/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 21

                            Headlines

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class of Inmates Certified in Babu Suit
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Morris Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Newman Product Liability Suit in Pennsylvania
ALLERGAN PLC: Resolves Antitrust Class Action
AMBER ELEVATOR: Laureano-Capellan Sues Over Unlawful Deductions

ANIES BASWEDAN: Jakarta Citizens to Launch Class Action
APOGEE EVENTS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
AVIS BUDGET: Hazzard Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BAOZUN INC: Faces Aus Suit over 17% Drop in Share Price
BAOZUN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline

BARNEY GREENGRASS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
BAZ BAGEL: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
BEACHWAY OPERATING: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
BEAN TREE CORP: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
BIG TOP: Pizano Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees

BLUE NOTE USA: Bishop Files Suit under ADA in New York
BROCKTON, MA: Pays $4.7MM Settlement Over Discrimination Claims
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CELERITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Breach
CHERRY HILL SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Gender-Bias Programs

CHINO HILLS, CA: Named in Lawsuit for Not Submitting Water Reports
CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Knox Files Suit in California
D&A SERVICES: Saks Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
DADDY COOL'S INC: Underpays Bartenders, Alvarado et al. Say
DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Handley Suit Over Injuries From Omlesartan

DIGNITY HEALTH: Green Files Suit in California
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Costa Seeks to Certify Class of Patients
DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn Renews Bid to Certify Employees Class
E CAPITAL FUNDING: Foo Suit Alleges Discrimination Over Pregnancy
FEDERAL TAX RELIEF: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy

FIAT CHRYSLER: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in Chassen Suit
FLRISH INC: Calhoun Sues Over Unwanted Autodialed Marketing Texts
FMS ADVANCE: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
FOODSTATE INC: Judge to Consider $2.1MM Class Action Settlement

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Espinosa Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
GRIMM ALES LLC: Bishop Files Suit Under ADA in New York
GRUBHUB INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
GS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dobie Suit Says

HALO VEHICLE: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in Alabama
HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Briscoe's Bid to Certify Class Denied
HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Flagg-El's Bid for Class Certification Denied
HTDG LLC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Gender Discrimination
IBM CORP: Janecyk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data

INNOVATIVE MARKETING: Fabricant Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
INSTRUCTURE INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Potential Claims
INSTRUCTURE INC: Investors Challenge Merger with PIV Purchaser
INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits over Security Issues Ongoing
INTERO REAL: Chinitz Seeks Certification of 4 Classes in TCPA Suit

INTUIT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
J.E.R.P. LLC: Jones Sues Over Violation of Due Process of Law
JA APPAREL CORP: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille
JONES DAY: Certification of Equal Pay Collective Action Sought
KNIGHTEN MACHINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Claims

KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Certification Sought in Hawkins Suit
LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Cruz Says
LEADS2RESULTS INC: Abante Rooter Sues Alleging Violation of TCPA
LENDABIZ CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
LLOYDS BANK: Collas Crill Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling

MAURICE AND PAUL: Moffitt Sues Over Sudden Closing of Museum
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Metzler Seeks to Certify Practice Mngrs. Class
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: E-Z Pass Surcharge Illegal, Says Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Debiase Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of $10K Settlement in Arellano

MY PILLOW INC: Deutsch Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
NAVISTAR INC: District Court Gives Final Approval to $135MM Deal
NET 1 UEPS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Court Seeks More Briefing on Greco's Injunction Bid
NUTRIBULLET: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NUVANCE HEALTH: Wallace Files Suit in New York
ONE PLANET: Hildre Sues Over Unwanted Calls That Invade Privacy
ONSTAR LLC: Court Won't Certify Classes & Subclasses
PETER THOMAS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
PFIZER INC: Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Zantac, Says Suit

PRESSLER FELT: Nieto Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
PRO TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
PROLOGIS INC: Garfield Agrees to Dismiss Class Suit
PROVIDENT CREDIT: Morris Sues in California Over Warranty Issues
R & B CORP: Gregory Files Suit under FDCPA in Indiana

R&B WEALTH: Hobbs Sues Over Unsolicited Texts That Violate TCPA
RADIUS GLOBAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lohrke Suit
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Montes Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Wins Final Class Certification in Foster Suit

SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Moves to Certify Class & Disability Subclass
SANOFI SA: Faces Dobson Suit Over Unsafe Levels of NDMA in Zantac
SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Class Certification Sought in Lewis Suit
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Class Action Still Ongoing
SOUTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Infill and Pollution in Lake Cooper

STARTEK USA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Epley Claims
STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in Fondren Suit
STATE COLLECTION: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed
STRANGE HONEY: Raw Honey Products Not 100% Pure, Greer Claims
SYMANTEC CORP: SEB Moves to Certify Class of Common Stock Owners

SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
TOP SURGEONS: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Faitro Counsel Upheld
TOTAL CARD: Faces Beltre Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
TRIFECTA INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
URBAN AIR PARK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says

VCI CONSTRUCTION: Olivas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
VOCUS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $35 Million
VOLVO CARS: El Aker Sues Over Missing Feature in XC90 R-Design
W.M. FARES: Redacted Crane Report Cause for Concern, Lawyer Says
WAWA INC: Faces Hans-Arroyo Suit over Data Security Breach

WELLS FARGO: Dore Sues Over Error in Mortgage Loan Modification
WILLIAM LYON: Stockholders Drop Suits over Taylor Morrison Merger
WOOD GROUP: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Garza Suit Alleges
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Appeal Ongoing in New Jersey Class Action
[*] CCPA Class Action Leaves Consumers with Fewer Rights

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4

                            *********

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class of Inmates Certified in Babu Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins grants the joint motion
for class certification in the lawsuit captioned ASHOK BABU, ROBERT
BELL, IBRAHIM KEEGAN-HORNESBY, DEMAREA JOHNSON, BRANDON JONES,
STEPHANIE NAVARRO, ROBERTO SERRANO, and ALEXANDER WASHINGTON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN in his official capacity as Sheriff of
the Alameda County Sheriff's Office; CAROL BURTON in her official
capacity as Interim Director of the Alameda County Behavioral
Health Care Services Agency; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
5:18-cv-07677-NC (N.D. Cal.).

The action is certified as a class action, with an Inmate Class and
Disability Subclass, as to all claims and defenses at issue in the
complaint pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Inmate Class is defined as:

     All adults who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail.

The Disability Subclass is defined as:

     All qualified individuals with a psychiatric disability, as
     that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 12102, 29 U.S.C.
     Section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code
     Section 12926(j) and (m), and who are now, or will be in the
     future, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail.

Plaintiffs Babu, Bell, Keegan-Hornesby, Johnson, Jones, Navarro,
Serrano, and Washington will serve as representatives of the Inmate
Class.  Plaintiffs Babu, Bell, Keegan-Hornesby, Johnson, Jones,
Navarro, and Washington will serve as representatives of the
Disability Subclass

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP is appointed as class counsel to
represent the interests of the Inmate Class and Disability
Subclass.

