/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200124.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 18

                            Headlines

ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Compelled in Juarez FLSA Suit
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan's Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes Denied
ALABAMA: District Court Dismisses Sutton Class Action
ALDI INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Says
ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to D. N.J.

AMAZON: Pa. Supreme Court to Hear Security Check Class Action
APPLE INC: Court Trims Defective Smart Watch Class Claims
ARAB BANK: Israeli Terrorism Victims File Class Action
ARDENT HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Action in Tennessee
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Faces Shareholder Class Action

AT&T: EFF Seeks Court Order to Turn Over Location Data Evidence
BAOZUN INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit
BEACHWOOD CINEMA: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime, Withheld Tips
CARES COMMUNITY: Faces Fox Suit Over Breach of Employment Laws
CENTENE CORP: Cisneros Labor Suit Remanded to State Court

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Guzman's Bid for Certification of Class Denied
CORREVIO PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 10 Deadline
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Braunstein Suit Over Insurance Monopsony
DIGNITY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $100 Million
DOLLS KILL: Faces Curbelo Suit in California; May 13 Hearing Set

DR. MARTENS: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Claims
ELECTRIC RESEARCH: Hayes Hits Racial Discrimination in Workplace
ENAGIC USA: Makaron's Bid to Certify Class, for Atty. Fees Gets OK
FYRE FESTIVAL: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit May Not File 3rd Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Drivershaft Problem

H&M HENNES: Not Entitled to Class Decertification of Employees
HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces Moreau Employment Suit in California
HEXO CORP: Hagens Berman Files Investor Class Action
HSN INC: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Jewell Suit
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lies About Safety of Opioid, PSIC Claims

JD EARL WATERWORKS: Johnson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Suit Challenges Improper Wage Practices
JUUL LABS: Flores Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pels' Penafiel Water Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
KUDULIS REISINGER: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Luca

LANDS' END: Delta Air Lines Workers Claim Uniforms Make Them Sick
LAZER SPOT: Boyd Suit Removed From Circuit Court to N.D. Illinois
LIFELABS: Faces $1.13-Bil. Data Breach Class Action
LOUISIANA: Court OKs $256K Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Romain
Suit
LVNV FUNDING LLC: Lozano Invokes Right to Refuse to Pay Debt

MADISON SECURITY: Faces Quartey Suit in New York Supreme Court
MATTEL INC: February 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MEI HAGALIL: Barnea Jaffa Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
MYLAN NV: Faces Brody Securities Suit Over Drop of Stock Price
NET 1 UEPS: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Must Face Steering Class Action
NYS THRUWAY: Donohue Renews Bid to Certify 3 Classes of Employees
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action
RADIO CORP: Former Workers Awarded NT$2.3 Billion in Class Action
RAP SUCCESS: Mastro Hits Retaliation Over Discrimination Claims

RAUSCH STURM LLP: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Herrera
REALGY ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Robo Calls
RING INC: Class Suit Claims Negligence Over Hacked Cameras
SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Residents Can Seek Medical Monitoring
SAKARA LIFE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Kempa Sues in Northern District of Illinois
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Wins Prelim Approval of Bermudez Suit Deal
SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Defeat Discrimination Claim
STEWART'S SHOPS: Six-Year Class Action Settled for $675K
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Feb. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Probing Securities Claims
UNITED STATES: Discovery Stayed in Firearms Suit
UNITED STATES: Michener Moves for Certification of Rule 23 Class
UNITED STATES: NS Moves to Certify Class of Indigent Detainees
UNITED STATES: Siraj Moves for Certification of Inmates Class

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: B.C. Appeal Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit
WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Receivers
WINCO FOODS: Johnson Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers
[*] Cannabidiol Industry Expected to Face More Lawsuits in 2020
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 4


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Files Chapter 11 to Address Legacy Asbestos Claims


                            *********

ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Compelled in Juarez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order granting the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned SARAH
REYNOSA-JUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-06302-EJD. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Sarah Reynosa-Juarez is a traveling nurse who worked for
Defendants at Kaiser Permanente's San Jose Medical Center.
Plaintiff routinely worked overtime and through her meal and rest
periods because her patient care obligations required her to do so.
Plaintiff filed a class and collective action complaint to seek
redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
California Labor Code, and Unfair Competition Laws.

Under their Renewed Motion to Compel, Defendants Accountable
Healthcare Staffing and Accountable Healthcare Holdings argued that
pursuant to an employment arbitration agreement, the Plaintiff must
be compelled to arbitrate her claims individually.  Having
considered the Parties' papers, the Court agrees and grants
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff initially argued that Defendants waived their arbitration
rights.  In light of the policy in favor of arbitration, waivers
are not to be lightly inferred and the party seeking to establish a
waiver bears a heavy burden of proof.

To demonstrate waiver of the right to arbitrate, a party must show:
(1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts
inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the
party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent acts.

Plaintiff argued that because Defendants withdrew their earlier
motion to compel arbitration, they have participated in the
litigation process and waived their right to pursue arbitration.
In Plaintiff's view, the case law indicates that a motion to compel
arbitration may not be granted after a previous withdrawal, unless
the withdrawal was based on futility.  Likewise, Plaintiff
contended delaying a motion to compel arbitration for tactical
purposes demonstrates waiver.

The Court notes that the Plaintiff provides no precedent supporting
her theory that tactical decisions show waiver.  To the contrary,
the tactical reasons cited by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of
filing motions to dismiss, seeking a decision on the merits, active
participation in discovery or spending seventeenth months
litigating the case.  On the other hand, the Court points out
Defendants' conduct was consistent with their right to arbitrate --
they did not "substantially invoke" the litigation machinery by
taking the inconsistent step of filing action seeking early
resolution of the merits.  Thus, the totality of Defendants'
actions, especially in light of the federal policy favoring
enforcement of arbitration agreements, do not satisfy the elements
of "Inconsistent Actions/Substantial Invocation of Litigation
Machinery/Important Intervening Steps."

To establish prejudice, a plaintiff must show that because of the
defendant's delay in seeking arbitration, they incurred unnecessary
costs, will be forced to relitigate an issue they already prevailed
on in court, or that the defendant received an advantage in federal
court that they would not have received in arbitration.  

The only volitional acts Defendants undertook were to serve
document requests on Plaintiff and notice Plaintiff's deposition.
The Court opines that this, however, does not rise to the level of
prejudice discussed in Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1123-24
(9th Cir. 2016), these actions neither caused a lengthy delay nor
constitute active litigation.  To the contrary, the Martin case
referenced a seventeen month delay and referred to active
litigation as litigating the merits of the case.  This argument,
thus, is unpersuasive and Plaintiff cannot show prejudice, the
Court finds.

Plaintiff further argued his agreement with the Defendants is
unconscionable.  Here, the agreement is mutual, it requires both
parties to arbitrate all claims arising out of the employment
relationship, the Court notes.

Plaintiff next argued that the agreement does not cover her meal,
rest period, or overtime claims.  In light of the liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration and the ambiguity discussed, the Court
holds the arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff's claims.

Finally, Plaintiff argued that she is entitled to bring a
collective or class arbitration against Defendants.  The Court
rejects this and holds that class arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims
is not permitted by the Arbitration Agreement because there is no
contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to
authorize it.

Accordingly, Judge Davila (1) GRANTS Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis; (2)
SEVERS the provision of the agreement requiring arbitration occur
in Florida; and (3) ORDERS the arbitration to occur within the
geographic boundaries of judicial district of Northern California
pursuant to Defendants' stipulation.

The action will remain stayed in its entirety pending the final
resolution of arbitration.

A full-text copy of Judge Davila's November 7, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yhd33y4c from Leagle.com

Sarah Reynosa-Juarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Bunnell Piller
- npiller@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Joshua Geoffrey Konecky -
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP & Leslie H. Joyner - ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com -
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. & Accountable Healthcare
Holdings Corp, Defendants, represented by Shannon Bettis
Nakabayashi - Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com - Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Mariko Mae Ashley - mariko.ashley@jacksonlewis.com - Jackson
Lewis P.C..


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan's Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Wendy W. Berger denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA MORGAN v. ADVENTIST
HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and NORTH
AMERICAN CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01342-WWB-DCI
(M.D. Fla.).

Judge Berger opines that the Plaintiff has not shown that class
claims predominate over questions affecting individual class
members or that a class action is the superior method for
resolution of this controversy.  Judge Berger also opines that the
Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing predominance because
there is actual proof that issues regarding class membership and
consent will affect numerous potential class members in this case.

Additionally, because the individualized issues predominate, the
Plaintiff has also not shown that maintenance of a class action is
superior to other available methods for adjudicating this
controversy, Judge Berger notes.  To the contrary, Judge Berger
adds, the individualized inquiry into class membership and consent
would make maintenance of a class in this case unmanageable and
burdensome, citing Sacred Heart Health Sys., Inc. v. Humana
Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 601 F.3d 1159, 1184 (11th Cir.
2010).

In September 2015, non-party M.R. was treated at Defendant
Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.'s ("AdventHealth Orlando")
hospital facility.  At that time, M.R. gave AdventHealth Orlando
permission to contact her at a phone number ending in 2301.
Thereafter, the 2301 Number was reassigned to the Plaintiff.
Defendant Medical Services, Inc. ("MSI") contracts with
AdventHealth Orlando to attempt to collect patient payments before
they become past due or delinquent.  If MSI is not successful,
AdventHealth Orlando contracts with Defendant North American Credit
Services, Inc. ("NACS") to collect debts on past due accounts.  It
is not disputed that MSI placed three calls to the 2301 Number
after it was reassigned to the Plaintiff, and NACS placed one
call.

As a result of these calls, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit
asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  In addition to her individual claims, the Plaintiff also
seeks to certify these classes for class action claims against the
Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

   A. [AdventHealth Orlando] Class:

      (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
      telephone number (3) [AdventHealth Orlando] or anyone
      acting on its behalf placed a nonemergency telephone call
      (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used
      to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice
      (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where
      any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a
      wrong number and/or not to call;

   B. MSI Sub-Class:

      (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
      telephone number (3) MSI placed a non-emergency telephone
      call relating to a[n] [AdventHealth Orlando] debt (4) using
      substantially the same system(s) that were used to
      telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice
      (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where
      any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a
      wrong number and/or not to call; and

   C. NACS Sub-Class:

      (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
      telephone number (3) NACS placed a non-emergency telephone
      call relating to a[n] [AdventHealth Orlando] debt (4) using
      substantially the same system(s) that were used to
      telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice
      (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where
      any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a
      wrong number and/or not to call.[CC]


ALABAMA: District Court Dismisses Sutton Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Karon Owen Bowdre of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned LENA
SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVE MARSHALL, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-CV-660-KOB. (N.D. Ala.).

In February 2019, Ms. Sutton loaned her car to his friend, Roger
Maze.  Police pulled Mr. Maze over while he was driving Ms.
Sutton's car.  During the traffic stop, law enforcement found a
trafficking amount of methamphetamine in Ms. Sutton's car.  Ms.
Sutton had no knowledge of the methamphetamine and faces no
criminal charges.  Ms. Sutton asserts that Alabama's seizure of her
car and the subsequent civil forfeiture proceedings deprive her and
other similarly situated putative class members of her rights.
Nevertheless, the state seized Ms. Sutton's car because it was used
to transport drugs and then instituted a civil forfeiture action
pursuant to Alabama's Civil Forfeiture Act, Ala. Code Sec. 20-2-93.


State court records show that the state served Ms. Sutton with a
complaint in the civil forfeiture action in March 2019.  After Ms.
Sutton failed to adequately respond to the complaint, the state
entered a default judgement in April 2019.  Ms. Sutton then filed a
motion to set aside the default judgment, in which she stated that
she was not accused of any crime and that the seizure of her car
was unconstitutional.  The state court set aside the default and
Ms. Sutton filed an answer in July 2019, raising claims that the
seizure of her car violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
She did not raise her claims regarding the constitutionality of the
retention of her vehicle.  The forfeiture proceedings have yet to
go to trial.

Under an amended complaint, Ms. Sutton asserts that Alabama's
seizure of her car and the subsequent civil forfeiture proceedings
deprive her - and other similarly situated putative class members -
of her rights. Ms. Sutton seeks to bring a class action under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  She argues that the state's failure to provide a
prompt post-deprivation hearing after it seizes property violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. She
further asserts that Alabama's procedures do not provide defendants
in civil forfeiture proceedings with an opportunity to contest the
deprivation of their property during the pendency of the forfeiture
litigation, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.  Ms. Sutton also argues that Alabama's civil forfeiture
proceedings violate the Eighth Amendment.

In his motion to dismiss, Attorney General Marshall argued that the
district court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction over Ms.
Sutton's complaint pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.  In
re Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971) stated that courts
of equity should not enjoin state criminal proceedings pursuant to
the notions of comity and respect.

The Attorney General asserts that the district court should abstain
from exercising its jurisdiction because the Plaintiff asks the
district court to interfere in state court proceedings.  The
Attorney General also asserts that Younger abstention applies
because Ms. Sutton can raise her constitutional claims in her state
forfeiture proceedings, and, in fact, already has raised some of
her constitutional claims.  The Attorney General notes that Ms.
Sutton could pay a bond to have her vehicle released or could file
a motion in state court for the release of her seized vehicle,
neither of which she has done.  Alternatively, Attorney General
Marshall argues that Ms. Sutton has not stated any claim for which
relief can be granted.  The Attorney General attaches to his motion
to dismiss documents from relevant state court proceedings, which
show that Ms. Sutton's forfeiture action has yet to be resolved.

As an initial matter, the District Court finds unconvincing Ms.
Sutton's argument that no ongoing state proceedings exist dealing
with the continued retention of her car during her forfeiture
proceedings.  Ms. Sutton construes the issue too narrowly.  While
neither Ms. Sutton nor the state has instigated proceedings dealing
explicitly and solely with the issue of whether the state can
retain her car during her forfeiture proceedings without certain
procedural measures, the forfeiture proceedings completely
encompass the issue of whether the state has a right to hold Ms.
Sutton's car, either permanently or temporarily.  Further, Ms.
Sutton could take advantage of available methods within the state
court proceeding to challenge the state's retention of her vehicle,
the Court notes.

The District Court further notes that Ms. Sutton also fails to show
that federal relief will not interfere with the ongoing state court
proceeding.

The District Court says it will give the state court more than "a
little respect" and abstain from hearing the Sutton case under the
Younger abstention doctrine.  Accordingly, the District Court will
grant, by separate order, Attorney General Marshall's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyoqxpr
from Leagle.com

Lena Sutton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated as
described below, Plaintiff, represented by Allan L. Armstrong -
Allan@ArmstrongLawCenter.com - ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER LLC, Brian M.
Clark , WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, The Kress
Building 301 Nineteenth Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203 &
Darrell L. Cartwright , CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION, 2820 Columbiana
Rd, Po Box 383204, Birmingham, AL, 35238-3204

Steve Marshall, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of
the State of Alabama, Defendant, represented by Brad A. Chynoweth ,
Office of the Attorney General & Laura E. Howell , ALABAMA ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.


