable comfort.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Carlos I. Martinez-Garcia, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 603-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                 jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                 carlosmartinez@gbgllp.com


UNITED ROAD SERVICES: Sales Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Denson M. Sales on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. United Road Services, Inc. and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. HG19043648, (Cal. Super., November 18, 2019)
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on December 24, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-08404.

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

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

United Road Services is represented by:

      Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
      SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
      2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
      Pasadena, California 91101
      Tel: (626) 795-4700
      Fax: (626) 795-4790
      Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

Sales is represented by:

      David Thomas Mara, Esq.
      MARA LAW FIRM, PC
      2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 234-2833
      Fax: (619) 234-4048
      Email: dmara@maralawfirm.com


WALGREEN CO: Not Obliged to Provide SEC Docs in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON, and WADE
D. MIQUELON, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 3187 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate
Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Lead
Plaintiff Industriens Pensionsforsikring, A/S' Motion To Compel
Defendant Wade D. Miquelon To Produce Documents Provided to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action lawsuit
against Walgreens, its former CEO Wasson, and Miquelon, its former
CFO under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The Plaintiffs' allegations relate to Walgreens's public
statements concerning the expected benefits of a 2012 merger with
Alliance Boots GmbH, in the form of a goal, for fiscal year 2016,
of between $9 billion and $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before
interest and taxes ("EBIT").

The Plaintiffs allege that Walgreens had become aware that earnings
would fall short of that goal, in large part due to a significant
level of generic drug price inflation and a phenomenon known as
"reimbursement pressure," by the class period of March to August
2014 but continued to make statements or omissions that downplayed
the risk of not achieving the FY 2016 EBIT Goal.  Despite the
Defendants' actual knowledge of the Company's massive FY16 EBIT
shortfall and the company-specific reasons underlying it (i.e.,
generic drug price inflation combined with unfavorable
reimbursement contracts), the Defendants concealed these material
facts from investors and continued to tout the $9 to $9.5 billion
in FY16 EBIT.  Defendant Miquelon, whose 2018 submissions to the
SEC are sought in the Motion to Compel, was chief financial officer
of Walgreens during the class period up to Aug. 4, 2014.

Walgreens asserts that it began negotiating a settlement with the
SEC in September 2017.  Miquelon has represented that in
mid-December 2017, the SEC proposed settlement terms to Miquelon's
attorneys.  On Sept. 28, 2018, the SEC concluded its three-year
investigation by announcing a settlement that called for Walgreens
to pay a $34.5 million penalty and included a cease-and-desist
order, along with a penalty of $160,000 for Miquelon and Wasson,
without an admission or denial by Walgreens, Miquelon, or Wasson of
the SEC's findings that they had misled investors about the FY 2017
EBIT Goal.

The portion of the SEC investigation leading to that settlement was
known as "Phase II."  On Nov. 14, 2018, the Court, per
then-Magistrate Judge Rowland, ordered the Defendants to produce
certain exhibits and core documents submitted to the SEC during
Phase II, except for materials concerning solely international
and/or non-pharmacy matters.  The November 2018 ruling on that
separate, earlier motion to compel did not concern the Miquelon
Rule 408 SEC Materials.

Judge Rowland by then already had concluded that documents
addressing the impact of generic inflation and/or reimbursement
pressure on the FY 2016 EBIT Goal are relevant for discovery and
that Walgreens would have to produce them, whether they address the
impact of those two issues either in 2013-14 or through fiscal year
2016.  Those conclusions are unaffected by Judge Coleman's ruling
on Walgreens's motion to dismiss the Complaint, as she found
non-actionable only the Plaintiffs' claim stemming from statements
made at the April 30, 2014, Barclay's conference by Rick Hans of
Walgreens.  In the end, the Court must consider whether the
Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials are within the scope of permissible
discovery as relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.

The Motion to Compel argues that the purported inadmissibility of
the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials as settlement communications
does not render them non-discoverable in the litigation.  The
Plaintiffs' argument for discoverability rests mostly on what they
describe as the undisputed relevance of the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC
materials to the question of whether the Defendants made actionable
misrepresentations, and their argument on proportionality is
limited to stating that "there is no burden in re-producing the
documents.