A trial date of September 21, 2020, is currently set in the
lawsuit.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Esq.
          Ernest Galvan, Esq.
          Kara J. Janssen, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: jbornstein@rbgg.com
                  egalvan@rbgg.com
                  kjanssen@rbgg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory B. Thomas, Esq.
          Temitayo O. Peters, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612-3501
          Telephone: (510) 273-8780
          Facsimile: (510) 839-9104
          E-mail: gthomas@bwslaw.com
                  tpeters@bwslaw.com

               - and -

          Paul B. Mello, Esq.
          Samantha D. Wolff, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: pmello@hansonbridgett.com
                  swolff@hansonbridgett.com


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Morris Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned VINCENT MORRIS, on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v.
SHERIFF OF ALLEN COUNTY, in his official capacity; ALLEN COUNTY,
INDIANA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00034 (N.D. Ind.), seeks to certify a
class defined as:

     all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be
     confined, in the Allen County Jail.

Although the Jail has 741 operational beds, Mr. Morris alleges that
it regularly houses more than this number of persons and the
membership of the class is constantly changing as prisoners enter
and leave the facility.

Mr. Morris also asks the Court to appoint his lawyers as counsel
for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
          Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
          ACLU OF INDIANA
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 635-4059
          Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
          E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org
                  spactor@aclu-in.org

               - and -

          Samuel Bolinger, Esq.
          S.L. BOLINGER LAW OFFICE
          803 S. Calhoun St., Suite 300
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 407-0040
          E-mail: mark@slblawfirm.org


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Newman Product Liability Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan Inc., et al.
The case is captioned as ELLEN NEWMAN, AMY GROTTE, RACHAEL HERRON,
LISA ROBERTS, AMY EDENS, HEIDI LEE, AMBER FERRELL-STEELE, and TORY
BOBADILLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. ALLERGAN INC. formerly known as: INAMED CORPORATION;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05968-RBS
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 17, 2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

The suit involves healthcare and pharmaceutical personal injury
product liability issues.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          1600 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Resolves Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Allergan plc disclosed on Jan. 6 that its Warner Chilcott and
Watson subsidiaries have reached resolutions with all plaintiffs,
including a class of direct purchasers, individual direct
purchasers that previously opted out of the direct purchaser class,
and a class of indirect purchasers of Loestrin 24 Fe and Minastrin
24 Fe, concluding the previously disclosed antitrust litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The
settlements make no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the
company and resolve the litigation that was scheduled to go to
trial on January 6, 2020.

Warner Chilcott and Watson will pay approximately $300 million
under the settlement agreements. The settlements are subject to
court approval of the agreements with the direct and indirect
purchaser classes.

The company will take a pre-tax GAAP charge of approximately $300
million to its fourth quarter 2019 earnings.

                       About Allergan plc

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN) –
http://www.Allergan.com-- is a global pharmaceutical leader
focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical and regenerative
medicine products for patients around the world.  Allergan markets
a portfolio of leading brands and best-in-class products primarily
focused on four key therapeutic areas including medical aesthetics,
eye care, central nervous system and gastroenterology.  As part of
its approach to delivering innovation for better patient care,
Allergan has built one of the broadest pharmaceutical and device
research and development pipelines in the industry.

With colleagues and commercial operations located in approximately
100 countries, Allergan is committed to working with physicians,
healthcare providers and patients to deliver innovative and
meaningful treatments that help people around the world live
longer, healthier lives every day.

                 About Warner Chilcott and Watson

Warner Chilcott and Watson subsidiaries include Warner Chilcott
Public Limited Company, Warner Chilcott Company, Inc., Warner
Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott
Laboratories Ireland, Limited, Warner Chilcott Holdings Company
III, Ltd., Warner Chilcott Corporation, and Warner Chilcott Sales
(US), LLC, (collectively, "Warner Chilcott") and Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively
"Watson").

In 2013, Watson changed its corporate name to Actavis. The same
year, Warner Chilcott became a wholly owned subsidiary of Actavis
plc which thereafter changed its corporate name to Allergan.

Contacts

Allergan:   
Investors:  
Manisha Narasimhan, PhD  
(862) 261-7162

Media:  
Lisa Brown  
(862) 261-7320
[GN]


AMBER ELEVATOR: Laureano-Capellan Sues Over Unlawful Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lewy Laureano-Capellan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. WAYNE
CHIRICHELLA, RUSSELL DYSON, AMBER ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS INC. d//b/a
ALLBORO & AMBER ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS, "JOHN DOES," name fictitious,
actual names and number of such persons being unknown, and "XYZ
CORPORATIONS", name fictitious, actual name and number of such
corporations being unknown d/b/a ALLBORO & AMBER ELEVATOR
INSPECTIONS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00360 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020),
seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was primarily paid his
wages in cash. However, on occasion, the Defendants paid the
Plaintiff his wages in a combination of cash and check. On several
occasions, Defendants made unlawful deductions from his salary, the
Plaintiff alleges. He notes that on at least four occasions, the
Defendant deducted $200-$300 from his salary without his written or
verbal consent.

The Plaintiff also alleges that his wages did not vary even when he
was required to stay later or work a longer day than his usual
schedule. He adds that the Defendants did not pay him at the rate
of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in
excess of forty per workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sales representative and general
worker at Allboro & Amber Elevator Inspections.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control an elevator maintenance
and service company located at Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2525
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


ANIES BASWEDAN: Jakarta Citizens to Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Coconuts Jakarta reports that a group of Jakarta citizens say
they're going to launch a class action lawsuit against Governor
Anies Baswedan over what they perceived to be inadequate prevention
and handling of the New Year flood crisis in the capital.

Citizens involved in the lawsuit are seeking compensation from
Governor Anies' administration for material damages caused by the
floods.

"In order to prevent man-made disasters in the future, there needs
to be a legal movement from the citizens so there's a deterrent
effect for policy makers," Diarson Lubis, a lawyer who is
representing the class action lawsuit, said in a statement on Jan.
5.

Diarson did not reveal how many Jakarta citizens have registered
for the lawsuit thus far, nor did he specify when the lawsuit would
be filed.

Citizens who wish to join the lawsuit can contact Tim Advokasi
Korban Banjir DKI Jakarta 2020 (Advocacy Team for the Victims of
the 2020 Greater Jakarta Area Floods).

The Greater Jakarta Area, as well as parts of Banten and West Java,
saw the most intense rainfall since 2007 on New Year's Eve, which
continued well into New Year's Day. According to data from the
National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB), as of 11pm on Dec. 4,
60 people were killed by floods and landslides while over 92,000
were forced to flee their homes.

Governor Anies has been the target for much of the blame for the
floods, with citizens accusing his administration of failing to
prepare Jakarta for heavy rainfall and not making the most out of
existing flood prevention infrastructure in the city.