ALDI INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. ALDI INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-07006 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13,
2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards
to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they may be fully
accessible and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

ALDI owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers grocery,
meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other home
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516 695 0052
          Facsimile: 212 656 1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


ALLERGAN GROUP: Breast Implant Row Transferred to D. N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jessica Valdez, Jennifer Encinas, Marcie
Gawronski, Amy LaGioia and Kerry Andersen Doumite, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan,
Inc. (previously Inamed Corporation), Allergan USA, Inc. and
Allergan PLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01931 (C.D. Cal., October
8, 2019) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on January 2, 2020, under Case No.
20-cv-00034.

Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by
negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL (C) saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. On July 24,
2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported of cases of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

Plaintiffs had BIOCELL implants that are subject to the said recall
and experienced severe discomfort. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             nicholas@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
      Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor P.A.
      316 South Baylen Street
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Tel: (850) 435-7138
      Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com

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


AMAZON: Pa. Supreme Court to Hear Security Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juliana Feliciano Reyes, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer,
reports that it's a question that's been winding its way through
courts across the country in a series of cases for nearly a decade
-- and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to weigh in.

The state's top court said on Dec. 27 that it would hear the
proposed class action, as per a request from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an Ohio-based court whose judges
said they were not familiar enough with Pennsylvania state law to
decide the case.

In a unanimous decision made in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that, under federal law, Amazon does not have to pay its workers
for time spent waiting for security screenings. The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court will now decide whether Pennsylvania's minimum-wage
law requires the company to do so.

The two plaintiffs named in the case are Neal Heimbach and Karen
Salasky, both of whom worked at the Amazon warehouse in
Breinigsville, Pa., in the Lehigh Valley. The two have been
outspoken about working conditions in the early 2010s, a time of
less public scrutiny on Amazon's warehouses. They originally filed
the proposed class action in 2013.

The plaintiffs said the security checks, aimed at preventing theft,
could take up to 20 minutes after they clocked out. Workers in
Nevada who had brought a similar case said it could take up to 25
minutes to complete a screening, during which workers passed
through a metal detector and waited in a second line to get
searched with a metal-detecting wand. That's in contrast to the
company's strict tracking of employee breaks. In court documents,
Amazon has described claims of the security process taking that
long as "grossly inaccurate."

In the years since the Heimbach and Salasky case was filed,
backlash against Amazon has grown.

After a widely publicized search for a second headquarters led
Amazon to choose Long Island City, Queens, for one of its
locations, community organizers raised concerns about
gentrification and the billions of dollars in financial incentives
offered to the company. Amazon eventually pulled out of Queens.
Several investigations, including a recent report by Reveal from
the Center for Investigative Reporting, have suggested that the
company puts productivity over the safety of its warehouse workers.
And across the country, Amazon workers -- both white collar and low
wage -- have been organizing and walking out over working
conditions and issues such as the company's impact on climate
change.

Amazon was projected to have $238 billion in sales in 2019. It
employs 750,000 people. Its CEO, Jeff Bezos, is one of the richest
people in the world.

The Philadelphia area is home to several Amazon warehouses,
including a recently opened location in West Deptford that the
company says employs more than 1,500, another in King of Prussia,
and a "Prime Now" warehouse in Philadelphia's University City
neighborhood. [GN]


APPLE INC: Court Trims Defective Smart Watch Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Apple
Inc. doesn't have to defend claims that it violated New Jersey
consumer protection law by knowingly selling defective Apple
Watches, because the complaint didn't sufficiently allege the
company knew the watches were defective when sold, a federal court
in the state said.

Gina Priano-Keyser's class action complaint didn't show that Apple
concealed its knowledge that the smart watch batteries would swell,
causing the screens to crack, shatter, or detach from the watch
body, in order to induce people to purchase the watches, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey said. [GN]


ARAB BANK: Israeli Terrorism Victims File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Batya Jerenberg, writing for World Israel News, reports that more
than a thousand Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism have
banded together to sue the Jordan-based Arab Bank PLC for knowingly
supporting terrorism, Israel Hayom reported on Dec. 31.

They are demanding 20 billion shekels in compensation. It is the
first time Israelis have targeted a bank for its involvement in
terror, Israel Hayom reports.

They are charging the financial institution with systematically
supporting, aiding, funding and encouraging acts of terror in
Israel by operatives of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah and
other organizations.

The law firms representing the 1,132 people injured in terrorist
attacks and families of those killed, MM Law and Markman &
Tomashin, further claim that the bank's CEO even established a
support fund for terrorists and their families, to which he would
contribute $500,000, and the bank promised a further $2 million.

The case will focus on attacks perpetrated between 1995 and 2005, a
time period when hundreds of Israelis were murdered and thousands
injured in the Jewish state after the Oslo peace accords were
signed, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was created, and PA
President Yasser Arafat instigated the Second Intifada.

Some of the more infamous suicide bombings cited in the lawsuit
were the Dolphinarium (2001), Sbarro (2001) and Park Hotel (2002)
attacks.

At the Dolphinarium, a Tel Aviv nightclub, most of the 21 killed
and 120 injured were youths. The Sbarro pizza shop bombing in the
heart of Jerusalem killed 15 and wounded over 100. The terrorist
who blew himself up in the Netanya Park Hotel murdered 30 and
wounded 160 who had gathered for the Passover Seder.

This lawsuit follows a successful U.S. suit against the Arab Bank
on similar charges.

In 2014, 10 years after the case was first brought, a Brooklyn,
N.Y. federal jury unanimously found the bank liable for knowingly
providing financial services to a group that the U.S. had long
designated as a terrorist organization -- Hamas.

The 527 plaintiffs, all American citizens, proved that Arab Bank
had consciously maintained accounts for Hamas leaders and
organizations and facilitated millions of dollars' worth of bank
transfers to Hamas operatives and families of suicide bombers.

It was the first time that a financial institution was found liable
under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which until then had been used
to sue terrorist organizations like the PLO and terror-supporting
countries like Iran.

While the bank appealed the verdict, it also came to an agreement
with the plaintiffs on a settlement whose size would depend on
whether it lost or won the appeal. This would save both sides from
having to engage in another expensive, years-long trial, and
guarantee that the plaintiffs would receive compensation.

In 2018, while confirming the essential truth of the claims, a
federal appeals court overturned the verdict due to the trial judge
having given the jury incorrect instructions. Although the exact
amount the plaintiffs then received due to the prior agreement was
confidential, it was reported that Arab Bank had set aside $1
billion for the terror victims and their families.
[GN]


ARDENT HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Action in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that Ardent Health
Services is the target of a new Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) lawsuit.

The proposed class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and names as defendants
Ardent Health Services, the company's board of directors and more
than 30 individual fiduciary defendants both named and unnamed.

The complaint alleges that the nearly $1 billion-plan's fiduciaries
have failed to objectively and adequately review the plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent in terms of cost and performance. The complaint
further alleges that fiduciaries inappropriately maintained certain
funds in the plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.

"To make matters worse, defendants failed to utilize the lowest
cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the plan, and
failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or
separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the plan,
despite their lower fees," the complaint states. "Defendants'
mismanagement of the plan, to the detriment of participants and
beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104."

Other allegations include that plan fiduciaries permitted
overpayments for recordkeeping and administrative services. The
complaint argues that the defendants' actions were contrary to
actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the plan and its
participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the
plaintiffs assert claims against defendants for breach of the
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (count one) and failure to
monitor fiduciaries (count two).

As have other recently filed ERISA complaints, this new lawsuit
anticipates and seeks to overcome challenges to its timeliness.

"Plaintiffs did not have knowledge of all material facts …
necessary to understand that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and engaged in other unlawful conduct in violation of ERISA
until shortly before this suit was filed," the complaint states.
"Further, plaintiffs did not have and do not have actual knowledge
of the specifics of defendants' decision-making process with
respect to the plan, including defendants' processes for selecting,
monitoring, and removing plan investments, because this information
is solely within the possession of defendants prior to discovery.
Having never managed a jumbo 401(k) plan such as the plan,
plaintiffs lacked actual knowledge of reasonable fee levels and
prudent alternatives available to such plans."

One unique feature of this complaint relative to other excessive
fee and failure to monitor lawsuits filed in recent years is a
short discussion of Sageview Advisory Group being a "non-defendant
fiduciary."

"Upon information and belief, Sageview Advisory Group LLC is the
investment consultant hired to assist the committee and Ardent in
their role in selecting and monitoring the plan's investment
options," the complaint states. "Sageview is listed on the 2018
Form 5500 as a consultant and was paid $75,000 in compensation by
the plan in 2018. . . . Although Sageview is a relevant party and
likely to have information relevant to this action, it is not named
as a defendant given that Ardent remains responsible for the
overall selection and monitoring of all investment options.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Sageview as a defendant in the
future if deemed necessary."

Ardent has not yet returned a request for comment. [GN]


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

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (AFI)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/armstrong-flooring-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1

Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC)

Investors Affected: June 21, 2019 - November 13, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Canopy Growth Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing
weak demand for its softgel and oil products; (2) as a result, the
Company would be forced to take a CA$32.7 million restructuring
charge due to poor sales, excessive returns, and excess inventory;
and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/canopy-growth-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB)

Investors Affected: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5102&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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


AT&T: EFF Seeks Court Order to Turn Over Location Data Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dom DiFurio, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that a
digital rights nonprofit group is pressuring a U.S. district court
to force Dallas-based AT&T to turn over evidence that it no longer
sells customers' location data collected by mobile phones to third
party aggregators.

The nonprofit, known as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has
been fighting AT&T in court for months, attempting to get an order
preventing AT&T from the "systemic, and unauthorized sale of its
wireless phone customers' sensitive location data," according to
court documents.

The foundation, created in 1990 as an activist organization
dedicated to privacy, free speech and innovation in the digital
era, represents several AT&T customers residing in California in
the class-action suit playing out in the state's Northern District
Court.

The customers sued, alleging that AT&T's practices were "an
egregious and dangerous breach of Plaintiffs' and all AT&T
customers' privacy, as well as a violation of state and federal
law."

Telecom companies like AT&T are in a unique position because the
data they can collect is sprawling, powerful and highly coveted by
many industries. Data that illustrates human habits in great detail
is attractive to marketing and advertising companies -- but also to
bounty hunters, prisons, bail bondsmen, law enforcement officers
and people who could pose real danger to customers.

In its lawsuit, the foundation argues that AT&T "quietly sold its
customers' real-time location data to third-party aggregators
knowing that once sold, that sensitive location data would later
enter the marketplace where it could be used for nefarious
purposes."

In response, AT&T told the court that it stopped selling users'
location data to third parties in March 2019 and asked for the
lawsuit to be thrown out, submitting its communication with the FCC
as evidence it stopped the practice.

"Location-based services like roadside assistance, fraud
protection, and medical device alerts have clear and even
life-saving benefits. We only share location data with customer
consent and voluntarily stopped sharing it with aggregators months
before this lawsuit was filed," AT&T said in a statement.

The foundation, in recent motions seeking additional evidence from
AT&T, said the company has a history of "misrepresentations and
omissions" in statements to the public and members of Congress
about whether AT&T stopped disclosing customer location data.

AT&T announced in June 2018 that it would be "phasing out" its sale
of users' location data to aggregation firms after New York Times
reporting revealed sensitive location data was finding its way from
aggregators to parties that were not obtaining customers' consent
to be tracked. The company claims it expedited its phase out in
January, according to a letter sent to the FCC that was submitted
in court.

Online tech publication Motherboard reported that phone providers
were still allowing third parties access to precise real-time data
as recently as February 2019.

That location data, called "assisted GPS," combines GPS data with
cell tower data, WiFi and Bluetooth to reveal customers' locations
down to the room they're in within a building. It's typically
reserved for use by emergency personnel.

Motherboard paid a bounty hunter $300 to geolocate a T-Mobile phone
with data that originated from telecom companies. The bounty hunter
was accurate down to the block.

The foundation wants a California judge to require AT&T to prove
that it stopped selling users' location data, as well as a list of
who bought the data from the company. The nonprofit is also seeking
internal and external documents from AT&T that show how it
described its actions when it came under scrutiny for selling
location data. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for the
end of February. [GN]


BAOZUN INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Baozun Inc. (NASDAQ: BZUN)
between March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 10, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=baozun-inc&id=2130
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=baozun-inc&id=2130.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose (1) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
("Huawei"), a Chinese-based multi-national technology company, was
one of the Company's largest brand partners, and paid more add-on
fees for the work Baozun did for it, increasing the revenues Baozun
received for Huawei work compared to the Company's other brand
partners; (2) as a result, Baozun reported outsized revenue growth
during the first half of 2019, which would be abruptly cut off
during the second half 2019, after Baozun restructured its
relationship with Huawei, as Huawei took much of its online
merchandising in-house; and (3) as a result, Baozun's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


BEACHWOOD CINEMA: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tai'Jae Haynes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Beachwood Cinema, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00003 (N.D. Ohio, December 2, 2020), seeks overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate
of pay for the hours he worked over 40 each workweek; minimum wages
and recovery of withheld tips that were shared with employees who
do not customarily and regularly receive tips, including
housekeeping employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Beachwood Cinema, LLC operates as "Silverspot Cinema," a movie
theater in Beachwood, Ohio which includes food and bar service
before the moving screening where Haynes worked as a server between
September 2018 and September 2019. Servers are paid below minimum
wage rates and thus rely on tips to augment their income, notes the
complaint. Haynes also claims Beachwood Cinema did not issue wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


CARES COMMUNITY: Faces Fox Suit Over Breach of Employment Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cares Community
Health, et al. The case is captioned as Katrina Fox, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Cares Community Health, One Community Health, and Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2019-00271128-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 11,
2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

One Community is a specialty care & affordable primary health care
clinic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Douglas Han, Esq.
           JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
           Telephone: 818-230-7502
           E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


CENTENE CORP: Cisneros Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the case
captioned CARMELA CISNEROS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; MICHAELINE FLOWER, an individual; and DOES 2 through
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01010-L-MSB. (S.D.
Cal.).

From July 25, 2006, through March 7, 2018, Plaintiff was employed
by Centene Corporation and Health Net Federal Services, LLC as a
Clerical Specialist in San Diego County.

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff's filed a complaint against Centene
and Michaeline Flower in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, alleging various claims relating from her termination
of employment.  In March 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
and added defendant Health Net.

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2018, she took leave to care for
her husband who suffered a shoulder injury.  Upon returning from
leave, she was terminated for falsifying medical documents related
to her husband's injury.  Plaintiff claims she was terminated in
retaliation for taking leave to care for her injured husband. Id.

In May 2019, Centene removed the case to the Southern District of
California, claiming diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332, 1441, 1446(b)(3).

Plaintiff now moves to remand.

Plaintiff contends there are two reasons the case must be remanded
to state court.  First, Plaintiff contends that Flower is not a
sham defendant; thus, there is not complete diversity among the
parties.  Second, Plaintiff contends the amount in controversy does
not exceed $75,000.  