In response, Miquelon argues that FRE 408 and its underlying
purposes shield from discovery these four documents, which he says
in any event were sourced from documents produced to the SEC and
testimony that has already been or will soon be (as part of
Walgreens' productions), produced to the Plaintiffs.  Miquelon,
like the Plaintiffs, presents little or no argument about Rule
26(b)(1)'s proportionality requirement as it might apply to the
compelled production of the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials.

At oral argument on the motion, on Nov. 12, 2019, the counsel for
Walgreens stated in open court that disclosure of the Miquelon Rule
408 SEC Materials would have a chilling effect on future settlement
discussions, insofar as Walgreens or other parties would have
reason to be concerned that their statements to the regulators
would be discovered in the private litigation.

Magistrate Judge Fuentes' in camera review of the Miquelon Rule 408
SEC Materials allowed him to assess both the burden of compelled
disclosure on Rule 408's policies and the Plaintiffs' need for
those materials within the context of "the needs of the case."  He
agrees that the materials are relevant to the claims and defenses
in the case, and that the materials may provide the Plaintiffs with
a roadmap to how Walgreens, or at least Miquelon, may wish to frame
the factual issues.  The Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials are loaded
with assertions that bear upon the factual and legal issues in the
instant case.  It is impossible to conclude that that the Miquelon
Rule 408 SEC Materials would not be of use in the Plaintiffs' proof
of the validity of their claims, even if that use is derivative.
The in camera review also confirmed that the Miquelon Rule 408
Materials have no apparent relevance under a theory of "witness
bias or prejudice," so the Judge rejects the idea that the impact
of compelled discovery upon the policies underlying Rule 408 is
learned by the evidence's supposed admissibility under such a
theory.

Moreover, Judge Fuentes' in camera review of the four documents
Miquelon submitted to the SEC also confirms that their compelled
production is not so important to the needs of the case as to
override the burden associated with such a production under a Rule
26(b)(1) proportionality analysis.  Nothing about the needs of the
case suggests any compelling reason why the Plaintiffs must have
the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials to prosecute their claims, even
if the materials are relevant to those claims and might well be
very useful to Plaintiffs in proving them.  Compelled production of
the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials is disproportionate to the
needs of the case under Rule 26(b)(1).

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Fuentes denied the Motion to Compel
seeking discovery of the Miquelon Rule 408 SEC Materials.

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

Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Frank Anthony Richter -- frichter@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, James E. Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Nicole Temkin Schwartzberg --
nschwartzberg@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice.

Walgreen Co., Defendant, represented by Caroline Anna Wong --
CAROLINE.WONG@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp, Heather Benzmiller
Sultanian -- HSULTANIAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, James
Wallace Ducayet -- jducayet@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, John
M. Skakun, III -- JSKAKUN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp, Kristen
R. Seeger -- KSEEGER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Lawrence P.
Fogel -- LAWRENCE.FOGEL@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Gregory D. Wasson, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Quinn, Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Amy Curtner Andrews, Riley Safer Holmes
Cancila LLP, Caroline Anna Wong, Sidley Austin Llp, Eli Joseph
Litoff, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & John M. Skakun, III,
Sidley Austin Llp.

Wade Miquelon, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Evan L. Seite, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, pro hac vice, Jessica L. Snorgrass, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati, pro hac vice, John M. Skakun, III, Sidley Austin Llp,
Laurence Harvey Levine & Stephen B. Strain, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati, pro hac vice.

Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S, Movant, represented by Eli R.
Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Joost,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro hac vice, Johnston de
Forest Whitman, Jr., Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark B. Desanto, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro hac
vice, Michelle Marie Newcomer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp,
pro hac vice, Rupa Nath Cook, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp,
pro hac vice & James Mcevilly, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check.


WAWA INC: Sued by Sacks for Failing to Protect Confidential Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Sacks, Michaella Katz, and Amanda Garthwaite, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00078-JHS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 3, 2020), arises from Wawa's
failure to protect the confidential information of millions of its
customers, including credit and debit card numbers, expiration
dates, and cardholder names on payment cards.