On Jan. 4, an online petition was launched appealing to President
Joko Widodo to remove Governor Anies from his post over his alleged
flood management failures and other policies which he has been
criticized for. The petition has been signed by over 200 thousand
people. [GN]


APOGEE EVENTS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apogee Events, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apogee Events, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00364 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Apogee Events offers catering, professional staffing and events
planning services for a multitude of events and weddings in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



AVIS BUDGET: Hazzard Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Hazzard, Daniel Faiella, Krista Mitchell, Zackrie Tyndal, and
Carlos Ramirez, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00764 (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought seeking to
recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs allege they consistently worked more than 40 hours
per week, but did not receive any overtime pay for any hours worked
over 40. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant did not pay
them timely for all wages due within 30 days of the end of their
employment, as required by California law.

The Plaintiffs worked as Operations Managers for the Defendant.

Defendant Avis has been in the vehicle rental business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glen D. Savits, Esq.
          GREEN SAVITS LLC
          25B Vreeland Road
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (972) 695-7777
          Facsimile: (973) 695-7788
          Email: gsavits@greensavits.com

               - and -

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 S Figueroa, St., Suite 4050
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (323) 673-9900
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2058
          Email: rmb@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          Email: immates@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
          800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


BAOZUN INC: Faces Aus Suit over 17% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
IVAR AUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BAOZUN INC.; VINCENT WENBIN QIU; and ROBIN
BIN LU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11812 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Baozun securities between March 6, 2019 and November 20,
2019, inclusive.  Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against Baozun
and certain of its most senior executives under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on November 21, 2019, Baozun announced
third quarter ("3Q19") financial results that came in lower than
the market had been led to expect and provided dismal fourth
quarter 2019 ("4Q19") financial guidance, blaming, in large part,
the adverse "impact from terminating our service agreement with one
electronics brand." Though Baozun did not disclose who that large
"electronics brand" was, many in the financial media have suggested
that it was Huawei.

On this news, the price of Boazun American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") fell $7.60 per share, or 17.47%, to close at $35.90 per
share on November 21, 2019, on unusually high trading volume of
more than 8 million shares trading, more than eight times the
average daily volume over the preceding 10 trading days.

Baozun Inc. provides e-commerce solutions. The Company's services
include website design, development and hosting, information
technology infrastructure, customer service, warehousing, and
logistics services, as well as digital marketing. Baozun serves
customers in China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


BAOZUN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 10 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Baozun Inc. (NASDAQ: BZUN) between
March 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period")
of the important February 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Baozun investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Baozun class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1739.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 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 merchandizing 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 action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1739.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



BARNEY GREENGRASS: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Greengrass, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barney Greengrass, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00395 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Barney Greengrass, Inc. is a Jewish deli institution since
1908.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAZ BAGEL: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00392 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Baz Bagel and Restaurant LLC offers hand-rolled bagels, smoked fish
& other Jewish comfort fare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEACHWAY OPERATING: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Beachway Operating, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beachway Operating, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00362 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




BEAN TREE CORP: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Bean Tree Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bean Tree Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00371 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Bean Tree Corp. is in the Liquor Stores industry in New York,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG TOP: Pizano Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOSE PIZANO, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals v. BIG TOP & PARTY RENTALS, LLC
d/b/a BIG TOP TENT & PARTY RENTALS, LLC, and MARLENE LEONARD,
individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-11190 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
filed with the Court his renewed motion for certification of this
class:

     All individuals employed by Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC and
     Marlene Leonard as hourly employees and who worked in excess
     of forty (40) hours in any individual work weeks for the
     period of December 11, 2012 through the date of judgment.

Mr. Pizano also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representatives; to appoint his counsel to serve as counsel for the
class; and to authorize notice to the class of the action and their
right to opt out.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
had a policy or practice of paying him and similarly situated
non-exempt employees their regular rate of pay for the first fifty
(50) hours of work in individual work weeks, categorizing ten (10)
hours as "Ride Time" on the employees' paycheck stub paid at the
regular rate of pay.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


BLUE NOTE USA: Bishop Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Blue Note USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Cedric Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Note USA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00389 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Blue Note has been bringing music and shows to the CO/MO area for
over 20 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROCKTON, MA: Pays $4.7MM Settlement Over Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Larocque, writing for Enterprise News, reports that two years
after a jury sided in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Brockton
in Massachusetts is paying out a $4.7 million settlement in
connection to the lawsuit won by Russell Lopes, a former applicant
for a job at the Department of Public Works who claimed he was
denied the position due to racially biased employment
discrimination.

Mayor Moises Rodrigues said the settlement was finalized around
4:30 p.m. on January 3. In addition to damages that will be paid
out to Lopes and attorney fees, Rodrigues said the settlement
includes funds for an educational anti-discrimination and diversity
program that will be used to train city employees.

Rodrigues, who took office by appointment following the death of
former mayor Bill Carpenter, said he felt it was important to
settle the case, to avoid a costly class action trial and the
potentially massive damages that Lopes' attorney was pursuing on
behalf of a group of other minority applicants that he claimed also
faced a discriminatory hiring process.

Two years ago, Lopes was awarded more than $4 million by a jury,
which included $1.2 million in punitive damages for employment
discrimination. Lopes' attorney previously stated that members of
the class included around 40 minorities who applied for city jobs,
and that he hoped to get a judgment that would provide each of them
$1.2 million for punitive damages for employment discrimination.

The first minority mayor in the city's history, Rodrigues said the
settlement was important because it allows Brockton to remove a
"negative" and "dark cloud" of racism allegations. Rodrigues said
he's glad to get the settlement done before the arrival of the
city's next leader, Councilor-at-large Robert Sullivan, who is due
to be sworn in as mayor on January 6. Rodrigues said he's been
working to settle the case since taking office in July, up until
Janaury 3 afternoon.

"This whole thing could have been devastating to the city,"
Rodrigues said. "It's a negative cloud that hangs over our heads.
I'm glad to put it to rest and move the city forward as I leave
office. I thought it was important to do this so we can give the
new administration a blank slate to start off, and Sullivan doesn't
have to worry about this thing hanging over his head."

Lopes alleged that in 2010, when he was trying to get a job as a
diesel mechanic at the city's Department of Public Works, he faced
a discriminatory hiring process that favored white applicants. His
lawsuit, first filed in 2013, stated that the city's hiring
officials went out of their way to assist white applicants. Lopes'
attorney claimed that the city's former director of personnel,
Maureen Cruise, would instruct prospective white employees on how
to navigate the hiring process, while minority applicants like
Lopes were sent form letters telling them they were not qualified.
Cruise, however, denied any racial bias on her part.

Lopes also said he faced retaliation, including a harassing visit
to his home by city code enforcement officials, after he told his
story to The Enterprise in 2011. Gordon said the retaliation was
ordered by then-mayor Linda Balzotti one day after the plaintiff
was quoted in a July 2011 edition of The Enterprise, where he first
shared his story with the public. Balzotti never returned requests
for comment to respond to accusations of retaliation against Lopes,
and the former mayor didn't participate in an investigation ordered
by Carpenter after the conclusion of the six-day jury trial that
ended on Jan. 30, 2017.

The Enterprise reached the attorney representing Lopes and the
class, the Boston-based Philip Gordon, seeking comment. Gordon said
he and Lopes are considering making a statement.