Plaintiff alleges two claims against Flower: (1) retaliation in
violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and (2)
defamation under California law.  Centene asserts Flower was
fraudulently joined in the action and that her citizenship should
be disregarded in evaluating whether complete diversity exists.

Centene contends that the CFRA does not allow for individual
liability for retaliation.  Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that
the CFRA's liability extends to individuals because the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) incorporates most of the federal
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations into the CFRA.  

However, the FMLA defines employer as any person who employs 50 or
more employees and includes any person who acts, directly or
indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's
employees. Although Plaintiff asserts that 2 Cal. Code Regs Section
7297.7 unmistakably confirms that CFRA retaliation liability
extends to individuals, the regulation does not address the issue
of whether the supervisor of an employer may be held individually
liable.

In light of settled California law on this issue, Plaintiff cannot
establish a CFRA retaliation claim against Flower, in Flower's
individual supervisor capacity, the Court opines.

Centene contends that "Plaintiff cannot possibly maintain a
defamation claim against Flower because Plaintiff is unable to
attribute the supposed defamatory statements to Flower."  The
District Court disagrees.  Plaintiff's admission that she lacks
personal knowledge of Flower's publication of the alleged
defamatory statements is insufficient to show that Plaintiff cannot
establish a defamation cause of action against Flower.  Notably,
the parties have yet to engage in discovery from which evidence
that Flower publicized defamatory statement(s) could be revealed.

Accordingly, it is not clear and obvious that Plaintiff cannot
establish a cause of action against Flower either for defamation.
For that reason, the Court finds that Flower is not a sham
defendant.  Thus, Flower shall remain as a party in the action and
complete diversity does not exists here.  For that reason, the
Court finds that complete diversity is destroyed and federal
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

For reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted, the
District Court ruled.  The action shall be remanded to the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

Plaintiff asks the District Court to order for Centene to pay costs
and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the removal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c).  The District Court declines to
make such an award because the removal was not frivolous or filed
for an improper purpose.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydrjcdyw from Leagle.com.

Carmela Cisneros, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Seung
Yang  - seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com - Moon & Yang, APC & Christopher
Lee Garcia - chris.garcia@moonyanglaw.com - Moon & Yang, APC.

Centene Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Maria Rowena Guillermo Santos - santosro@gtlaw.com - Greenberg
Traurig.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Guzman's Bid for Certification of Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled ADRIANA GUZMAN, et al.
v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02606-HSG
(N.D. Cal.).

According to the Order, having reviewed the requirements of Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira, and Jonathan
Poot do not satisfy commonality or typicality.

"In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing for
class certification and, accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion
for class certification," Judge Gilliam explains.

The Court sets a further case management conference for Feb. 11,
2020, at 2:00 p.m.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on February 17,
2017, in San Francisco County Superior Court, asserting claims for
employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under
California law.  Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and
Chipotle Services, LLC, removed this action on May 5, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and their corporate policies
"systematically discriminate" against their employees based on
employees' "Hispanic race and/or Mexican national origin."  The
Plaintiffs bring several causes of action against the Defendants
under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act ("FEHA") for
disparate treatment employment discrimination; disparate impact
employment discrimination; harassment on the basis of race or
national origin; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment;
and retaliation.

The Plaintiffs move to certify a single class, defined as: All
current and former hourly employees of Chipotle, who are Hispanic
and/or of Mexican national origin, and worked at Chipotle
restaurant locations in California during the period November 14,
2011 until the resolution of this action (the "Class").[CC]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



DELTA DENTAL: Faces Braunstein Suit Over Insurance Monopsony
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David H. Braunstein v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-DJH (W.D. Ky., Dec. 16, 2019), arises from
Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market
for dental insurance across the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Braunstein is a dental services provider and a citizen of the
State of Kentucky. He is a member of Arbor Ridge Family Dental, a
dental practice located at 6402 Westwind Way, in Crestwood,
Kentucky.  Dr. Braunstein provided covered dental goods and
services to consumers insured by Defendants pursuant to his
in-network contract with Delta Dental of Kentucky.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Edward K. Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: Kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          Matthew L. White, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          9301 Dayflower Street, Suite 300
          Prospect, KY 40059
          Telephone: (502) 805-1800
          Facsimile: (502) 618-4059
          E-mail: Mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com
                  Mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Settles ERISA Class Action for $100 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
two health systems and a hospital agreed to pay a combined $164
million in 2019 to resolve allegations that they used a religious
Employee Retirement Income Security Act exemption they weren't
entitled to, according to Bloomberg Law.

Dignity Health's $100 million ERISA class-action settlement was the
largest settlement of the year across all industries. A judge has
withheld approval of the settlement until the parties rework how
attorneys' fees will be paid in the case, according to the report.

The other two provider organizations that settled "church plan"
lawsuits in 2019 paid much smaller amounts. St. Louis-based SSM
Health and Chicago-based St. Anthony Medical Center paid $60
million and $4 million, respectively, to resolve ERISA class-action
cases in 2019.

Across all industries, roughly 30 ERISA class-action lawsuits were
settled in 2019. Those settlements totaled $449 million, up from
$291 million in 2018, according to the report. [GN]




DOLLS KILL: Faces Curbelo Suit in California; May 13 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolls Kill, Inc. The
case is captioned as PUNIPUAO CURBELO, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED AND AGGRIEVED v. DOLLS KILL, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION and BABAK FARAHI, Case No. CGC19581497 (Cal. Super.,
Dec. 13, 2019).

A case management conference is set for May 13, 2020, at 10:30
a.m.

Dolls Kill is a global online fashion brand for young people of all
genders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Peter Kihiczak, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          815 Moraga Dr.
          Los Angeles, CA 90049-1633
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088


DR. MARTENS: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Camacho Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. DR. MARTENS AIRWAIR USA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-07009-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille so they may be fully accessible and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Plaintiff alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls Dr. Martens retail
stores in the City and State of New York and throughout the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., No. 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516 695 0052
          Facsimile: 212 656 1845
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


ELECTRIC RESEARCH: Hayes Hits Racial Discrimination in Workplace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electric Research and Manufacturing
Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01003 (W.D. Tenn.,
January 2, 2020), seeks redress for racial discrimination under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Plaintiff is an African-American male and was employed by Defendant
at its Dyersburg, Tennessee manufacturing facility for
approximately nineteen years before his employment was terminated
on February 6, 2019. Hayes qualified for Family and Medical Leave
for the two days as he was absent because of a serious medical
condition and under his physician's care yet he was reprimanded for
being unable to continue work during a Saturday overtime. He claims
that Caucasian employees who have used vacation time to substitute
for absences were not reprimanded. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             rmorelli@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


ENAGIC USA: Makaron's Bid to Certify Class, for Atty. Fees Gets OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Edward Makaron v. Enagic USA, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.), the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
grants these motions:

   -- Motion for Attorney Fees Costs Incentive Awards; and
   -- Motion to Certify Class for Final Approval.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866)633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark T. Cramer, Esq.
          BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730
          Telephone: (213) 891-0700
          Facsimile: (213) 896-0400
          E-mail: mcramer@buchalter.com


FYRE FESTIVAL: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit May Not File 3rd Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in IN RE: FYRE
FESTIVAL LITIGATION, Case No. 17-cv-3296 (PKC), (S.D.N.Y.).

The District Court, on July 10, 2019, dismissed the Plaintiffs'
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("SCAC") against
individual defendants Jeffrey Atkins (known as Ja Rule) and Grant
Margolin with prejudice, and granted Plaintiffs limited leave to
replead with respect to particular allegations against defendant
Atkins.

The Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint alleges an overly-ambitious
plan for the Fyre Festival that became a fraudulent scheme when one
or more participants learned that the luxury experience they had
promised was no longer feasible, but continued to market the
Festival with statements they knew to be false.  For each
plaintiff, the moment when he or she learned of a statement, later
proved to have been false and acted in reliance upon it for
example, by buying a ticket may be different.  The District Court
rejected plaintiffs' conclusory assertions that they relied on
defendants' representations about the Festival as insufficient to
state a claim for fraud.  In the case of Margolin, plaintiffs
failed to allege a false statement with the particularity required
by Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and in the case of Atkins,
plaintiffs alleged an actionable false statement, but failed to
allege that they acted in reliance thereon, the District Court
opined.

Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the dismissal of
Margolin and for leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, amending the claims against Atkins.

Appended to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration are three
declarations two from named plaintiffs Ritu Jutla and Daniel Jung,
and one from putative class member Abbas Ali along with a
declaration from plaintiffs' attorney.  Even if the Court were to
consider these declarations, they do not provide the particularity
that the Court found lacking in plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, Judge Castel says.  They do not state when a particular
named plaintiff relied on any individual statement by Margolin.
These declarations do not present new evidence that supply the
missing particulars that the Court previously identified, and thus
do not provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its July 10
Order.

On their motion to reconsider, plaintiffs submit emails between
their counsel and Jacqueline Veit of the law firm Golenbock Eiseman
Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP.  Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Veit has been
representing defendant Margolin in this action, and therefore, that
Margolin is not actually a pro se party.  Simply because Margolin
has received assistance in drafting his papers does not mean that
he is represented in this action, the Court opines.

Plaintiffs further contend that two documentaries about the
Festival, both of which were released in January 2019, are sources
of new evidence of allegedly false statements by Margolin on which
they relied.  However, these documentaries are neither new
evidence, nor do they supply missing particularities or correct
deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court notes.
Plaintiffs instead rehash the same evidence they relied in the
Second Amended Complaint.  Thus, the Court denies plaintiffs'
motion to reconsider on the basis of new evidence.

Plaintiffs assert that dismissing Margolin as a defendant
constitutes manifest injustice.  No manifest injustice exists here,
the Court maintains.  Plaintiffs do not offer any additional facts
as to Margolin that would support a fraud claim sufficient to meet
the requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.  Therefore,
plaintiffs have not alleged they would suffer any injustice.  

As to the Plaintiffs' proposed Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs
repeat allegations that they and members of the proposed class
relied on Atkins' Tweet when deciding to purchase travel tickets
and make other expenditures related to the Festival, the Court
notes.  These allegations are conclusory and fail to remedy the
shortcomings the Court's July 10 Order identified: they do not
state which, if any, named plaintiff relied on Atkins' Tweet, when
such reliance occurred, or any particular injury a plaintiff
suffered as a result.

Thus, plaintiffs' amended complaint would be subject to a motion to
dismiss on substantially the same grounds as the Court previously
granted dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, and granting
leave to amend would be futile, the Court opines.

Plaintiffs are thus denied leave to file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yfluf3zf from
Leagle.com

Matthew Herlihy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Anthony Lauriello, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rosemary M.
Rivas - rrivas@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Tina Glandian -
tina@geragos.com - Geragos & Geragos, Apc.

Sean Daly & Edward Ivey, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented by
Lesley Frank Portnoy - LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Marc L. Godino - mgodino@glancylaw.com - Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Ritu Jutla & Zenovia Pittas, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented
by Tina Glandian , Geragos & Geragos, Apc & Lori Gwen Feldman -
lfeldman@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.
Daniel Sepulveda, Consolidated Plaintiff, pro se.

Andrew Petrozziello, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Michael Grous -
agrous@wilentz.com - Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A & Philip A.
Tortoreti , Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 555 South Flower Street,
Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071, pro hac vice.

Daniel Jung, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Alarcon , GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC, Benjamin Jared Meiselas , Geragos
and Geragos APC, 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California
90017-3411, pro hac vice, Lori Gwen Feldman , Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP, Mark J. Geragos - geragos@geragos.com - Geragos & Geragos,
Apc, pro hac vice, Zack Vincent Muljat , Geragos and Geragos APC,
644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411 & Tina
Glandian , Geragos & Geragos, Apc.

Jeffrey Atkins, an individual, Cross Claimant, represented by
Thomas Hunter Herndon, Jr. , Silverman, Sclar, Shin & Byrne PLLC,
381 Park Avenue South Suite 1601, New York, NY, 10016 , Paul Robert
Niehaus , Kirsch & Niehaus PLLC, 150 E 58th St Fl 22, New York, NY
10155-0002 & Ryan Hayden Smith , Smith Law, 3737 Glenwood Ave Ste
100, Raleigh, NC, 27612-5515


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Drivershaft Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
so-called "Chevy Shake" class-action lawsuit alleges GM vehicles
suffer severe vibrations because the automaker uses aluminum
driveshafts.

The GM class action includes all consumers in the U.S., except
Florida, who purchased or leased any of these GM vehicles.

   -- 2015-2020 Cadillac Escalade
   -- 2014-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
   -- 2015-2020 Chevrolet Suburban
   -- 2015-2020 Chevrolet Tahoe
   -- 2014-2019 GMC Sierra
   -- 2015-2020 GMC Yukon / Yukon XL

Florida consumers are not included because a separate Chevy Shake
lawsuit (Weiss v. General Motors) was denied nationwide class
action certification, but the judge said the lawsuit could proceed
for GM customers in Florida.

According to the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the aluminum
driveshafts cause severe vibrations that cause drivers to lose
control of the vehicles. The plaintiffs claim the problem occurs
while driving highway speeds, and over time the driveshaft can
deteriorate and finally drop to the ground.

GM allegedly sells and leases the vehicles while knowing the
aluminum driveshafts will cause violent and dangerous vibrations
that can send the vehicles off the roads. Instead of warning
customers about the dangers, the class action alleges General
Motors conceals information about the Chevy Shake to continue
selling and leasing the vehicles.

The automaker also has allegedly refused to recall the vehicles to
replace the driveshafts and hasn't offered to reimburse customers
who spent their money for repairs.

One of the plaintiffs purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and
claims the truck experienced the so-called Chevy Shake when about
25,000 was on the odometer. According to the plaintiff, the "center
console aggressively shakes left to right such that if a cup were
placed in the console without a lid, it would spill."

The plaintiff also says she has paid more than $1,400 in an effort
to fix the truck but the vibrations and shaking continue. The
dealership allegedly finally said the vibration was normal and no
repairs were needed.

The class action says owners have replaced the aluminum driveshafts
with custom-made steel driveshafts which completely fixed the
problem.

The lawsuit says it's clear GM knows about the so-called Chevy
Shake because dealerships have been issued technical service
bulletins (TSBs) related to the driveshafts. [GN]


H&M HENNES: Not Entitled to Class Decertification of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. isn't entitled
to decertification of a class of its retail store employees who
allege that the retailer violated California wage and hour laws by
requiring employees to undergo an off-the-clock security check
before leaving their stores. The fact that employees without a bag
may have only been subjected to a visual inspection of their person
as opposed to the employees with a bag who had to wait for a search
of it doesn't defeat commonality, the liability question of whether
the security checks are too brief or irregular to warrant relief
likewise, doesn't preclude class. [GN]

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces Moreau Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartland Employment
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Katheryn Sara Moreau v.
Heartland Employment Services, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company; HCR Manorcare Medical Services of Florida, LLC; a Florida
limited liability company; HCR Manorcare, Inc., an Ohio
not-for-profit corporation; Manorcare Health Services-Citrus
Heights; and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2019-00271161-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Dec. 11, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

HCR ManorCare provides skilled nursing and disease management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (855) 201-5143
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


HEXO CORP: Hagens Berman Files Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on Dec. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint on behalf of investors in HEXO Corp. (HEXO) against the
Company and its senior executives. The firm urges HEXO investors
who have suffered significant losses to submit their losses now to
learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses.