On December 19, 2019, Wawa revealed that it had discovered
malicious software on Wawa payment processing servers. According to
Wawa, "this malware affected customer payment card information used
at potentially all Wawa locations beginning at different points in
time after March 4, 2019 and until it was contained" on December
12, 2019.

The Plaintiffs have been a customers of Wawa, and whose Financial
Information was compromised in the Data Breach. They contend that
Wawa had obligations, arising from promises made to its customers
like the Plaintiffs and other Class Members, and based on industry
standards, to keep the Financial Information confidential and to
protect it from unauthorized disclosures.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court that they provided their Financial
Information to Wawa with the understanding that Wawa and any
business partners to whom Wawa disclosed the Financial Information
would comply with their obligations to keep such information
confidential and secure from unauthorized disclosures. The
Plaintiffs assert that they and other Class Members have been
injured by the disclosure of their Financial Information in the
Data Breach.

Wawa is a privately-held corporation that operates over 850
convenience stores in six states and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          James Perelman, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Phone: (917) 438-9189
          Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000
          Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 lgrossman@cridenlove.com


WOODSTOCK, VA: Bandler May Not Amend Suit, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Vermont issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion
to Amend the Complaint MICHAEL BANDLER, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF
WOODSTOCK, VILLAGE OF WOODSTOCK, STATE OF VERMONT, and JOHN DOES
1-300, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00128. (D. Vt.).

Plaintiff Michael Bandler commenced the action on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons against the Town of
Woodstock (the "Town"), the Village of Woodstock (the "Village"),
the State of Vermont (the "State"), and John Doe Defendants who are
"in privy with the named Defendants".  

Plaintiff seeks four claims arising out of a traffic citation in
the Village: (1) the Village ordinance authorizing the citation is
void for vagueness; (2) the relevant speed limit sign in the
Village was illegal and violated Plaintiff's due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Vermont Constitution; (3)
citations issued pursuant to 23 V.S.A. Section 1007 are illegal and
violate Plaintiff's and putative class members' due process rights;
and (4) Defendants Town, Village, and proposed new defendants
Philip B. Swanson, Robbie Blish, and Candace Coburn committed civil
rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on the lack of
sufficient notice they provided to motorists regarding the legal
basis for speeding violations.

On March 28, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint,
concluding Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims.

Plaintiff then file a motion for leave to amend Complaint.

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff's proposed
amendments are futile because they do not cure the defects in
Plaintiff's initial Complaint.

The Town and Village argue that Plaintiff may not "hedge his
bet[s]" and cause undue delay by waiting for the court to rule on a
motion to dismiss and amend his Complaint thereafter.  Although
Plaintiff may have in some respects "hedged his bets," there is no
evidence that he did so in bad faith or for strategic purposes.
The Court therefore does not deny Plaintiff leave to amend on the
basis of undue delay.

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that he
suffered a concrete, actual, or imminent injury traceable to
Defendants for which the court can provide redress.  He therefore
does not have standing to assert his claims.  He also does not have
standing to bring claims on behalf of a class.  On this basis
alone, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend must be denied, the
Court opines.  To facilitate appellate review, the court examines
Plaintiff's remaining proposed amendments.

Plaintiff proposes to amend his Complaint to include Defendant
Pearce, alleging that she is liable in her official capacity and
upon information and belief for causing injury to Plaintiff because
she had the responsibility to accept revenues for the State of
Vermont from legal sources, including, but not limited to, revenues
from legally issued speeding citations. Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant Pearce profited from illegal fines and must disgorge said
profits.

Accepting as true that Defendant Pearce has a responsibility to
collect revenues from legal sources, Plaintiff fails to state a
plausible claim for relief against her, the Court finds.  Because
the Citation was dismissed, Defendant Pearce did not accept
revenues from any illegal source, and thus could not have profited
from Plaintiff's payment of an illegal fine.  Plaintiff must allege
enough facts to nudge his claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible.