Asked how the city will be able to pay the nearly $5 million
settlement, Rodrigues said that the settlement will be paid from
existing funds in a city savings account. The mayor said city
residents will not have to pay any additional fees and taxes will
not need to be raised to pay for it.

"We don't have to raise additional fees to pay for this thing, or
cut services," Rodrigues said.

Philip Nessralla, who served as city solicitor for Brockton up
until January 3, announcing he is stepping down as a new mayoral
administration takes over, said he agreed with the city's decision
to settle the Lopes case and the class action at this point.

In the years following the Lopes case, the city has appealed the
outcome of the Lopes trial and Nessralla said he disagreed with the
jury's decision. Mediation only began after Rodrigues took office,
the class action postponed from an originally scheduled December
trial date.

"The downside would have been disastrous if we lost the bigger part
of it, the class action," Nessralla said.

Nessralla said one factor that took away leverage from the city
during negotiations was that many politicians during last fall's
elections insisted on a settlement, thus removing leverage the city
had, which worried the outside lawyer the city hired to appeal the
Lopes verdict, the Boston-based Leonard Kesten.

"His major concern during the election was that all the politicians
said we have to pay him," Nessralla said. "It's hard to settle the
case if you say you have to pay him."

Nessralla said that the city is filing a malpractice claim against
the attorney who represented the city during the Lopes trial, as a
way to restore legal defense costs to the city.

"This was not a discrimination case," Nessralla said. "This was bad
lawyering by a law firm, unfortunately. It should have never come
to this. I think we came out to the best possible result." [GN]

CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert J Johnson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cawley
& Bergmann, LLC, JHPDE Finance 1, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00380 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020).

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

Cawley & Bergmann, LLC is a debt collection company specializing in
the recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


CELERITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., Sid Naiman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELERITY
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-at-00076 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks damages and other
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading their
privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiffs
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants' calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not
possess the Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.

The Plaintiffs assert that their cellular telephone numbers have
been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry well over 30 days prior
to the Defendants' initial calls. Despite this, the Defendants
continued to call Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers. The
Defendants continued to call the Plaintiffs in an attempt to
solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sid Naiman is a natural person residing in Butte County,
California. Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. is a rooting and
plumbing business in Emeryville, California.

Celerity is a telecommunications service provider company engaged
in marketing and selling its services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


CHERRY HILL SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Gender-Bias Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Madden, writing for KYW Newsradio, reports that a class
action suit will be considered in New Jersey Superior Court over a
program at one Cherry Hill public school that helps students build
leadership skills. Plaintiffs contend there's a gender bias
involved.

The WATCH program at Clara Barton Elementary aims to help 5th
graders not only prepare for middle school, but the challenges of
life in general. There's just one problem.

"It was run only for boys and girls were not permitted to partake,"
Mount Laurel attorney Kevin Costello told KYW Newsradio. "We
determined that that was illegal under New Jersey
anti-discrimination law and so we commenced this action to address
it."

The parents of two young girls hired Costello to take the matter to
Camden County Court.

A judge granted class action status to the lawsuit, which includes
some 160 young girls who attended Barton dating back to 2014.

Two years ago, the district established a similar program called
Girls Incorporated.

"Although the programs purport to be equal, we do not believe that
they are equal," Costello added. "In fact, they shouldn't be
separate. The leadership training should be for all students."

The Cherry Hill School District issued a statement saying the
Barton principal set up different programs because "boys and girls
sometimes have different social and emotional needs that are best
met in single sex environments". They call the lawsuit's claims
unfounded and insist only the one family that filed the action has
complained. [GN]


CHINO HILLS, CA: Named in Lawsuit for Not Submitting Water Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Napoles, writing for Champion Newspapers, reports that the
city of Chino Hills in California, was named with three other
entities in a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 17 in San Bernardino
Superior Court by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for
not submitting a water conservation report required by the state
for three consecutive years.

The other entities were San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga and
Redlands.

The NRDC is a non-profit environmental organization established in
1970 with offices in Santa Monica, San Francisco, other states, and
abroad.

The state's Department of Water Resources began requiring cities
and counties to report annually on their landscape permitting
programs in 2015 to ensure that new irrigated landscapes are water
efficient.

The four entities are singled out as "named respondents" and
approximately 300 cities and counties are in the "proposed
respondent" class.

Chino Hills and the other three entities had robust new growth and
are representative of all jurisdictions that failed to file one or
more of the annual reports between 2015 and 2018, according to Ed
Osann, director of national water use efficiency for the NRDC.

"While all cities and counties have the responsibility to apply
efficiency standards to newly permitted landscapes, the more
development that takes place in a jurisdiction, the more the report
makes a difference," Mr. Osann said. "Imagine the water-saving
impact of applying stringent standards to two landscape projects
vs. 2,000."

The city of Chino is included in the "proposed respondent" class.
The city of Chino did not submit its 2015 report for 23 dwelling
units as of Dec. 17 when the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Osann said. It
will be up to the court to certify the full class in response to
the proposed class, he said.

1,500 new dwellings

The city of Chino Hills issued permits for approximately 1,500
units between 2015 and 2017 without submitting the required
reports.

According to Chino Hills building reports from 2015 to 2017, new
dwelling unit permits were issued as follows: 110 permits in 2015,
448 in 2016, and 1,030 in 2017.

The residential growth spurt included Bristol Chino Hills, Vila
Borba, Santa Barbara and Jade Tree in southern Chino Hills, the
Founders development on Grand Avenue and Founders Drive, and The
Crossings at Chino Hills on the northeast side of Fairfield Ranch
Road and Monte Vista Avenue.

Chino Hills city spokesperson Denise Cattern said the city does not
comment on active litigation, however the city is committed to
water conservation and complying with all water conservation
reporting requirements.

She said the city can affirm that the report for 2018 was submitted
in 2019 and the 2019 report is in development for submittal in
2020.

Mrs. Cattern said staff is reviewing reporting requirements for any
additional years outstanding.

San Bernardino County, one of the largest jurisdictions in the
state, did not file any of the four required annual reports since
2015, Mr. Osann said.

The county issued permits for more than 2,200 dwelling units from
2015 to 2018, he said.

Mr. Osann said the state's Department of Water Resources sent
reminders to non-compliant jurisdictions six months ago and the
NRDC sent reminder letters to more than 400 jurisdictions on Nov.
15.

Out of 540 cities and counties in the state, the majority have yet
to file one or more of the annual reports, Mr. Osann said.

Since half of California's drinking water supply is used for urban
landscape irrigation, substantial water savings can be gained when
new landscapes are installed through careful plant selection,
efficient irrigation equipment and proper installation, he said.

The NRDC is asking the court to name the four entities as
representatives of the respondent class, issue a writ of mandate
requiring named and proposed respondents to complete annual reports
to the state and report to the court and to NRDC at reasonable
intervals, and to award the NRDC reasonable attorney fees and costs
of the lawsuit. [GN]

CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Knox Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental
Intermodal Group. The case is styled as Kenneth Knox, individually
and on behalf of all others, Plaintiff v. Continental Intermodal
Group and Continental Intermodal Group - Buk Commodities, LLC, a
Texas, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-100131 (Cal. Super., Jan. 15,
2020).