Class Period: Jan. 25, 2019 - Nov. 15, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 27, 2020

Sign Up Now: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/HEXO

Contact An Attorney Immediately: HEXO@hbsslaw.com

510-725-3000

Hagens Berman's HEXO Securities Class Action:

The Complaint is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired HEXO common stock during the Class Period -
between Jan. 25, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019, inclusive. The Complaint,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York and captioned Perez v. HEXO Corp., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-10965, pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the detailed Complaint filed by Hagens Berman,
Defendants misled investors throughout the Class Period by making
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

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

The truth emerged through a series of disclosures occurring between
Oct. 4, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019, when the Company announced that was
producing cannabis in a section of its Niagara facility that was
not properly licensed with Health Canada.

As a result of these disclosures, the value of HEXO stock has
consistently decreased, damaging investors.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants
knowingly provided false financial information to the market," said
Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you purchased HEXO common stock during the Class Period and
suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased HEXO common stock
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a
motion with the Court no later than Jan. 27, 2020, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of Nov. 27, 2019. Any member of the proposed Class
may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of
their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain part
of the proposed Class.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding HEXO
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or
email HEXO@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]



HSN INC: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Jewell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned MAURICE JEWELL, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HSN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-247-jdp. (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiff Maurice Jewell commenced the the proposed class action
against defendant retailer HSN, Inc.  Jewell used an HSN-branded
credit card issued by Comenity Capital Bank to make purchases from
HSN, which attempted to collect his unpaid balance.  Jewell
contends that HSN refused to comply with his requests to stop
calling his mobile phone in its collection attempts, thereby
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the
Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

HSN moves to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration
provision in the account agreement between Jewell and Comenity.

HSN isn't a party to Jewell's account agreement with Comenity,
which would normally prevent HSN from invoking the agreement's
arbitration provision.  But a non-party can sometimes invoke an
arbitration provision under principles of state contract law.
Because the account agreement states that it is governed by Utah
law, the parties agree that Utah law should govern application of
the agreement's arbitration provision.

HSN contends that under Utah law, it is entitled to invoke the
agreement's arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary of
the agreement or under equitable estoppel principles and that
Jewell's claims fall within the provision's scope.  But the court
isn't persuaded by either of these theories.

HSN's primary contention is that it is expressly included in the
account agreement's arbitration provision as an affiliate of
Comenity entitled to compel arbitration.  This is really an
argument that HSN is a third-party beneficiary under the express
terms of the agreement, although HSN doesn't frame it in this way.


HSN argues, alternatively, that it's a third-party beneficiary of
the agreement because the agreement provided credit enabling Jewell
to purchase goods from HSN.

Under Utah law, a third party can enforce a contract as a
third-party beneficiary only if the parties to the contract clearly
express an intention to confer a separate and distinct benefit' on
the third party. The account agreement between Jewell and Comenity
states that entities entitled to compel arbitration include any
parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Comenity.

HSN says it qualifies as an affiliate under this clause, giving it
the right to compel Jewell to arbitrate his claims.

The arbitration provision provides textual support for a consistent
definition of affiliate throughout the agreement. The arbitration
provision says that any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Comenity
can compel arbitration.  

Here, affiliate is immediately preceded by parent and subsidiary,
terms that, like the privacy statement's definition of affiliate,
involve a relationship based on ownership or control.  This
strongly suggests that, as used in the arbitration provision, the
term affiliate requires shared ownership or control.

HSN contends that even if the privacy statement's definition of
affiliate applies within the arbitration provision, HSN satisfies
that definition. HSN offers two arguments to support this
contention.

First, HSN argues that (1) the privacy statement says that Comenity
will share information about the cardholder's transactions and
experiences with affiliates (2) Comenity shares such information
with HSN; and so (3) HSN must be an affiliate of Comenity. But
HSN's conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. The language HSN
cites isn't a definition of affiliates, it's simply a statement of
one thing Comenity does with its affiliates.

In other words, Comenity shares this information with all
affiliates, but it doesn't follow that all those with whom Comenity
shares this information must be affiliates.

Second, HSN says that it and Comenity are affiliates under the
privacy statement's definition because of their common control.
But the only evidence of common control that HSN identifies is that
the companies share information, maintain a joint marketing fund,
and regularly hold meetings and otherwise work together to market
the HSN Card.This isn't evidence of common control; it shows at
most a joint venture between Comenity and HSN.

In sum, none of HSN's arguments establish that HSN is a third-party
beneficiary of the arbitration provision because it is an affiliate
of Comenity, the Court notes.  The arbitration provision uses the
term to mean an entity related to Comenity by shared ownership or
control, and HSN doesn't share ownership or control with Comenity.

HSN also argues that it's a third-party beneficiary of the account
agreement because the agreement gave Jewell credit to purchase
goods from HSN.  This shows that HSN received some benefit from the
agreement, but that doesn't automatically make HSN a third-party
beneficiary.

HSN is only an incidental beneficiary of the account agreement
between Comenity and Jewell, not a third-party beneficiary.  The
benefit HSN received from the account agreement isn't separate and
distinct from the parties' benefits, and it does not make HSN a
third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

HSN further contends that Jewell should be equitably estopped from
avoiding arbitration.  HSN says that this doctrine should apply
because (1) Jewell purchased goods from HSN with a promise to pay
for them using the HSN Card, (2) HSN gave Jewell these goods in
reliance on his promise, and (3) HSN's calls to Jewell were made to
collect on Jewell's promise to pay.  HSN says that this promise
should estop Jewell from avoiding arbitration of his claims against
HSN because those claims are intertwined with his account
agreement, which contains an arbitration provision.
  
Jewell's claims against HSN doesn't depend on the account agreement
in any way.  He contends that HSN violated state and federal
statutes by calling his cell phone without his consent, claims that
he could have raised regardless of whether he had an account
agreement with Comenity.  Although Utah law doesn't appear to have
addressed this type of estoppel, other jurisdictions have required
much closer ties than these between a party's claims and a contract
containing an arbitration agreement before estopping the party from
avoiding arbitration.  

In other words, for a plaintiff's claims to rely on the contract
containing the arbitration provision, the contract must form the
legal basis of those claims, it is not enough that the contract is
factually significant to the plaintiff's claims or has a but-for'
relationship with them.  HSN has only shown that the account
agreement has a but-for relationship with Jewell's claims, and it
hasn't shown that Utah's Supreme Court would be likely to estop
Jewell from avoiding arbitration.  

In short, HSN has cited no authority for its view that Jewell
should be estopped from avoiding arbitration under the
circumstances of this case.  Because Jewell's claims are based on
the TCPA and the WCA, not the account agreement, HSN can't rely on
equitable estoppel to compel arbitration.

HSN isn't an affiliate of Comenity within the meaning of the
agreement's arbitration provision, nor is it otherwise a
third-party beneficiary of the account agreement, so it lacks the
right to compel arbitration under the provision's terms.  And
Jewell's claims against HSN aren't based on his agreement with
Comenity, so he isn't estopped from avoiding arbitration under the
agreement.

The Court will deny HSN's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydjme9v9 from
Leagle.com

Maurice Jewell, Jr., On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Davidson -
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC & Matthew
Curtiss Lein , Lein Law Offices, W State Road, 70 Winter, WI54896

HSN, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Blouin , Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP & Jordan Vick , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lies About Safety of Opioid, PSIC Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Insurance Company v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05904-MMB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants actively misrepresented and suppressed
material information about the safety and efficacy of opioid drugs,
and violated various duties regarding the distribution of
controlled substances, which permitted and resulted in massive
diversions of prescription opiates to enter illicit distribution
channels.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated workers' compensation insurers and self-insured
employers in the United States, including territories and
possessions, which pay for and provide injured workers'
compensation benefits, including medical treatment, prescription,
disability, and death benefits ("Workers' Compensation Payors" or
the "Class").

The Defendants are Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson, Inc.; Noramco, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen;
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.;
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc.; Allergan PLC; Actavis Kadian LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions, Inc.; Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. d/b/a Endo Generic Products; Endo
International plc; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. d/b/a Par
Pharmaceutical; Richard S. Sackler; Jonathan D. Sackler; Mortimer
D.A. Sackler; Kathe A. Sackler; Ilene Sackler Lefcourt; Beverly
Sackler; Theresa Sackler; David A. Sackler; Trust for the Benefit
of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family; The P.F. Laboratories,
Inc.; Stuart D. Baker; American Academy of Pain Medicine, Inc.;
American Geriatrics Society; American Pain Society, Inc.;
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; Bellco Drug Corp.; Cardinal
Health, Inc.; Kinray, LLC; McKesson Corporation; Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc.; Bellco Drug Corp.; Rochester Drug Cooperative,
Inc.; Walgreens Co.; and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc..

According the complaint, the Defendants, individually and in
concert, did their fraudulent scheme to increase the market for
opioid pain medications and to in turn garner tremendous profits,
returns on investments and compensation. Central to the Defendants'
fraudulent scheme, which resulted in ultimately generating what
public health authorities have declared to be a national opioid
medication epidemic or crisis, was that third-party payors, such as
the Plaintiff, would pay for these addictive drugs where licensed
prescribers wrote a patient a prescription regardless of what the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") actually approved them
for, which was very limited.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have and continue to
conduct themselves maliciously by further failing to take measures
to fully arrest, alleviate and abate the consequences of their
tortious acts and omissions, which continue to cause harm to
injured workers who have been prescribed opioid drugs and
Defendants thereby continue to cause harm to Workers' Compensation
Payors.

PSIC is a property/casualty insurance company incorporated under
the laws of Illinois and headquartered in New York.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, selling, and
distributing opioids, nationally, specifically to claimants of
Workers' Compensation Payors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-567-3500
          E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com
                  epasternack@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: 713-659-5200
          E-mail: WML@LanierlawFirm.com


JD EARL WATERWORKS: Johnson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JD Earl Waterworks, LLC and Brad M. Earl,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00002 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2020),
seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Waterworks is a general services contractor managed by Brad Earl,
where Johnson worked in plumbing and general labor. Johnson claims
to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was denied
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Suit Challenges Improper Wage Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELENA CARRILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 161965/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
Dec. 11, 2019), accuses the Defendant of engaging in illegal and
improper wage practices in violation of the New York Labor Law.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid employees, who worked at
branch locations (Hourly Employees) employed by JPMorgan Chase. The
Plaintiff contends that she and other Class Members have sustained
similar types of damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to
comply with the NYLL.

According to the complaint, the illegal practices include requiring
Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation during meal
breaks; requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without
compensation outside of their scheduled shift; failing to pay
Hourly Employees at their straight or agreed upon rate for all
hours worked under 40 hours in a week; and failing to provide
accurate wage statements.

Yelena Carrillo resides in New York County, New York, and was a
covered, non-exempt employee throughout her entire employment with
the Defendant.

JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THLE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105


JUUL LABS: Flores Suit Removed to Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Michelle Flores, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,
Case No. 2019CH12935, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court,
Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 13, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08176 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Sara L. Ellis.

The suit demands of $75,000 in damages alleging violation of
fraud-related laws.

Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which
packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Renee Deborah Smith, Esq.
          Christina E. Sharkey, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: rdsmith@kirkland.com
                  christina.sharkey@kirkland.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pels' Penafiel Water Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned JOHN PELS, Plaintiff, v. KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03052-SI. (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Keurig owns a variety of beverage families, including
Peñafiel water, which is advertised and labeled as mineral spring
water, the product at issue in this case.  Plaintiff John Pels
filed an amended class action complaint seeking to represent all
United States consumers who purchased any Peñafiel beverage that
exceeded permitted arsenic levels within the applicable statutes of
limitations.

The complaint alleges five claims: (1) California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (2) California's Unfair Competition Law's
("UCL") Unlawful Prong, (3) California's UCL's Unfair Prong, (4)
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), and (5) unjust
enrichment.  The first four claims are limited to a class of
California consumers while the fifth claim encompasses a nationwide
class.  The complaint details a variety of health issues associated
with arsenic consumption but does not allege plaintiff or class
members suffered any health issues after consuming Peñafiel
Water.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds,
including (1) that plaintiff lacks Article III standing, and (2)
that plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.

The Court finds that the amended complaint does not sufficiently
allege facts to establish standing to bring this suit, and
therefore finds it unnecessary discuss defendant's Rule 12(b)(6)
arguments.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards define bottled water
as water with no added ingredients.  Keurig argues that these FDA
standards do not apply to Peñafiel water because Peñafiel
contains carbon dioxide, i.e. an ingredient, and urges the Court to
dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice.  

In response, plaintiff cites FDA guidance from 1995 interpreting 21
C.F.R. Section 165.110.  The guidance concludes that all bottled
water described by a standard of identity such as spring water or
mineral water is governed by Section 165.110, even if other terms
are included, i.e., carbonated mineral spring water.

The Court finds Section 165 genuinely ambiguous and applies to
Peñafiel water.  The statute describes bottled water as well as
providing specific definitions of mineral water and spring water.


Since the statute itself is ambiguous as to how the definition of
mineral water or spring water is impacted by the addition of
carbonation, this guidance is both persuasive and helpful. As such,
the statute clearly does apply to the Peñafiel mineral spring
water.

Moreover, Keurig argues that plaintiff has failed to plead
particularized injury in two ways: (1) plaintiff fails to allege he
tested the Peñafiel water he purchased for arsenic relying instead
on Consumer Reports' and Keurig's testing, and (2) plaintiff fails
to plead the Peñafiel water he purchased contained violative
levels of arsenic.  

Defendant's first argument fails, the Court opines.  However,
plaintiff has failed to plead a particularized injury by failing to
plead the water he purchased contained violative arsenic levels.
In his opposition, plaintiff argues plaintiff has alleged that all
Peñafiel mineral spring water during the Class Period was
contaminated with arsenic because all Peñafiel water comes from
the same source.  
The Court therefore dismisses the amended complaint, without
prejudice, for lack of standing for failure to plead a
particularized injury.

In the present case, plaintiff alleges he will resume purchasing
the products in the future if Keurig adheres to proper standards
and therefore falls into the second category -- seeking injunctive
relief out of fear that defendant will falsely label Peñafiel in
the future.  However, defendant is no longer selling Peñafiel
water in the United States.  Therefore, there is no injunctive
relief to be had, the Court notes.  

For the reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, the Court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of
standing without prejudice.  Further, the Court grants the motion
to dismiss plaintiff's request for injunctive relief with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yesl5s5g from
Leagle.com

John Pels, on beahlf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. Paskowitz -
lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - Paskowitz Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, Noah
M. Schubert - nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, Robert C. Schubert  - rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Roy L. Jacobs , Roy Jacobs and
Associates, Willem F. Jonckheer  - wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP & David Nathan Lake  -
david@lakelawpc.com - Law Offices of David N. Lake.

Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by David T. Biderman – Dbidermn@perkinscoie.com
Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar-
LStaniar@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Christian Sipos -CSipos@perkinscoie.com - & Jasmine Wei-Ming
Wetherell  - jwetherell@perkinscoie.com -  Perkins Coie LLP.


KUDULIS REISINGER: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Luca
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Luca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kudulis, Reisinger and Price, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60004 (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

Kudulis, Reisinger and Price, LLC is a law firm engaged in the
business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. It attempted
to collect a debt owed by Luca by collection letter. Luca claims
that Defendant has never registered, or otherwise been licensed, to
collect consumer debts from Florida consumers and does not fall
within any of the exemptions, thus cannot legally collect, or
attempt to collect any consumer debts. [BN]

American Directions is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
             tom@jibraellaw.com


LANDS' END: Delta Air Lines Workers Claim Uniforms Make Them Sick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reports that getting dressed for
work is literally making some Delta Air Lines employees sick,
claims a class-action lawsuit against Lands' End, the maker of
uniforms worn by some 64,000 Delta workers.

The suit, filed in the first week of January 2020 in federal court
in Wisconsin on behalf of a ticket agent, 11 flight attendants, and
other Delta workers, contends they developed health issues
including difficulty breathing, fatigue and rashes after the
carrier introduced the "Passport Plum" uniforms last year.

The litigation is not the first centering on Delta's outfit. It
follows a proposed class-action filed against Lands' End in May
2019 by two Delta flight attendants, who also alleged that
chemicals used to make the uniform material waterproof,
anti-static, deodorizing and wrinkle- and stain-resistant were
causing allergic and other reactions.

At that time, Delta told media outlets that "although Delta and
Lands' End conducted in-depth testing during every step of
development, a small number of employees have reported skin
irritations."

"Our top priority continues to be the safety of our employees,
which is why we invested in a rigorous toxicology study to
determine if there was a universal scientific issue with the
uniform," a Delta spokesperson said in an email. "The results of
the study confirm our uniforms meet the highest textile standards -
OEKO-TEX - with the exception of the optional flight attendant
apron, which we removed from the collection."

Lands' End does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson
for the retailer told CBS MoneyWatch by email.

Delta isn't the only airline with flight attendants claiming that
their uniforms caused health issues. American Airlines employees
sued uniform maker Twin Hill in 2018 over allegations that its
synthetic uniforms contained chemicals that were causing health
problems for flight attendants and pilots.

Twin Hill dismissed the claims as "without merit."

Similar complaints occurred at Alaska Airlines after its workers
were issued new uniforms in late 2010 and early 2011 made by Twin
Hill. The company and airline recalled the uniforms in 2014 but a
lawsuit against the company failed, with a court finding no
evidence the uniforms caused any health problems. [GN]


LAZER SPOT: Boyd Suit Removed From Circuit Court to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as James Boyd, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lazer Spot, Inc., Case
No. 2019CH12511, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 13, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08173 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Joan H. Lefkow.

Lazer Spot provides yard management services. The Company offers
spotting, shuttling, trailer rentals, gate personnel staffing, and
computerized yard management, and training services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric L. Samore, Esq.
          John C. Ochoa, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC (CHGO)
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894-3200
          E-mail: esamore@salawus.com
                  jochoa@salawus.com


LIFELABS: Faces $1.13-Bil. Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Cillian O'Brien, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a proposed
$1.13 billion class action lawsuit against medical services company
LifeLabs aims to get "compensation and punish the business,"
according to a Toronto lawyer.

Hackers assessed the personal information of up to 15 million
Canadian LifeLabs customers, mostly in Ontario and British
Columbia, before LifeLabs says it paid a ransom to get the data
back.

A statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court on Dec. 27
accuses LifeLabs of negligence, breach of contract and violating
their customers' confidence as well as privacy and consumer
protection laws.

"It's mainly about trying to get some compensation, but also about
punishing the company," lawyer Ari Singer told CTV's Your Morning.

"When you're dealing with a large scale attack and claim like this,
the individual damages might not be so high, but they add up over a
long period.

"It's a really scary time and it's actually a big problem for a lot
of companies. We're not nearly as secure as we'd like to think we
are. And they have a lot of our data."

The compromised database included health card numbers, names, email
addresses, logins, passwords and dates of birth, but it was unclear
how many files were accessed. The lab results of 85,000 customers
in Ontario were also obtained by the hackers, the company said.

"It is a lesson and it's a big issue in the insurance and risk
industries," Singer said.

"There are certain standards that exist because of privacy
legislation, but a lot of it isn't very concrete."

LifeLabs chief executive Charles Brown apologized for the breach
earlier in December.

"Insurance companies are getting into the cyber industry in much
greater detail," Singer said.

"We're definitely in a learning stage right now, which is very
scary because it is a lot of information."

Several dedicated LifeLabs customer phone lines -- 1-800-431-7206
(British Columbia), 1-877-849-3637 (Ontario) and 1-888-918-0467 --
have been set up for people who want further information.

The company is also offering 12 months of "protection that includes
dark web monitoring and identity theft insurance" through
TransUnion.

Lifelabs is owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement
System, one of the biggest pension funds in Canada with $92 billion
in assets.

- With files from The Canadian Press  [GN]


LOUISIANA: Court OKs $256K Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Romain
Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reason granting
Plaintiffs' Motion on Quantum of Attorneys' Fees in the case
captioned LISA ROMAIN, ET AL. v. SUZY SONNIER, in her official
capacity as Secretary of Louisiana Department of Children and
Family Services, SECTION: "J" (1), Civil Action No. 15-06942. (E.D.
La.).

All Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents who are eligible for
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits so
long as Louisiana applies for a SNAP "work requirement" waiver from
the federal government.  In September 2015 however, the Louisiana
Department of Children and Family Services informed Plaintiffs that
Louisiana, under the guidance of then Governor Bobby Jindal, would
not be seeking a work requirement waiver for 2016.

On December 18, 2015, Plaintiffs sued in attempt to prevent
Louisiana from terminating their SNAP benefits by failing to file
the work requirement waiver.  On December 21, 2015, Governor-Elect
John Bel Edwards wrote a letter to the federal government stating
his intention to reverse Governor Jindal's decision by applying for
the work requirement waiver as soon as he took office on January
11, 2016.

Considering Governor-Elect Edwards' intentions, Plaintiffs entered
into a Settlement Order with the Department that contained three
specific orders affecting the relationship between the parties.  If
the waiver was granted and the Defendant complied with all three
orders, then Plaintiffs' complaint would be dismissed with
prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed their Motion for Reasonable
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, believing the Settlement Order was
sufficient to make them the prevailing party.  The district judge
then assigned to the case denied the motion, stating that
Plaintiffs were not a prevailing party within the meaning of Sec.
1988.  Subsequently, Plaintiffs appealed the decision and the Fifth
Circuit overturned, holding that Plaintiffs were the Prevailing
Party due to the Settlement Order. On remand, the case was
transferred to Judge Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana
for the first time.  The sole remaining issue before the Court on
remand was whether there exists any "special circumstances" that
would render awarding attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs under Sec. 1988
unjust.

On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order and Reasons holding
that there existed no special circumstances rendering an award of
attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs unjust.  The final issue before the
Court is a determination of the precise quantum of fees Plaintiffs
are entitled to.

Plaintiffs have requested a total of $258,684.72, representing
$254,237.00 in attorneys' fees and $4,447.72 in costs.  This total
reflects work done by four different legal representatives.  During
the initial stage of the class-action and post-remand proceedings,
Plaintiffs were represented by William Quigley, Sima Atri, and the
National Center for Law and Economic Justice ("NCLEJ").  Attorneys
Greg Bass, Marc Cohan, Mary Mannix, Fran Fajana, Leah Lotto, and
Karina Tefft performed the work attributable to NCLEJ.  At the
appellate stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs were represented by
the law firm of Quinn Emanuel.  Attorneys Jennifer Selendy, Charles
Eskridge, Ellyde Thompson, and Jonathan Sink performed the work
attributable to Quinn Emanuel.  In sum, Plaintiffs request 777.15
hours of attorneys' fees.

Having reviewed the applicable billing records, the Court finds
that the records kept by counsel in the case are sufficiently clear
and detailed to allow for adequate review, and that the hours
expended are reasonable under the facts of the case, albeit with
one minor exception on Mr. Bass.  Upon review, the Court will
reduce Mr. Bass's requested hours by six.

The Court also finds that taken as a whole the requested rates are
reasonable, although at the higher end of the prevailing market
rates.

The final lodestar figure, accounting for the six-hour reduction in
Mr. Bass's expended hours, is $252,077.  In the present case, after
careful consideration of each of the Johnson factors, the Court
finds there is no further need to adjust the lodestar figure.
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th. Cir.
1974).

Accordingly, Judge Barbier orders that Plaintiffs' Motion for
Quantum of Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted.  Defendant shall
remit payment to Plaintiffs in the amount of $256,521.72,
representing $252,077.00 in attorneys' fees and $4,444.72 in
litigation costs.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's November 7, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yebjet5p from
Leagle.com

Lisa Romain, Stacey Gibson, Joanika Davis, Schevelli Robertson,
Jericho Macklin, Dameion Williams & Brian Trinchard, Plaintiffs,
represented by William Patrick Quigley - quigley@loyno.edu - Loyola
Law School Clinic & Mary C. Yanik , New Orleans Workers' Center for
Racial Justice, 217 N Prieur St., New Orleans, LA 70112

Suzy Sonnier, in her official capacity as Secretary of Louisiana
Department of Children and Family Services, Defendant, represented
by Celia Marie Williams-Alexander , State of Louisiana (Dept. of
Children & Family Services).


LVNV FUNDING LLC: Lozano Invokes Right to Refuse to Pay Debt
------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Lozano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00011 (N.D. Ill., January
2, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

LVNV Funding and Resurgent Capital Services are debt collectors who
were assigned to collect a Citi Card/Citibank credit card account
obligation owed by Lozano. Lozano claims that she is exercising her
right to refuse to pay the debt and to be represented by the legal
aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic's Legal Advocates for
Seniors and People with Disabilities program and further collection
efforts are illegal. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angie@philippslegal.com


MADISON SECURITY: Faces Quartey Suit in New York Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Security
Group, Inc. The case is captioned as JULIAN QUARTEY O/B/O HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MADISON SECURITY GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 30892/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 13, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando Tapia.

Madison Security provides security services. The Company offers
trained armed and unarmed guards, and other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike, Ste. 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949

The Defendant is represented by:

          CERVINI SWANSON LLP
          420 Lexington Ave., 22nd Fl
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (646) 880-8947


MATTEL INC: February 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that a complaint has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ
GS: MAT) between October 26, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Mattel during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Mattel,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Mattel had
inadequate systems of internal disclosure and financial controls;
(2) Mattel would need to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K
to restate the Company's financial results for the third and fourth
quarters of 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
statements about its business and operations were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants'
alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on August 1, 2019, Mattel announced
that it would offer $250 million of Senior Notes due 2027 (the
"Note Offering"). The Company said that it would use the net
proceeds from the sale of the Notes, plus cash on hand, to redeem
and retire all of its 4.350% Senior Notes which would be due in
2020 and pay related prepayment premiums and transaction fees and
expenses.

Then, on August 8, 2019 -- the very day the Note Offering was
expected to close -- Mattel shocked investors when it announced
that a whistleblower letter had been sent to the Company's outside
auditors alleging accounting errors in past quarters and questioned
whether Mattel's outside auditor was sufficiently independent. As a
result, the Company announced that it was terminating the Senior
Note Offering subject to the results of an internal investigation.

On this news, shares of Mattel fell over 15%, closing at $11.31 per
share on August 9, 2019, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Timothy J. MacFall
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]


MEI HAGALIL: Barnea Jaffa Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amichay Tessler, Esq. -- atessler@barlaw.co.il -- and Eyal
Nachshon, Esq. --enachshon@barlaw.co.il -- of Barnea Jaffa Lande &
Co., in an article for JDSupra, report that it is not every day a
judgment on class action suits is handed down by an extended panel
of Supreme Court justices. And yet, in December 2019, an expanded
panel of seven Supreme Court justices, headed by the Honorable
chief justice Esther Hayut, published a precedential and important
decision considering the issue of whether a party seeking to file a
class action suit against a government agency must send a demand
letter to the agency in advance of filing. The answer to this
question carries much weight in all aspects of the conditions for
filing class action suits against private businesses as well, such
as class action suits in consumer matters, causes of action flowing
from possession of securities, and a variety of other issues.

In its judgement, the Supreme Court offered a surprising answer,
which, when correctly raised and argued before legal tribunals, may
present real change for businesses wishing to defend themselves
against class action suits.

Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of class
action suits filed in Israel, with about 1500 applications for
certifications of such suits filed annually. In comparison, in the
entire United States, about 3000 class actions suits are filed a
year.

Studies reveal that about 60% of the class action suits filed in
Israel end with the plaintiff Voluntary dismissal from or
abandoning the suit. Thus, it can be concluded that many frivolous
class action suits are filed in Israel, and the cost of handling
them is high for businesses. In effect, these suits usually reflect
an attempt by plaintiffs to unlawfully enrich themselves, without
effort or cause.

Against this background, in the absence of any explicit provision
on the matter in Israeli law, the courts have deliberated the issue
of whether it is proper and appropriate to impose a positive duty
on a party seeking to file a class action suit to reach out to the
business before filing the suit in order to present its claims and
receive a response.

Such a procedure of advanced communication may render a
signification portion of class action suits moot, mostly those
where the plaintiff lacks information and where there is no real
cause for filing. This procedure may even facilitate negotiations
between the parties in a way that leads to conserving judicial
resources.

The case law on this issue developed out of a class action suit
filed against the water and sewer corporation "Mei HaGalil" over
unlawful interest charges. Once the class action suit was filed,
the water corporation stopped the unlawful charges (in a process
called "ceasing," which is particular to government authorities)
and the parties remained in dispute over the amount of recovery and
attorneys' fees to be granted to the lead plaintiff and his
attorneys.

The dispute focused on the fact that the lead plaintiff did not
first reach out to the water corporation prior to filing the class
action suit.

A district court held that failure to reach out in advance should
not bar a class action suit. The decision was challenged in appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled (by a panel of three justices) that when a
class action suit is filed against a government agency, there is a
duty to reach out in advance to the agency. The decision did not
explicitly address class action suits against private businesses,
but it did note that it is possible, under certain circumstances,
that failure to send a demand letter in advance will be considered
a violation of the duties imposed upon a lead plaintiff and his
attorneys.

Since the decision was related to a breadth of issues in Israeli
law, the Supreme Court held a rare additional hearing on the matter
with an extended panel of seven justices. Its judgement, which as
noted above was published on December 17, 2019, determines that
there is no duty to reach out to the administrative agency in
advance.