In addition to Defendant Pearce, Plaintiff moves to amend his
Complaint to add three Town and Village employees: Defendant
Swanson, Defendant Blish, and Defendant Coburn, alleging under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 that these Town and Village employees engaged
in constitutional violations by illegally ticketing motorists,
accepting illegal revenues from the tickets, and by issuing tickets
that do not adequately reference the applicable statutory
subsection or local ordinance.  

Because the Citation was dismissed, and Plaintiff's loss of the
$120 filing fee was a self-inflicted injury, he cannot recover from
the Town and Village's employees. The proposed addition of
Defendants Swanson, Blish, and Coburn is thus futile, the Court
further opines.  

The State seeks denial of Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on
the further ground that Plaintiff's claim for return of the $120
filing fee against the State is barred by sovereign immunity.

Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Pearce committed a
wrongful act by collecting fines from illegal traffic citations,
the State of Vermont Torts Claims Ac (VTCA) specifically exempts
"[a]ny claim for damages caused by the fiscal operations of any
State officer or department" from its waiver of sovereign immunity.
The Court finds that Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that he
may recover from the State for fines Defendant Pearce may have
collected from parties not before the court.

For the reasons stated, Judge Reiss denies Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend because Plaintiff's proposed amendments are futile.


A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yz9urktg from Leagle.com

Michael Bandler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Goldwarg, Esq. , Angel,
Coil & Bartlett, 125 W. Mendenhall, Suite. 201 Bozeman, MT, pro hac
vice & P. Scott McGee, III, Esq.  - smcgee@hcsmlaw.com -
Hershenson, Carter, Scott & McGee, P.C.
Town of Woodstock, and all other municipalities who have issued
illegal traffic tickets & Woodstock, Village, and all other
municipalities who have issued illegal traffic tickets, Defendants,
represented by Kaveh S. Shahi, Esq. - kss@clearyshahi.com - Cleary
Shahi & Aicher, P.C.

State of Vermont, and all other municipalities who have issued
illegal traffic tickets, Defendant, represented by David R. McLean,
Esq. , Vermont Office of the Attorney General.


YARDI SYSTEMS: Maness Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yardi Systems, Inc.
The case is styled as Moshe Maness, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yardi Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2020).

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

Yardi Systems, Inc. offers management software and client support
services. The Company provides services to investment management
firms, housing projects, property management firms, and
construction management companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Evan Benjamin Citron, Esq.
          Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
          599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 492-2068
          Fax: (212) 492-2501
          Email: evan.citron@ogletreedeakins.com


ZEKI ELECTRIC: Valdez Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Valdez, Edail Aliji and Miguel Berrios, and Miguel Berrios,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situatedand all
others similarly situated v. ZEKI ELECTRIC, INC., ZEKI ELECTRICAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LC and Z & Z ELECTRIC, INC., ERHAN ZEKIROSKI
a/k/a ERIC ZEKI, MUZAFER ZEKIROSKI a/k/a MIKE ZEKI, Case No.
2:20-cv-00129 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020), alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law relating to unpaid
overtime and unpaid wages.

The Defendants engaged in a scheme to violate worker protection
laws by requiring the Plaintiffs to work overtime without paying
time and half for overtime and by systematically shaving time from
their time records, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as electricians on electrical installation
and service projects in New York.

The Defendants offer integrated electrical project management
capabilities that span all segments of the electrical construction
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
          Melville, NY 11563
          Phone: (212) 991-8960
          Fax: (212) 991-8952
          Email: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com


ZIPRECRUITER INC: Loeb Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Calif. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Loeb, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated
v. ZIPRECRUITER, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00221 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid
wages arising from alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as an employee from
June 12, 2017, through January 2019, alleges that the Defendants:
failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay; failed to provide
them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them
all of their final wages following separation of employment.

Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, the Plaintiff now
brings this representative action to recover unpaid wages,
restitution and related relief on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation and does business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


ZITOMER LLC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zitomer, LLC. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zitomer, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00037 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020).

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

Zitomer, LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a
Single Location business. Categorized under Solutions,
Pharmaceutical.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Gurrieri, Esq.
          The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com



                            *********

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 ***