The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.[BN]

Continental Intermodal Group provides logistics services. The
Company offers transloading and storage services for oil and gas
market. Continental Intermodal Group serves customers in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Martin E Sullivan, Esq.
   Melmed Law Group, P.C.
   1180 S Beverly Dr, Ste 610
   Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
   Tel: (310) 824-3828
   Email: ms@melmedlaw.com


D&A SERVICES: Saks Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A Services, LLC.
The case is styled as Israel Saks, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&A Services, LLC d/b/a
D&A Services, LLC of IL and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-00547 (S.D., N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020).

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

D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer
bankcard/retail industry, auto deficiency and business to
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



DADDY COOL'S INC: Underpays Bartenders, Alvarado et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS ALVARADO; BENJAMIN LEGUE; FRANCISCO LOPEZ; STEVE MCELHENY;
GENESIS RIOS; and MADRID ST. ANGELO, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DADDY COOL'S INC.
(d/b/a INNJOY LOGAN SQUARE); INNJOY DRINK AND EAT, INC.; INNJOY EAT
& DRINK INC.; GABRIELLE HATHAWAY; RICH KEWITZ; RAE L. HATHAWAY; and
JOSEPH HATHAWAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08442 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 26, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.

Daddy Cool's Inc. is engaged as a restaurant, bar, and
entertainment venue, based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. Zito, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD J. ZITO LLC
          200 East Randolph Drive, Ste. 5100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 883-5298
          E-mail: rich@zitolawchicago.com


DAIICHI SANKYO: Faces Handley Suit Over Injuries From Omlesartan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Handley, Shelly Phillips, Margaret Adebayo, Janice Atwell,
Ernest Hopkins, Darnell Newton, Brett Rich, and Sandee Salmon, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. DAIICHI
SANKYO, INC.; DAIICHI SANKYO CO, LTD.; DAIICHI SANKYO US HOLDINGS,
INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-00067-C (D. Okla., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf
those who have taken the drug Omlesartan, who have suffered a
personal injury, including injury to gastrointestinal tissue, as a
result of the use of this medication, and who have not participated
in the global Benicar settlement with Daiichi Sanko announced on
August 1, 2017.

The Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest knew or should
have known that use of olmesartan medoxomil products increased the
risk of developing multiple injuries, including serious
gastrointestinal injuries, such as Olmesartan Associated
Enteropathy ("OAE"), sprue-like enteropathy, villous
atrophy/blunting/damage, inflammation, nausea, vomiting, chronic
diarrhea, malnutrition, dehydration, atrophy, kidney failure,
weight loss, abdominal and gastrointestinal pain, colitis, and/ or
gastritis; and that the labels and sales and marketing documents
for Benicar, Benicar HCT, Azor, and Tribenzor, failed to include
such risks and misrepresented the safety of the drugs, and continue
to inadequately and inaccurately disclose those risks today, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege they have all suffered personal injuries as a
result of use of olmesartan products. They contend that their
damages and injuries are a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' negligent, intentional, and wrongful acts regarding the
design, development, formulation, manufacture, testing, packaging,
labeling, promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution and sale
of products containing the drug olmesartan medoxomil. Omlesartan is
also known as Benicar, Benicar HCT, Azor, or Tribenzor.

The Plaintiffs assert that with respect to each of the products,
the Defendants exaggerated their benefits and understated, omitted
and/or failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the
risks associated with such products.

The Defendants are marketing and selling pharmaceutical drugs
containing olmesartan medoxomil that are manufactured by Daiichi
Sankyo Japan throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
          FULMER SILL
          1101 N. Broadway, Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Phone: (405) 509-6300
          Facsimile: (405) 509-6268
          Email: matt@sill-law.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Green Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The
case is styled as Eric Green, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dignity Health and Does 1
Through 10 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC20582327 (Cal.
Super., Jan. 21, 2020).

The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints.

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
   Bryan Schwartz Law180 Grand Ave, Suite 1380
   Oakland, CA 94612


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Costa Seeks to Certify Class of Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ENZO COSTA, et al. v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03185-RDM (D.D.C.), move for
entry of an order determining that their action may be maintained
as a class action on behalf of "all current and future Saint
Elizabeths Hospital patients."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their Counsel as Class
Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Saint Elizabeths is this District's only public psychiatric
facility for individuals with serious and persistent mental illness
who need intensive inpatient care to support their recovery.  The
patient population of Saint Elizabeths are all individuals, who are
indefinitely, involuntarily committed to the District's care, and
each patient at Saint Elizabeths will likely be committed at Saint
Elizabeths for all or most of their lives.

According to the Motion, for the second time in three years, Saint
Elizabeths Hospital was without safe, running water from September
26, 2019, through at least October 23, 2019, exposing patients at
the facility to harmful physical, emotional, and mental health
consequences.  The Plaintiffs contend that each of them and many of
the other patients at the Hospital experienced unhygienic
conditions and an interruption of their medical and mental health
care.

The Plaintiffs assert that all of the members of that population
are persons with mental health disabilities who are, or who will be
in the future, committed to the Defendants' care.  The Plaintiffs
contend that all members were injured and likely to be injured by
recurrent inhumane, unsafe, and medically dangerous conditions at
Saint Elizabeths and the lack of appropriate hospital
administration that led to those conditions in violation of Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the ADA.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Freedman, Esq.
          Tirzah S. Lollar, Esq.
          Brian A. Vaca, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: John.Freedman@aporter.com
                  Tirzah.Lollar@arnoldporter.com
                  Brian.Vaca@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          Michael Perloff, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800
          E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org
                  smichelman@acludc.org
                  mperloff@acludc.org

               - and -

          Kaitlin Banner, Esq.
          Margaret Hart, Esq.
          Hannah Lieberman, Esq.
          Jonathan Smith, Esq.
          Maria Morris, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
          E-mail: Kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
                  margaret_hart@washlaw.org
                  hannah_lieberman@washlaw.org
                  jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
                  maria_morris@washlaw.org


DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn Renews Bid to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LYNN MCGLENN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. DRIVELINE RETAIL
MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02097-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.),
filed with the Court her Renewed Motion for Class Certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The class is defined as:

     All current and former Driveline employees whose PII was
     compromised as a result of the Data Disclosure.

Excluded from the Class are the officers, directors and legal
representatives of Driveline and the judges and court personnel to
whom this case may be assigned and any members of their immediate
families.

Ms. McGlenn is an employee at Driveline whose social security
number, name, address, and wage information, along with that of
over 15,800 other employees, was released by her employer to an
unknown third party.  On February 14, 2017, the Defendant notified
its current and former employees that their 2016 W-2 tax form
information had been subjected to "a data breach."