That being said, and here is our main point, Honorable President
Esther Hayut's judgment did expand the potential implications of
the failure to contact in advance in all class action proceedings.
It was held that though there is no duty to make a prior
communication, courts possess wide discretion on the issue of
whether there should have been prior communication under the
circumstances of the case before them, and that in appropriate
cases the plaintiff or its attorney may have bad faith attributed
to it for failure to reach out in advance.

We believe this statement, which was noted in the judgement's
operative section as well, may be used as the basis for an argument
by class action defendants, including businesses and state
agencies, that in appropriate cases the class action suit must be
dismissed because there was no prior communication, if only for the
bad faith on the part of the lead plaintiff or the plaintiff's
attorney and their inability to fairly represent the class.

Of course, such determination as to the bad faith of the initiators
of the proceeding may have implications on the lowering of the
attorneys' fees and the recovery granted them, even in proceedings
later found to be justified.

Therefore, even if there is no categorical duty of advanced
communication, in appropriate cases, businesses may have an
additional meaningful defense to defeat meritless and extortionist
class action suits filed rashly and without prior communication to
the defendant corporation.

As for cases where there was prior communication, the judgement
offered several guideposts on private corporations' ability to
negotiate with potential lead plaintiffs even before a suit is
filed. [GN]


MYLAN NV: Faces Brody Securities Suit Over Drop of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BRODY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MYLAN N.V., HEATHER BRESCH, KENNETH S. PARK and RAJIV
MALIK, Case No. 2:19-cv-01620-MRH (W.D. Pa., Dec. 16, 2019), is
brought on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Mylan publicly
traded securities between May 9, 2018, and May 6, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On May 7, 2019, before the market opened, Mylan issued a press
release, announcing the Company's financial and operating results
for the first fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019 (Q1 2019 Press
Release). Mylan stated in relevant part: North America segment net
sales of $922.9 million, down 6% on an actual and constant currency
basis, primarily driven by changes in the competitive environment
and the impact of the Morgantown plant remediation activities.

On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined
$6.73 from a close on May 6, 2019, of $28.26 per share of Mylan
common stock, to a close on May 7, 2019, of $21.53 per share of
Mylan common stock, a drop of approximately 23.81 percent.

Following the news, RBC Capital Markets cut its price target from
$45 to $26 and released a research report entitled "Investor
frustration justified and change is needed" stating that
"management challenges forecasting the business, delays in
responding to industry change and governance frustrations" were the
reasons for the sell-off.

The Plaintiff contends that during the Class Period, the Defendants
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct
that artificially inflated the Company's stock price and operated
as a fraud or deceit on acquirers of the Company's common stock.
When the truth about Mylan's misconduct and its lack of operational
and financial controls was revealed, the value of the Company's
common stock declined precipitously as the prior artificial
inflation no longer propped up its stock price, Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff alleges that the decline in Mylan's common stock
price was a direct result of the nature and extent of the
Defendants' fraud finally being revealed to investors and the
market. The timing and magnitude of the common stock price decline
negates any inference that the loss suffered by him and other
members of the Class was caused by changed market conditions,
macroeconomic or industry factors or Company-specific facts
unrelated to the Defendants' fraudulent conduct.

The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by the Plaintiff and
other Class members was a direct result of Defendants' fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price and the
subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company's share,
price when the Defendants' prior misrepresentations and other
fraudulent conduct was revealed, the lawsuit says.

Daniel Brody purchased Mylan securities during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices, and has been damaged thereby.

Mylan is a Dutch company with its global headquarters located in
Pennsylvania, United States. Mylan began in 1961 as a
privately-owned distributor for pharmacies and doctors. In 1965,
Mylan relocated to Pennsylvania and in 1973, Mylan became publicly
traded. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent A. Coppola, Esq.
          PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, LLC
          513 Court Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8844
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4740
          E-mail: vcoppola@pribanic.com

               - and -

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


NET 1 UEPS: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Net 1 UEPS Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: UEPS) investors who purchased securities between
September 12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On November 8, 2018, after the market close, UEPS disclosed that
the Company's consolidated financial statements for the year ended
June 30, 2018 should no longer be relied upon, and indicated that
they would be restated.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.16 per share, or
more than 30%, to close at $4.84 per share on November 9, 2018.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (2) that the Company had misclassified
its investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited; (3) that the
Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were
overstating its income; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired UEPS securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 3, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
[GN]



NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Must Face Steering Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Chasidy Rae Sisk, writing for Autobody News, reports that the
Superior Court in Union County, NJ, denied a Motion to Dismiss
filed by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance (NJM) in relation to a
class-action lawsuit filed in June 2019 alleging steering-related
violations against non-DRP collision repair facilities.

The lawsuit is being led by Sam Mikhail on behalf of Quality Auto
Painting Center d/b/a Prestige Auto Body (now dissolved) and BMR
Automotive Service, Inc. d/b/a Robbie's Automotive & Collision
Specialists.

The decision means the lawsuit will proceed with NJM facing
accusations on a number of offenses, including injurious falsehood
and tortious interference with prospective business advantage, as
well as violations of the NJ Antitrust Act, NJ's Consumer Fraud
Act, and the state's Civil RICO Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status that would include all
shops not on NJM's DRP who fixed, or attempted to fix, a vehicle
insured by NJM in the past six years and who witnessed the
insurer's refusal to negotiate in good faith, attempts to steer an
insured, or misrepresentations of the shop's price or quality.

Working on behalf of themselves and the class-action members, the
plaintiffs are in pursuit of actual/punitive/treble damages as well
as interest, lawsuit costs, attorney fees, and "such other and
further relief the Court deems just and proper." They are also
requesting injunctive relief to prevent the insurer from committing
these alleged "unlawful acts" in the future.

In addition to denying allegations, NJM has offered the defense
that the case doesn't merit class-action status. In a statement
following the court's decision, the insurer said, "NJM does not
ordinarily comment on pending litigation; however, the plaintiffs'
accusations are baseless, and will be vigorously defended."

Offering no opinion on either party's argument on Nov. 22, Union
County Superior Court Judge Alan Lesnewich simply rejected NJM's
Motion of Dismiss, writing that the decision was made after "the
Court having considered the papers submitted, opposition having
been filed, Oral Argument having taken place on Nov. 22, 2019 for
the reasons set forth on the record on Nov. 22, 2019, and for good
cause shown." [GN]


NYS THRUWAY: Donohue Renews Bid to Certify 3 Classes of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuits styled Danny Donohue, et al. v. Thomas
J. Madison, Jr., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00918-FJS-CFH (Lead
Case); Danny Donohue, et al. v. Thomas J. Madison, Jr., et al.,
Case No. 1:13-CV-0920 (FJS/CFH); and NYS Thruway Authority Local
72, et al. v. NYS Thruway Authority, et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-1043
(FJS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs filed their renewed and
amended joint motion for class certification.

Pursuant to the Court's Notice dated December 4, 2019, and FRCP 23
and Local Rules 7.1 and 23.2, the Plaintiffs in the consolidated
actions renew and amend the Joint Motion seeking to certify these
actions as class actions, and to certify these classes:

   1. The "New York State Thruway Employees Local 72 Class"
      (hereinafter "Teamsters Local 72 Class")--All individuals
      who:

      a. were employees of the New York State Thruway Authority
         (hereinafter "the Authority") as of April 3, 2013;

      b. were union members represented by the New York State
         Thruway Employees Local 72 (hereinafter "Teamsters Local
         72") as of April 3, 2013;

      c. who were adversely affected by the terminations
         implemented by the defendant as alleged in the
         Complaint; and

      d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or
         who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different
         positions or work locations, or who were forced into
         retirement;

   2. The "Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
      AFSCME, AFLCIO Authority Class" (hereinafter "CSEA
      Authority Class")--All individuals who:

      a. were employees of the New York State Thruway Authority
         (hereinafter "the Authority") as of April 3, 2013;

      b. were union members represented by the Civil Service
         Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
         (hereinafter "CSEA") as of April 3, 2013;

      c. who were adversely affected by the terminations
         implemented by the defendant as alleged in the
         Complaint; and

      d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or
         who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different
         positions or work locations, or who were forced into
         retirement; and

   3. The "Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
      AFSCME, AFLCIO Canal Corporation Class" (hereinafter "CSEA
      Canal Corporation Class")--All individuals who:

      a. were employees of the New York State Canal Corporation
         (hereinafter "the Canal Corporation") as of April 3,
         2013;

      b. were union members represented by the Civil Service
         Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
         (hereinafter "CSEA") as of April 3, 2013;

      c. who were adversely affected by the terminations
         implemented by the defendant as alleged in the
         Complaint; and

      d. whose employment with the Authority was terminated, or
         who were bumped, demoted or transferred to different
         positions or work locations, or who were forced into
         retirement.

The Plaintiffs further renew their motion for an order appointing
them as class representatives and appointing their respective
counsel as Counsel for the respective classes/sub-classes.[CC]

The Local 72 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicole M. Rothgeb, Esq.
          Gregg D. Adler, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105-2922
          Telephone: (860) 233-9821
          E-mail: nmrothgeb@lapm.org
                  gdadler@lapm.org

The CSEA Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer C. Zegarelli, Esq.
          Aaron E. Kaplan, Esq.
          CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.
          Box 7125, Capitol Station
          143 Washington Avenue
          Albany, NY 12224
          Telephone: (518) 257-1443
          E-mail: jennifer.zegarelli@cseainc.org
                  aaron.kaplan@cseainc.org


QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD)

Investors Affected : February 21, 2018 - October 29, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Quad/Graphics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's book business in United States was
underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company was likely to divest
its book business; (3) the Company was unreasonably vulnerable to
decreases in market prices; (4) to remain financially flexible
while market prices decreased, the Company was likely to cut its
quarterly dividend and expand its cost reduction programs; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/quad-graphics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1

UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR)

Investors Affected : all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Fintech American Depository Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about March 20, 2019; or (b) Fintech securities between March
20, 2019 and May 16, 2019.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
UP Fintech Holding Limited. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fintech was experiencing a
material decrease in commissions because of a negative trend
related to risk-averse investors in the market; (ii) Fintech was
unable to absorb costs associated with the rapid growth of its
business and its status as a publicly listed company on a U.S.
exchange; (iii) Fintech was incurring significant additional
expenses related to, inter alia, employee headcount and employee
compensation and benefits; (iv) all of the foregoing had led to
Fintech significantly increasing operating costs and expenses; and
(v) as a result, the documents filed by the Company in connection
with the initial public offering were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein, and the Company's Class Period statements were likewise
materially false and/or misleading.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/up-fintech-holding-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1

Baozun Inc. (BZUN)

Investors Affected : Baozun American Depository Receipts between
March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Baozun Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) Baozun was heavily reliant upon a single brand
partner, Huawei, for the exponential service fee growth it had been
reporting historically, which was in turn fueling its historical
revenue growth; (b) compared to other brands Baozun had as brand
partners, the Huawei work had historically included a lot of
additional add-on service fees, increasing the revenue reported
from Huawei vis-a-via its other brand partners; (c) Huawei, like
other large brands, was actively preparing to bring its online
merchandising in-house, meaning Baozun knew that it was losing a
significant brand partner; and (d) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results and
performance Defendants claimed the Company was on track to achieve
during the class period.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/baozun-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5115&from=1

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

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


RADIO CORP: Former Workers Awarded NT$2.3 Billion in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flor Wang and Lin Chang-hsung, writing for Focus Taiwan, reports
that the Taipei District Court on December 27 ruled in favor of
former employees of Radio Corp. of America (RCA) and three of its
affiliates, awarding the claimants a total of about NT$2.3 billion
(NT$76.39 million) in a class action lawsuit.

RCA, Thomson Consumer Electronics (Bermuda), and Technicolor SA
were ordered to pay NT$2.33 billion, while General Electric Co.'s
(GE) was ordered to pay NT$2.285 billion, the court ruled.

However, in its ruling, the court said that if any one of the
companies or a combination of some of the companies paid the NT$2.3
billion award, the other companies would not have to pay.

In its statement summarizing the verdict, the court did not make
clear why each company was assessed a fine individually but only
one or more of the four defendants had to pay it.

The 1,115 claimants, who are former employees and relatives of
deceased or injured workers, were seeking compensation for health
damage caused by exposure to harmful chemicals at the four
companies.

RCA, which was operating an electronics appliance factory in
Taoyuan 1970-1992, was found liable for the illnesses, including
cancer, contracted by its employees due to exposure to some 30
types of organic solvents, including the carcinogen
trichloroethylene.

The company was also found to have been dumping toxic waste close
to its factory, contaminating the soil and underground water.

RCA was acquired by GE in 1986, and that company was later acquired
by Thomson and is now is called Technicolor.

December 27's award of NT$2.3 billion in damages followed a Supreme
Court ruling in August 2018, which ordered the four companies to
pay a total of NT$564.45 million to 262 former employees and
relatives of deceased workers.

Another 246 plaintiffs in that same case were not granted any
compensation, and their case was sent back to the High Court, where
it is now awaiting trial.

The ruling on December 27 by the Taipei District Court can be
appealed. [GN]



RAP SUCCESS: Mastro Hits Retaliation Over Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mastro, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. RAP Success Systems, Inc.,
Real Agent Pro LLC, L.A.R.E. Partners Network Inc., Isaiah Colton
and John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06003
(W.D. N.Y., January 2, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages with
liquidated, compensatory, punitive and treble damages, redress for
failure to comply with the notice and record keeping requirements
of New York labor laws, injunctive relief including treble and
liquidated damages, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further
relief for breach of contract and in compliance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants are software companies that provide CRM software aimed
at the real estate brokerage industry who jointly employed mastro
as an inside sales representative.

Mastro typically works from 7:30AM to 7-8 pm and on 1 or 2
Saturdays a month from 10am to2 pm, for a total for average of 62
hours a week. She claims that she wasn't paid overtime for hours in
excess of 40 per week. Mastro also claims that, on the basis of her
sex/pregnancy, Defendants failed to accommodate her when she
underwent surgery, retaliated against her for taking medical leave,
and paid her less than her male colleagues for performing the same
work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Marino, Esq.
      J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
      STEVENSON MARINO LLP
      75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
      New York, New York 10038
      Tel: (212) 939-7228
      Fax: (212) 531-6129
      Email: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com
             jrs@stevensonmarino.com


RAUSCH STURM LLP: Not Licensed to Collect Debts, Claims Herrera
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lianette Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson
and Hornik LLP, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60002 (S.D. Fla., January
2, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson and Hornik LLP is a law firm engaged
in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. On
August 1, 2019, it attempted to collect a debt owed by Herrera by
collection letter. Herrera claims that Defendant has never
registered, or otherwise been licensed, to collect consumer debts
from Florida consumers and does not fall within any of the
exemptions, thus cannot legally collect, or attempt to collect any
consumer debts. [BN]

American Directions is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
             tom@jibraellaw.com


REALGY ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Robo Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Jensen, writing for Patch, reports that a Pennsylvania man
filed a class action lawsuit against a West Hartford-based energy
company, claiming the firm made multiple automated telemarketing
calls to his cell phone despite his longtime presence on the
national Do Not Call registry.