As a result, over 15,800 W-2s, containing employees' social
security numbers, names, home addresses and wage information were
released by Driveline to an unknown entity, Ms. McGlenn asserts.
She adds that the confidential and private employee information,
referred to as "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII," had
been entrusted to Driveline as a part of those more than 15,800
employees' agreement to provide services for Driveline so that
Driveline could profit from those services.

In the alternative, Ms. McGlenn seeks to have certain issues
certified for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 23(c)(4) issue
certification permits a court to retain a case's class character
where common questions predominate within certain issues and where
class treatment of those issues is the superior method of
resolution.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com


E CAPITAL FUNDING: Foo Suit Alleges Discrimination Over Pregnancy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Yi Foo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees v. E CAPITAL FUNDING LLC., YA DONG LIU, PEI JIAN CHI, AND
LI HUA ZHANG, Case No. 1:20-cv-00376 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act of 1978, the American with Disabilities Act, the New York State
Human Rights Law, the New York City Citizens Commission on Human
Rights, New York Maternity Leave Laws, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the PDA, ADA, NYHRL, CCHR and NY Maternity
Leave Laws by engaging in a pattern and practice of discriminating
against its employees, including the Plaintiff, based on their
pregnancy, the Plaintiff contends.  She also asserts that the
Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, to provide
light duty or alternative assignments, and to provide leave when
reasonably requested. She adds that the Defendants terminated her
employment based on her protected status--a pregnant woman.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours
worked, unpaid wages, and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 hours for each workweek, and failing to provide
undisrupted and adequate meal breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bookkeeper and human resource
personnel by the Defendants.

Defendant E Capital owns and operates a financing/mortgage
business.[BN]

          Carter R. Qi, Esq.
          HEIFERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Phone: (718) 888-9545


FEDERAL TAX RELIEF: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL TAX RELIEF, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00692 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 23, 2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby, invading his privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.

The Defendant called the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant failed to establish
and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively
prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations
prescribed under the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los
Angeles County, California.

Federal Tax Relief, Inc. is a tax consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V. (NYSE: FCAU) between February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the case go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-n-v/
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

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

Contact:

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

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in Chassen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ARTHUR CHASSEN, et al. v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:09-cv-00291-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.), seeks class certification.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: ddisabato@wolflawfirm.net


FLRISH INC: Calhoun Sues Over Unwanted Autodialed Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIA CALHOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLRISH, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited autodialed text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On December 12, 2019, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited, text
message to her cell phone number from Harborside using phone number
231-354-2846. The Plaintiff contends that she has never provided
her consent to Harborside to send her text messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system or to contact her
notwithstanding the registration of her cellular phone number on
the national Do Not Call registry.

Harborside is a cannabis company with retail stores in Desert Hot
Springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 L INDBROOK D RIVE
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


FMS ADVANCE: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FMS ADVANCE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00643 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading his privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.

On August 22, 2018, the Plaintiff requested through counsel that
the Defendant stop calling him, thus, revoking any prior express
consent that had existed and terminating any established business
relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendant
continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los
Angeles County, California.

FMS ADVANCE, LLC is a business financing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


FOODSTATE INC: Judge to Consider $2.1MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Alden, writing for Union Leader, reports that members of a
class-action lawsuit against a New Hampshire dietary supplement
company may be entitled to receive up to $100 under a proposed
settlement pending in U.S. District Court.

A hearing was on the docket for Monday, Jan. 6, where Judge Landya
B. McCafferty was scheduled to hear from attorneys on both sides
regarding the $2.1 million settlement to resolve consumer
complaints alleging false claims made on labeling for vitamin and
supplement products.

FoodState Inc., of Manchester, denies all liability in the claims,
but did agree to the settlement in May to avoid the time and
expense of further litigation, according to court documents.

The lawsuit was brought by three California residents who claimed
certain FoodState products included labeling that was false or
misleading. According to the lawsuit, some products were
represented as having come predominantly from "whole foods" rather
than synthetically created vitamins or processed extracts.

Product labeling also made representations of "vegetable
lubricant," which the customers maintained should have been
properly labeled as stearic acid, according to the lawsuit. The
plaintiffs also questioned whether the products were "made in the
USA," as claimed.

The settlement period covers certain products purchased between
Jan. 15, 2011, to Sept. 15, 2018, according to court documents

Although FoodState denied any wrongdoing, the company did agree to
establish a $2.1 million fund to cover valid claims made by members
of the class-action suit. Members can claim up to $25 per bottle of
products included in the settlement for up to four bottles,
totaling $100.

FoodState also agreed to making labeling changes that included not
using the phrase "100% Whole Food Supplement" or "Made in the USA"
for a 30-month period on products that do not meet those standards,
according to court documents.

Other changes included not using "vegetable lubricant" as a generic
term and specifying the material used. FoodState also agreed to add
a link to its website offering more information about product
ingredients, according to court documents.

McCafferty gave preliminary approval to terms on the settlement in
May 2019. The judge was scheduled to hold a fairness hearing Jan.
6. [GN]


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT) to submit their losses now to learn if they qualify
to recover their investment losses.  A class action complaint
against the Company and its senior executives has been filed.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that Forescout was experiencing
significant volatility with respect to large deals and issues
related to the timing and execution of deals in the Company's
pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
("EMEA").

The market began to learn the truth on Oct. 10, 2019, when
Forescout announced disappointing Q3 2019 financial results and
slashed revenue guidance.  In explaining the poor performance and
outlook, Defendants cited "extended approval cycles which pushed
several deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced
in EMEA." On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per
share, or 37.32%, wiping out nearly $700 million in market
capitalization.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether the Company
presented a false portrayal of their EMEA pipeline," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you purchased shares of Forescout and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Forescout Technologies 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 844-916-0895 or email FSCT@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. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel: 844-916-0895
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com  
[GN]

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Espinosa Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Christine Espinosa, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and other
aggrieved employees v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GENESIS HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; GHC PAYROLL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
ANAHEIM TERRACE CARE CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV38528,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 23, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00688 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts these causes of action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the putative class against the Defendants: (1)
Failure to Pay Regular and Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide
Compliant Meal Periods or Pay Premium Compensation in Lieu Thereof;
(3)  Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods or Pay Premium
Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (4)  Failure to Pay Wages Timely Upon
Termination; (5) Failure to Pay Accrued Vacation Wages Upon
Termination; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (7) Violation of California Business & Professions
Code; and (8) Penalties Pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Curtis A, Graham, Esq.
          Ian T. Maher, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.443.4300
          Fax: 213.443.4299


GRIMM ALES LLC: Bishop Files Suit Under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Grimm Ales LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Grimm Ales LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00373 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020).

Grimm specializes in concise, elegant ales epitomizing the
creative, experimental spirit of the American artisanal beer
revolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRUBHUB INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Grubhub Inc.
(NYSE:GRUB) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 30,
2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), [we]re
encouraged to contact the firm before January 21, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Grubhub suffered from declining customer
orders, despite major investments and marketing designed to spur
demand. The Company's new customers generated lower demand than
older customers due to a tendency to use competing services at the
same time. The Company's exclusive partnership model had failed,
forcing it to resort to aggressive sales tactics used by its
competitors. Grubhub was forced into major capital expenditures to
grow revenue and maintain its market share. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Grubhub, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



GS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dobie Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Dobie, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GS GROUP FAIR OAKS, LLC, and GARY SKINNER, Case No.
5:20-cv-00083 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of their failure
to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other tipped managers
were not paid for the time they spent performing non-tipped work.
The Plaintiff and other tipped managers were instructed to not
record the hours they spent in meetings and setting schedules, and
they were only allowed to record the hours they spent performing
tipped work. Thus, the Plaintiff and other tipped managers were
only paid for the time they spent actually bartending, despite the
fact that they regularly spent six to ten hours per week performing
non-tipped work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a tipped manager from
November 2019 through January 2, 2020.

GS Group Fair Oaks, LLC is a domestic limited liability company
that owns and operates two restaurants in the Boerne and San
Antonio areas, operating under the names "Conroy's Irish Pub &
Grill" and "Conroy's Bar & Grill."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALO VEHICLE: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halo Vehicle
Protection, LLC. The case is styled as Tommy J. Tompkins, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Halo Vehicle Protection, LLC and Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033-JB-M (S.D., Ala., Jan. 21,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Halo Vehicle Protection, LLC offers automotive services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
   Underwood & Riemer
   2153 Airport Boulevard
   Mobile, AL 36606
   Tel: (251) 432-9212
   Email: kriemer01@gmail.com


HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Briscoe's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John Robert Blakey denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
Laura Briscoe, et al. v. Health Care Services Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:16−cv−10294 (N.D. Ill.).

For the reasons explained in the Court's accompanying memorandum
opinion and order, the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert
opinions of Dr. Lauren Hanley, motion to exclude the expert
opinions of Ms. Nicole Peluso, are granted.[CC]


HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Flagg-El's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. W. Harold Albritton denies the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the case titled as ANDRE D. FLAGG-EL, #310 705 v. HOUSTON
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00909-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala.), as a
class action.

Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody entered a Recommendation on
December 2, 2019.  There being no timely objections filed to the
Recommendation, and after a review of the file, the Court adopts
the Recommendation.

Judge Albritton notes that the case is not closed and is referred
to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.[CC]


HTDG LLC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hailee Jackson, Jorden Estis, and Lindsey Kingsbery, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated employees v. HTDG, LLC
d/b/a HONKY TONK CENTRAL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn., Jan.
22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs also seek to recover all damages due them for gender
discrimination and sexual harassment under the THRA.

The Defendant unlawfully required the Plaintiffs, as well as other
individuals employed as tipped employees, to contribute their tips
to invalid tip-sharing arrangements and shaved hours worked off the
Plaintiffs' recorded hours, denying them minimum wages for hours
worked under 40 in a workweek and overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint.

The Defendant's managers at Honky Tonk Central included Jay Emery
and Ficili. The Plaintiffs allege that Emery made daily derogatory
and sexual comments to his female employees, including the
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members. Examples of Emery and
Ficili's derogatory and sexual comments to female employees
include: referring to his female employees as "dumb bitches";
asking female employees who had breast augmentations to show him
their breasts so that he could compare the doctors' work; telling
female employees to "show a little more" skin during private
parties at Honky Tonk Central; telling female employees to stand in
front of the camera when they changed clothes in the office at
Honky Tonk Central; making comments to female employees like,
"Y'all are women," and "You're stupid;" and making comments to
female employees based on stereotypes about women allegedly not
being good at counting and math.

Another female employee made a sexual harassment complaint against
Emery in 2012, because Emery touched her in an inappropriate manner
while at work. The Defendant settled the sexual harassment
complaint privately but did not correct Emery's discriminatory
behavior, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as bartenders, bar leads, food
runners, and servers.

HTDG owns and operates Honky Tonk Central, a three-story bar, live
music venue, and restaurant on Lower Broadway in Nashville,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: (615) 250-2000
          Fax: (615) 250-2020
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                 teeples@yezbaklaw.com


IBM CORP: Janecyk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Janecyk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York
corporation, Case No. 2020CH00833 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 22,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for damages and other legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal
actions in collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiff's biometric
identifiers and biometric information, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA, which provides, inter alia,
that a private entity like IBM may not obtain and/or possess an
individual's biometrics unless it: informs that person in writing
that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or
stored; informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric
information is being collected, stored and used; receives a written
release from the person for the collection of his or her biometric
identifiers or information; and publishes publically available
written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information.

In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, IBM is
actively collecting, storing, using, and disclosing--without
providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing
data retention policies--the biometrics of millions of unwitting
individuals whose faces appear in IBM's Diversity in Faces Dataset
("DiF Dataset"), which dataset consists of about a million
photographs of faces IBM uses to develop and train its facial
recognition technologies, according to the complaint. Specifically,
IBM has created, collected, and stored millions of "face
templates"--highly detailed geometric maps of the face--from about
a million photographs that make up its DiF dataset. IBM creates
these templates using sophisticated facial recognition technology
that extracts and analyzes data from the points and contours of
faces that appear in its dataset. Each face template that IBM
extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that
a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one
person.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated to prevent IBM from further violating the
privacy rights of those individuals appearing in IBM's DiF Dataset,
and to recover statutory damages for IBM's unauthorized collection,
storage, and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of
the BIPA.

Plaintiff Tim Janecyk is a resident and citizen of Illinois.

IBM is a New York Corporation with its headquarters at Armonk, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                 kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com


INNOVATIVE MARKETING: Fabricant Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant and Sylvia Shick, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE MARKETING ENTERPRISES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:20-cv-00645 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
negligently contacting the Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading their privacy.

The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to
place a call to the Plaintiffs seeking to solicit services. The
Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes. The Defendants also did not possess the Plaintiffs'
"prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
its cellular telephone.

The Defendants called the Plaintiffs in an attempt to solicit
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Los Angeles County
and Riverside County, California.

INNOVATIVE MARKETING ENTERPRISES, INC. is an online marketing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


INSTRUCTURE INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Potential Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of
Directors (the "Board") of Instructure, Inc. ("Instructure" or the
"Company") relating to the sale of the Company to private equity
firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"). On December 4, 2019, the two
parties announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will acquire Instructure in a merger
worth $2 billion. As a result of the merger, Instructure's
shareholders are only anticipated to receive $47.60 per share in
cash in exchange for each share of Instructure.

Our Firm's investigation so far has discovered that the process
leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have
significant conflicts of interest, thus making the process and
consideration unfair. Just days following the announcement of the
merger, several of Instructure's largest shareholders voiced their
opposition to the merger. Rivulet Capital, a shareholder that holds
5.23% of Instructure's stock, filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC
which discloses that it "strongly opposes" the merger which
"significantly undervalues" Instructure. Praesidium Investment
Management ("Praesidium"), a 7.5% shareholder of Instructure also
voiced its opposition to the merger by writing a letter to the
Board citing "a rushed process, potential conflicts of interests
and a lack of transparency . . . ."