James Everett Shelton filed the suit against Realgy Energy Services
December 23 in United States District Court in the District of
Connecticut, alleging the calls were in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, a law which took effect in 1991 which
prohibits companies from calling persons listed on the registry
without prior written consent.

Realgy, a choice energy supplier serving more than 10,000
businesses with their electric and natural gas service in six
eastern states, has headquarters at 675 Oakwood Ave. in West
Hartford.

"Because these calls were transmitted using technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day, he sues on behalf of
a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar
calls," the lawsuit states, indicating a class action proceeding
which could potentially involve thousands of potential
complainants.

Shelton and other potential members of the class are asking for an
award of up to $500 in damages for each call made in violation of
the statute. The court may award up to $1,500 if the violation was
found to be "willful or knowing," according to the lawsuit. [GN]

RING INC: Class Suit Claims Negligence Over Hacked Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Koplowitz, writing for al.com, reports that a Jefferson
County man who said his Ring camera was hacked and that the hacker
spoke to his children as they played basketball has filed a
class-action lawsuit against Amazon-owned Ring, accusing the
company of negligence and invasion of privacy, along with other
claims.

The suit, filed December 26 in Los Angeles federal court, was
brought amid a spate of incidences of Ring cameras being hacked,
including an instance where a hacker allegedly harassed an
8-year-old girl in Mississippi. The suit names six other times the
cameras were accessed by hackers.

John Baker Orange, who was only identified in the suit as a
Jefferson County resident, said in the lawsuit that a voice came
through the two-way speaker system of his Ring outdoor camera as
his three children -- ages 7, 9 and 10 -- were playing basketball.

"An unknown person engaged with Mr. Orange's children commenting on
their basketball play and encouraging them to get closer to the
camera," the lawsuit alleged.

Ring, which sells Wi-Fi cameras that users log into entering their
email address and a password, should have required two-factor
authentication -- an additional layer of security where users would
have to input a pin number or extra password in order to gain
access to the cameras to make them harder to hack, Orange alleged.

"Although Ring is in the business of home security and was
certainly aware that its Wi-Fi enabled product, was vulnerable to
attack, it took no steps to 'require camera owners to use
two-factor authentication, which could help prevent these types of
attacks . . .,'" the lawsuit claims. "Moreover, it knew, or should
have known, in an era of pervasive data breaches, that logging in
with user emails instead of unique account names, and not requiring
at least 2FA [two-factor authentication], put its Wi-Fi enabled
product at an unreasonable risk of being compromised."

Orange had a "medium-strong password" on his Ring account but did
not know that two-factor authentication was available on the
cameras, according to the suit. He changed his password and added
the extra layer of security after the alleged hacking incident.

The suit accuses Ring of negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied warranty, breach of implied contract and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law against false advertising.

"As a result of defendants' negligence, plaintiff and the class
members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and
injury including, but not limited to: the cost of replacement
cameras; cost of additional surveillance and protective devices and
services; time spent monitoring, addressing the current and future
consequences of the exposure enabled by Ring; and the necessity to
engage legal counsel and incur attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses," the suit stated. [GN]

SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Residents Can Seek Medical Monitoring
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled Vermont
residents seeking damages for chemical contamination in groundwater
in their neighborhood will be allowed to seek the costs of medical
monitoring.

The Bennington Banner reports the ruling by U.S. District Judge
Geoffrey Crawford on Dec. 27 means the plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics can
seek continued health monitoring under state law.

The suit was filed in May 2016 in federal court in Rutland shortly
after elevated levels of PFOA were found in about 400 wells around
the former factories.

Crawford had ruled in August that the lawsuit can proceed as a
class action. [GN]



SAKARA LIFE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sakara Life, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sakara Life, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00263 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020).

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

Sakara Life is an organic meal delivery and healthy living company.
Their meals are nutritionally-designed and based on a whole food
and plant-rich diet that includes fresh, superfood-rich, and
delicious ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          Lipsky Lowe LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


SAUK VILLAGE, IL: Kempa Sues in Northern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauk Village,
Illinois, et al. The case is captioned as Kempa 3105, LLC, Kempa
and Associates, and Dynamic Rentals, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Sauk Village, Illinois and
Illinois Home Inspections, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-08118 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 11, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah.

Sauk Village is a village and a south suburb in Cook County,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Richard Self, Esq.
          Richard Thomas Kienzler, Esq.
          FREEBORN & PETERS LLP
          217 East Monroe Street, Suite 202
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 535-1060
          E-mail: rself@freeborn.com
                  rkienzler@freebornpeters.com

Defendant Sauk Village, Illinois, is represented by:

          Michael J. McGrath, Esq.
          ODELSON & STERK, LTD.
          3318 West 95th Street
          Evergreen Park, IL 60805
          Telephone: (708) 424-5678
          E-mail: mmcgrath@odelsonsterk.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Wins Prelim Approval of Bermudez Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria gives preliminary approval of the class
action settlement in the lawsuit styled JORGE BERMUDEZ, VIRGINIA
VALDEZ, and ANGELICA PEDROZO, as individuals, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 521, and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Case No. 3:18-cv-04312-VC
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Virginia Valdez has filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the class action settlement reached with Defendants
Service Employees International Union, Local 521, and County of
Santa Clara, a hearing on which was held on January 9, 2020.

Judge Chhabria preliminarily approves the Settlement and Settlement
Agreement, together with all of its Exhibits, finding that the
terms of the Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
within the range of possible approval and sufficient to warrant
providing notice to the Settlement Class.

The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement
Class:

    "All public-sector members of Local 521 from September 10,
     2015 through January 9, 2020 who: 1) submitted to Defendants
     a written request to terminate their membership with Local
     521, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted
     from their paychecks based on a temporal limitation on
     resigning from union membership, or 2) who submitted an
     Employee Authorization for Payroll Deduction of Union Dues
     or Service Fees form with the "Service Fee" box checked, and
     thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their
     paychecks based on Local 521's policy of not treating such
     forms as indicating a request to resign from union
     membership."

The Court appoints as class representative, for settlement purposes
only, Plaintiff Virginia Valdez.  Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for settlement purposes only,
the Court designates as Class Counsel the law firm of Banys, P.C.
The Court appoints Local 521 as the Settlement Administrator, which
shall administer the Settlement in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Order and the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that the proposed Class Notice and the proposed
plan of distribution of the Class Notice meets the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), and directs Local 521
to proceed with the notice distribution in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement.  Any Settlement Class Members, who wishes
to opt out from the Agreement must do so within 60 days of the
Mailed Notice Date and in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.  Any Settlement Class Members who wishes to object to
the Agreement must do so within 60 days of the Mailed Notice Date
and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

Judge Chhabria approves the procedures set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and the Notice of Settlement of Class Action for
exclusions from and objections to the Settlement.  The Court
directs that these deadlines are established by this Preliminary
Approval Order:

   a. Mailed Notice Date: within 30 days of this Preliminary
      Approval Order;

   b. Opt-Out Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date;

   c. Objection Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date;
      and

   d. Fairness Hearing: May 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

The Plaintiff shall file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement no later than 14 days before the Fairness Hearing.[CC]

Plaintiff Virginia Valdez is represented by:

          Christopher D. Banys, Esq.
          Richard C. Lin, Esq.
          BANYS, P.C.
          1030 Duane Avenue
          Santa Clara, CA 95054
          Telephone: (650) 308-8505
          Facsimile: (650) 353-2202
          E-mail: cdb@banyspc.com
                  rcl@banyspc.com


SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Defeat Discrimination Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Smith, writing for Straight, reports that a Canadian
Internet and cablevision giant has won a procedural victory in B.C.
Supreme Court in a case that's brought unwanted media attention.

Plaintiff Martin Halliday has alleged that Shaw Communications
offered a discounted rate to customers who communicated with the
company in Mandarin or Cantonese.

Halliday is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action.

Shaw has denied the allegation and sought a judicial order to have
its application heard first to dismiss the action under the court's
summary-trial rule.

The company also applied for a court order to protect some
information from disclosure prior to the plaintiff's class-action
application being heard.

This month, Justice Veronica L. Jackson ruled that Shaw's
applications can be heard first.

According to an edited transcript of her oral reasons for judgment,
which was posted on the B.C. Supreme Court website on December 27,
Shaw "provided some evidence which suggests, on a preliminary
basis, that it has strong arguments in support of . . . its defence
to the merits of the Plaintiff's claim".

"Shaw claims its reputation has been and will continue to be
damaged as a result of the allegations set out in the notice of
civil claim," Jackson stated. "Discrimination is not simply a civil
wrong. It connotes a degree of iniquitousness not associated with a
breach of contract or negligence.

"Where established, discriminatory behaviour is generally viewed as
being worthy of rebuke and clear denunciation," she continued. "As
such, in my view the resolution of such allegations on their
merits, as quickly as possible, benefits all parties and weighs in
favour of hearing the Summary Trial Application first, as long as
fairness of the proceeding is not compromised."

The judge concluded that based upon the record before her, the
plaintiff has not "attempted to move forward with great dispatch",
nor has he been "stymied" by the corporation.

"Rather, it appears Shaw has been the driving force behind
propelling the litigation forward, albeit toward summary trial,"
she stated.

Moreover, Jackson's ruling indicated that Shaw Communications and
Shaw Cablesystems G.P. have "no interest" in settling the case.

"Shaw's view is that the particular nature of the
allegations--namely a discriminatory pricing scheme--is
sufficiently serious to make it necessary to address the
allegations on their merits," the judge stated.

Halliday's lawyer, Martin Sheard, Esq., told CTV News last year
that there's documentary evidence supporting another claim by a
former Shaw employee, Kwok Bo Daisy Halliday, that Shaw offered
preferential treatment to Mandarin and Cantonese speakers.

Sheard also alleged at that time that Shaw's conduct violated the
provincial Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and other
laws.

None of these allegations have been proven in court. [GN]



STEWART'S SHOPS: Six-Year Class Action Settled for $675K
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, writing for NNY360, reports that Stewart's Shops Inc.
is poised to settle a six-year-long class-action lawsuit initiated
by a former Lewis County woman who worked at the convenience store
chain's West Carthage location.

Holly Gregory, who now lives in Florida, filed suit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated in January 2014 in U.S.
District Court, Syracuse, claiming the Saratoga Springs-based chain
systematically failed to pay its workforce for all hours worked,
allegedly resulting in employees being paid below state and federal
minimum wage.

The suit alleged that Stewart's did not pay employees overtime at
the rate of tim-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act; that workers
were unable to take 20 minute meal breaks during shifts of six
hours or more; and workers were required to attend store meetings
even when not scheduled to work and were not compensated for a
minimum of three hours worked, as required by state law.

Throughout the litigation, Stewart's denied the claims and
maintained that it has consistently paid its employees in full
compliance with state and federal law.

In addition to Ms. Gregory, two other employees, Astrid Halten and
Matthew Potter, were added to the lawsuit as named plaintiffs in
April 2014. In September 2016, a judge allowed the case to proceed
as a class action regarding the overtime compensation and call-in
claims, but dismissed the meal break claims.

According to court documents, Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter
approved a preliminary settlement in the case this past July 24 and
the matter is slated to go before Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on
Jan. 2 for final approval. Both sides have indicated they are in
agreement with the settlement.

In all, about 34,000 current or former Stewart's employees were
offered the opportunity to opt into the suit, although just 146
chose to do so, court documents indicate.

According to court documents, Stewart's has agreed to pay $675,000
to settle the action, of which 33 percent, or $225,000, will go to
the plaintiff's attorneys, E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, Troy.
The firm took the case on a contingency basis, expending about
1,350 billable hours on the matter and fronting many other expenses
associated with the litigation.

The three named plaintiffs -- Ms. Gregory, Ms. Halten and Mr.
Potter -- will receive $5,000 each in addition to the class-action
payout, owing to the time the trio dedicated to the case and the
risk they took in terms of potential future employment
opportunities by identifying themselves as having brought a suit
against their employer. The remaining opt-in members will receive a
minimum of $200, according to documents. [GN]




TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Feb. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Dec. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of  Trulieve Cannabis Corp. ("Trulieve" or the
"Company") (OTCQX: TCNNF) between September 25, 2018 and December
17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Trulieve
overstated its mark-up on its biological assets; (2) therefore,
Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3) Trulieve engaged
in an undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant
Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research
published a report explaining that Trulieve had failed to disclose:
(i) real estate transactions with insiders; (ii) that, rather than
high-quality indoor production, the vast majority of the Company's
marijuana was produced in low quality "hoop houses"; and (iii) that
the Company's markup on biological assets was excessive and
unreasonable.

On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share or over 12.6%
to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging
investors.

If you purchased Trulieve securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/trulievecannabiscorp-tcnnf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-236/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2019 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information

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


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Rosen Law Probing Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Trulieve Cannabis Corp. (OTC: TCNNF) resulting from allegations
that Trulieve may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research issued an article reporting
that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from "hoop
houses that produce low quality output," that there were extensive
ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into
corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of
corruption," and that the Company engaged in several undisclosed
related party transactions.

As a result of this news, Trulieve's share price fell $1.51 or over
12.6% to close at $10.40 on December 17, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Trulieve investors. If you purchased shares of
Trulieve please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1745.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]



UNITED STATES: Discovery Stayed in Firearms Suit
------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Reona Daly of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery in the case captioned JOHN DOE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-6-SMY-RJD.
(S.D. Ill.)

Under the proposed class action, Plaintiff challenges a Final Rule
issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and its component, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF")
concerning the classification of "bump stocks" as machine guns
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922.  Generally, Plaintiff alleges 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration or amnesty
period for newly regulated bump devices, despite a finding to the
contrary by the DOJ and ATF.  Plaintiff alleges Defendants have
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law in finding
they lack authority to institute an amnesty or initial registration
period, and such an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o) is
unconstitutional.

Defendants contend discovery in the matter should be stayed as to
Counts I through V as said claims are brought under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Defendants further contend
discovery should be stayed as to Count VI in the interests of
judicial economy and the speedy and inexpensive resolution of the
action.

Plaintiff objects.

Generally, discovery is not appropriate for claims brought under
the APA since review of an agency's decision is confined to the
administrative record.  An exception exists if a plaintiff seeking
discovery can make a significant showing that it will find material
in the agency's possession indicative of bad faith or an incomplete
record.

In the present case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the record
is incomplete or there has been bad faith, the Court notes.
Rather, Plaintiff relies on his contention that the administrative
record cannot address the constitutional claims set forth in the
complaint.

The Court disagrees. Counts I through V clearly address the DOJ's
interpretation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o).  Further, these counts
seek relief under the APA . The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is
challenging the constitutionality of the Defendants' decisions and
actions, but the APA contemplates such challenges, providing that a
reviewing court must set aside and hold unlawful any agency action,
finding, or conclusion it finds to be arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law or
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.

Because Counts I through V seek relief under the APA, discovery
must be limited to the administrative record absent a showing of
bad faith or incompleteness, the Court opines.

In Count VI, Plaintiff asks for compensation on behalf of a
purported class for a taking of private property if the Court
should find that the DOJ and/or ATF has the authority to allow for
an amnesty registration period.

Plaintiff's allegations in Count VI necessarily rely on findings
related to Counts I through V.  Because discovery concerning Count
VI is likely to be expansive and expensive, and noting that the
issues in Count VI may be resolved with a decision as to Counts I
through V, the Court finds a stay of discovery warranted at this
time.

The Court accordingly grants Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery
as to all counts.  Discovery as to Counts I through V is limited to
the administrative record.  The Order, however, does not limit
Plaintiff's ability to seek additional discovery if he can make a
significant showing that the record is incomplete or there is
material indicative of bad faith.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye4x5h94 from
Leagle.com

John Doe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.,
Plaintiff, represented by Peter J. Maag , Maag Law Firm, LLC &
Thomas G. Maag , Maag Law Firm, LLC, 22 W Lorena Ave Wood River,
IL, 62095-1929

Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the
United States, Matthew Whitaker, in his official capacity as Acting
Attorney General of the United States & Thomas E. Brandon, Acting
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Defendants, represented by Eric J. Soskin , U.S. Department of
Justice & Michael Fraser Knapp , U.S. Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Michener Moves for Certification of Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Michener seeks a court order under Rule 23(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certifying the lawsuit entitled
FRANCES MICHENER v. ANDREW M. SAUL, ET AL., Case No.
5:19-cv-04377-SVK (N.D. Cal.), as a class action.

Andrew Saul is the Commissioner of Social Security.  The Social
Security Administration is an independent federal agency
headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify a class as defined
more particularly in the accompanying memorandum in support of the
Motion; to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; to
appoint the Plaintiff as class representative; and to set a court
conference at which counsel for the Parties shall address
submitting a plan for providing notice to the subclasses, in the
event that notice has to be provided to the subclasses.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 12, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Bruce, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN BRUCE, LLC
          17350 South Ridgeview Road
          Olathe, KS 66062
          Telephone: (859) 905-9678
          Facsimile: (513) 386-7311
          E-mail: bruce@jonathanbrucelaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron M. Bernay, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          301 East Fourth Street
          Great American Tower Suite 3300
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-6831
          Facsimile: (513) 651-6981
          E-mail: abernay@fbtlaw.com

               - and -

          William F. Murphy, Esq.
          DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 397-2700
          Facsimile: (415) 397-3300
          E-mail: wfm@dillinghammurphy.com


UNITED STATES: NS Moves to Certify Class of Indigent Detainees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned N.S., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL A. HUGHES,
United States Marshal, District of Columbia (Superior Court), in
his official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-RCL (D.D.C.), moves
for an order certifying a class defined as:

     All indigent criminal defendants in the Superior Court for
     the District of Columbia:

     (1) who were, are, or will be detained by officers of the
         United States Marshals Service for suspected civil
         immigration violations, and

     (2) as to whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not
         effectuated a warrant of removal/deportation (a form
         I-205) and/or has not obtained an order of deportation
         or removal.

The case challenges the United States Marshals Service's ("USMS" or
"Marshals Service") policy of detaining people suspected of civil
immigration violations in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia ("Superior Court").  The Named Plaintiff N.S. was detained
by a USMS officer after a judge of the Superior Court ordered the
Plaintiff released on his own recognizance.

Because Congress has denied officers of the Marshals Service the
authority to detain people suspected of civil immigration
violations, the Marshals Service arrested him in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Plaintiff contends.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Marcus, Esq.
          PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
          633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 824-2524
          Facsimile: (202) 824-2525
          E-mail: smarcus@pdsdc.org


UNITED STATES: Siraj Moves for Certification of Inmates Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SHAHAHAWAR MATIN SIRAJ, SABIRHAN HASANOFF,
AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03375-UNA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order:

   -- under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure ruling this proceeding may be maintained
      as a class action on behalf of a class comprised of:

      the Plaintiffs and other person similarly situated, namely,
      all person who have been sentenced subject to United States
      Sentencing Guidelines Section 3A1.4 Terrorism Enhancement;
      and

   -- appointing an attorney of suitable experience as class
      counsel as required by Rule 23(g).

The Plaintiffs contend that class certification is required because
the Class is so numerous and spread throughout the Federal Bureau
of Prisons that joinder of all members is impractical.  They assert
that the class is composed of hundreds of inmates within the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and includes dozens more persons
similarly situated, who are currently facing future mis-application
of this enhancement, along with future defendants, who have yet to
be charged.

The Plaintiffs, who are currently held at the Federal Correctional
Institution, Otisville (FCI Otisville), in Otisville, New York,
appear pro se.[CC]


UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: B.C. Appeal Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver Sun reports that the three-member panel overturned a
lower-court ruling that had tossed out an application to certify as
a class action by Susan Service, who is part of a group of
non-union workers classified as "management excluded employees."

Service claims the University of Victoria wrongly forced a salary
freeze on these employees in breach of their contract after the
B.C. Finance Ministry announced in 2012 that public-sector
management salaries would be frozen.

She claims the university failed to give as many as 134 members the
annual salary increases they were due, which also negatively
impacted their pensions, in the years 2013 through 2016.

Writing for the panel, Justice Susan Griffin allowed the appeal and
certified the class proceeding, saying the contract is the common
issue between the employees, although no court has made a decision
on the main allegations in the case.

The trial heard the university claimed it was following the
government's direction, that it was entitled to change the terms
and conditions of the contract, and that those employees accepted
the change. [GN]

WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Receivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LEONARD WILLIAMS, an individual, and THE
LENNY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California Corporation, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WARNER
MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek
certification of this class:

     All persons and entities in the United States, their agents,
     successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees,
     and administrators who are or were parties to agreements
     with Warner Bros. Records, Inc. or its subsidiaries and
     affiliates ("Warner Records") whose contract has a
     California choice of law provision and either:

     1. Expressly provides for royalties for digital streaming
        and an applicable royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner
        Records' net receipts;

     2. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital
        streaming and contains a general licensing provision at a
        royalty rate of 50% or more of Warner Records' net
        receipts; or

     3. Does not expressly provide for royalties for digital
        streaming or a general licensing provision.

The action was originally filed by Plaintiff Lenny Williams against
Warner Music in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in October
2018.  The case was removed by Warner Music to the District Court
in November 2018.  Defendant Warner Music moved to dismiss the case
in December 2018.

In lieu of responding to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed
the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which added Plaintiff The
Lenny Williams Production Company ("LWPC") and Defendant Warner
Records to the action.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC,
which the parties fully briefed.

On March 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss.  In relevant part, the Court
dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims against Warner Music, as
well as the Plaintiffs' claims for open book account, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and rescission.  Thus, at this time, the
Plaintiffs assert claims against Warner Records for breach of
contract; fraud; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 ("UCL"); accounting; breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and declaratory
judgment.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 24, 2020, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  bpouya@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Arun Dayalan, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  arundayalan@jjllplaw.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
                  koncius@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law


WINCO FOODS: Johnson Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ALFRED JOHNSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK (C.D. Cal.), moves for
class certification pursuant to the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   1. certify that the action is maintainable as a class action
      pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to these claims:

      (a) Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182.12,
          1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198 (Unpaid Minimum Wages);

      (b) Violation of California Labor Code sections 222.5, 2802
          (Failure to Pay Physical Examination Costs and
          Unreimbursed Business Expenses);

      (c) Violation of California Labor Code sections 226(a),
          1174(d) and 1198 (Non-Compliant Wage Statements);

      (d) Violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202
          and 203 (Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination); and

      (e) Violation of California Business & Professions Code
          sections 17200, et seq.;

   2. certify this class:

      All hourly, non-exempt employees of WinCo Foods, LLC and
      WinCo Holdings, Inc. working in retail stores or
      distribution centers in the State of California who were
      required to undergo mandatory drug-testing after August 23,
      2013 through the date of certification (hereinafter
      referred to as the proposed "Class Members");

   3. appoint Plaintiff Alfred Johnson as class representative;
      and

   4. appoint Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 10, 2020, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


[*] Cannabidiol Industry Expected to Face More Lawsuits in 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Tobin, writing for Forbes, reports that the cannabidiol (CBD)
industry saw considerable growth in 2019, and the industry is
expected to see further expansion over the new year. In the absence
of clear federal guidance, sellers of products containing CBD,
particularly those in the food and beverage space, should watch how
three developments might affect their products and the industry as
a whole.

* Further FDA Clarification: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) announced in November 2019 that the agency had numerous
"unanswered questions and data gaps about CBD toxicity" and issued
over a dozen warning letters to sellers of CBD-containing products.
The FDA's updated Consumer Update declared that marketing CBD "by
adding it to a food or labeling it as a dietary supplement" is
illegal. In its announcement, the FDA noted that it is continuing
to explore "potential pathways for various types of CBD products to
be lawfully marketed" and expects to provide an update on its
"progress regarding the agency's approach to these products in the
coming weeks." After the agency's November announcement and warning
letters, manufacturers of CBD products, particularly those in food
and beverage categories, should watch how the FDA clarifies and
enforces its position on CBD-containing products over the new
year.

* State and Local Action: Without clear federal guidelines, states
have created a regulatory patchwork of often conflicting rules
across the country. As one headline put it: "Headaches abound as
states try to clarify [the] CBD landscape." Some states, such as
Maryland, have declared it illegal to add CBD to food products.
Similarly, New York City regulators have embargoed food and drink
products containing CBD. Media reports note that City officials
have ordered at least five restaurants to stop selling
CBD-containing food and drink products and that enforcement of the
embargo includes fines ranging from $200 to $650. For 2020, the
industry should watch how states continue to take action in the
absence of clear federal guidance. For example, New York State
recently passed a new law, effective in March 2020, that
establishes a regulatory framework for the sale of CBD-containing
products in the state.  State officials are expected to issue new
regulations fleshing out the law in the coming weeks.

* Class Action Litigation: Given the ambiguity around applicable
rules surrounding CBD-containing products, particularly those in
the food and beverage industry, private party litigation is
expected to increase this year. Already several federal class
action lawsuits have been lodged against manufacturers of CBD
products alleging that the products are "illegal to sell" and
therefore violate state consumer protection laws.   While the CBD
industry has expected an "avalanche" of class action cases for some
time, the already-filed class action lawsuits suggest that the "CBD
lawsuit floodgates are opening."

Federal and state regulators are contemplating further action this
year. So too are additional private party plaintiffs, who are
poised to present putative class action allegations given the
"language of the FDA's recent pronouncements and the widespread
availability of CBD-containing products." Manufacturers of
CBD-containing products, particularly those in the food and
beverage space, should be aware of these developments. [GN]


[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th.

Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.

Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.  

For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at
colin@beardgroup.com

Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo

Past conference attendees have included professionals from these
firms and universities:

A.B. Data, Ltd.
Aaron M. Levine & Associates
Adams and Reese LLP
Akin Gump
Angeion Group
Baker Botts LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Battea Class Action Services
Bentham IMF
Berger Montague
Berkeley Research Group
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP
Blank Rome LLP
Bloomberg BNA
Brian S. King PC
Broadridge Financial Solutions
BroadRiver Asset Management, L.P.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Burford Capital LLC
Castro & Co
Citi
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Columbia Law School
Complex Settlements, P.C.
Constantine Cannon LLP
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Delaware Law Weekly
Dentons
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Dundon Advisers LLC
Edelson PC
EJF Capital LLC
Epiq
Fagenson & Puglisi
Fordham Law School
FTI Consulting
Garden City Group
Garretson Resolution Group
George Washington University
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Groia & Company
Hagens Berman
Hausfeld LLP
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Hochberg ADR
Huntington Bank
Ice Miller LLP
John D Webb PA
Johnson Fistel
JTB Law Group
Justice Catalyst
K&H Integrity Communications
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP
King & Spalding
Kinsella Media
Kirkland & Ellis
KPMG
Kurtzman Carson Consultants
Labaton Sucharow LLP
Lavie Law Offices
Law Offices Of Zorik Mooradian
Leeds Brown
Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Levy Konigsberg LLP
Lewis & Clark Law School
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
Liquid Claims
Locke Lord LLP
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
Marron Lawyers, APC
Maurice Blackburn
McGuireWoods LLP
Michigan Attorney General's Office
Mighty
MLex Market Insight
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy
New York Law Journal
New York University
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
Olumide Babalola LP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Pace University
Pacer Monitor
Paul Weiss
Perini Capital
Pomerantz LLP
Postlethwaite & Netterville
Proskauer Rose LLP
PwC
Reisman Karron Greene
RG/2 Claims Administration
Richman Law Group
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila
Ríos Ferrer, Guillen-Llarena, Treviño y Rivera, S.C.
Robins Kaplan LLP
Rose Law Firm
Rutgers University
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Seeger Weiss LLP
Sheridan Ross P.C.
Simpluris
Sipree, Inc.
Skadden Arps
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
Stanley Law Group
Susan J. Levy, Esq.
The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, P.C.
Therium Inc.
Thompson Reuters
TriState Capital Bank
UBS
United States District Court-Eastern District of Pennsylvania
United States District Court-Southern District of New York
University of Connecticut
Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Western Alliance Bank
Winston & Strawn LLP
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Workman Law Firm, PC
Yeshiva University
Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Files Chapter 11 to Address Legacy Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paddock Enterprises, LLC, has voluntarily filed for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware to equitably and finally resolve all of
its current and future asbestos-related claims, according to parent
company O-I Glass, Inc. in a press release dated January 6, 2020.

Andres Lopez, CEO of O-I Glass, said, "Addressing Paddock's legacy
liabilities through Chapter 11 will help enable O-I Glass to
further unlock the value creation potential of this global
franchise.  By improving the Company's capital structure, this
important step will support a number of critical strategic efforts
and possibilities as O-I Glass leverages its position as the
world's leading manufacturer of sustainable glass packaging."

After exiting a business in 1958 that produced Kaylo, an
asbestos-containing thermal insulation product, the Company has
disposed of over 400,000 asbestos-related claims and incurred gross
expense of approximately US$5 billion for asbestos-related costs.
Lopez continued, "Paddock evaluated its options and determined that
a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization was the most fair and equitable
way to obtain certainty and finality in addressing its legacy
asbestos-related liabilities.  Pending final resolution of the
Chapter 11 proceeding, all asbestos-related claims payments will be
suspended."

Paddock's ultimate goal in its Chapter 11 case is to confirm a plan
of reorganization under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
and utilize this specialized provision to establish a trust that
will address all current and future asbestos-related claims.
Paddock has been and remains committed to fairly and equitably
compensating claimants who are ill and have legitimate exposure to
the Kaylo products manufactured by its predecessor from 1948-1958.
Paddock looks forward to working swiftly and constructively to
confirm a plan of reorganization and is committed to emerging from
bankruptcy as expediently as possible.

A full-text copy of the O-I Glass, Inc.'s January 6, 2020 Press
Release is available at https://is.gd/FwkIni



                            *********

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 ***