If you own shares of Instructure and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/instructure-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
This notice may constitute Attorney Advertising.


         Craig J. Springer, Esq.
         Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013
         Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
[GN]

INSTRUCTURE INC: Investors Challenge Merger with PIV Purchaser
---------------------------------------------------------------
Instructure, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 17, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in two stockholder class
action suits related to its merger with PIV Purchaser, LLC.

On December 4, 2019, Instructure, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with PIV Purchaser,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and PIV
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.

On January 7, 2020, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a revised definitive proxy statement with
respect to the special meeting of Instructure stockholders
scheduled to be held on February 13, 2020 in connection with the
Merger.

In connection with the Merger, after the Definitive Proxy Statement
was filed, two stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed:

     (i) in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned
Post v. Instructure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-RGA; and

    (ii) in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned
Zhang v. Instructure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00042-UNA , and
together with the Post Complaint, the Complaints.

The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that
Instructure and the members of its Board of Directors purportedly
omitted material information from the Proxy Statement and the Zhang
Complaint includes additional claims with respect to breach of
fiduciary duties and allegations that the Merger and the process
that led to it was procedurally and substantively flawed.

The Complaints also allege claims against the members of the
Company's Board of Directors.

The Complaints seek, among other things, additional disclosure of
facts relating to the Merger and/or injunctive relief.

Instructure said, "Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the
future. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in
the Complaints lack merit and will vigorously defend against these
and any subsequently filed similar actions."

Instructure, Inc., provides cloud-based learning management
platform for academic institutions and companies worldwide. The
Company offers its platform through a Software-as-a-Service
business model. It was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Salt
Lake City, Utah.


INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits over Security Issues Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend several consumer class action suits in the
U.S., Canada, and Israel relating to certain security
vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018

As of January 22, 2020, consumer class action lawsuits relating to
certain security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018 were
pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been
harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the
security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.

In the U.S., numerous individual class action suits filed in
various jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon. Intel filed a motion to dismiss that consolidated action in
October 2018, and a hearing on that motion was held in February
2019.

In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.
In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, the court has stayed the case until April 2020.

In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa. In the first case, the District Court
denied the parties' joint motion to stay filed in January 2019, but
to date has deferred Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint
in view of Intel's pending motion to dismiss in the consolidated
proceeding in the U.S. Intel filed a motion to stay the second case
pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and
a hearing on that motion has been scheduled for May 2020.

Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary
damages or other related relief.

Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and
intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from those matters."

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.


INTERO REAL: Chinitz Seeks Certification of 4 Classes in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RONALD CHINITZ, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERO REAL
ESTATE SERVICES, Case No. 5:18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), seeks
certification of four classes pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Chinitz also asks the Court to appoint Tycko & Zavareei LLP and
Reese LLP as class counsel.

Defendant Intero operates through over a thousand real estate
agents, primarily in California, who represent consumers when they
buy and sell real estate.  To bring in new business, many of
Intero's real estate agents "cold call" residential and cellular
telephone numbers, ignoring whether the calls are unwanted.

According to the Motion, in their zeal to find more clients,
outpace the competition, and make more money for themselves and
Intero, these agents cold-call individuals, who have registered
their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR"); turn
a blind eye to TCPA rules concerning maintenance and use of a
company do not call list; place calls using artificial or
prerecorded messages without consent; and call potential clients
before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.  By engaging in and promoting
these practices, Intero systematically violated, and continues to
violate, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the
Plaintiff contends.

In this Motion, Mr. Chinitz seeks certification of these classes:

   (1) National Do Not Call Registry Class ("DNC Class"):

       All persons in the United States who: (a) received more
       than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf
       of, one of Intero's California sales associates;
       (b) promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) in a
       12-month period; (d) on their non-business telephone
       lines; (e) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR for
       at least 31 days; (f) at any time since September 13,
       2014;

   (2) Internal Do Not Call Class ("Internal DNC Class"):

       All persons in the United States who: (a) were on an
       internal list of persons who asked Intero not to call them
       ("Internal DNC List"), (b) received more than one call
       made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of
       Intero's California sales associates; (c) promoting
       Intero's goods or services; (d) in a 12-month period;
       (e) on their non-business telephone line; (f) at any time
       since September 14, 2014;

   (3) Early/Late Calls Class:

       All persons in the United States who: (a) received one
       more more telemarketing call made on behalf of Intero by,
       or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales
       associates; (b) on their non-business telephone line;
       (c) before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time, recipient's
       location); (d) at any time since September 13, 2014; and

   (4) Artificial or Prerecorded Message Residential Class
       ("Prerecorded Message Class"):

       All persons in the United States to whom: (a) a California
       Intero sales associate, or a person/entity acting on
       behalf of a California Intero sales associate, initiated
       on Intero's behalf one or more non-emergency telephone
       calls; (b) promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) to
       the recipient's non-business telephone line; (d) through
       the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any
       time since September 13, 2014.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  vprentice@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Carlos Ramirez, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  cramirez@reesellp.com


INTUIT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INTUIT INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00612 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23,
2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site
and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby,
is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the
Defendant's Web site, http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/,is not
equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer. He seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a tax preparation company that owns and operates
the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
delivery of such throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J.E.R.P. LLC: Jones Sues Over Violation of Due Process of Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jomia Jones & Shannae Williams, Casey Wilkinson & Tina Hendrix,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons v. J.E.R.P., LLC, Phillip Fornaro, Jeffrey
Gustafson, Eric Kenneth Gustafson, Raymond Peter Gustafson, Case
No. 2020CH00873 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 22, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of due process of law.

Defendant Phillip Fornaro is a duly licensed attorney in Illinois
but he has chosen an unlicensed person, Brad Graff, to represent
the Corporation in court, according to the complaint. The Defendant
Corporation has filed dozens of eviction actions from 2015 through
2019 without ever having been represented by an attorney.

Illinois Law provides that: "Plaintiffs shall have the liberty of
prosecuting, and defendants of defending in their proper persons."
The permission granted by statute to prosecute and defend actions
"in their proper persons" has never been, nor could it be,
construed to include corporations, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs were residential tenants of J.E.R.P., LLC, which is
owned and managed by the Individual Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Pensack, Esq.
          4901 N. Central Park Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60625-5613
          Phone: (773) 866-1344


JA APPAREL CORP: Mendez Wants Gift Cards in Braille
---------------------------------------------------
HIMELDA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JA APPAREL CORP. D/B/A JOSEPH ABBOUD,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11807 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2019) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to sell store gift
cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with
its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

JA Apparel Corporation designs, manufactures, sources,
merchandises, markets, and distributes apparel and furnishings
through domestic and international licensing agreements in the
United States. The Company is based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
           THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
           175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
           New York, NY 10014
           Telephone: (646) 770-3775
           Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
           E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

                - 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
           E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                   danalgottlieb@aol.com


JONES DAY: Certification of Equal Pay Collective Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NILAB RAHYAR TOLTON et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JONES DAY, a General Partnership, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00945-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order conditionally certifying an Equal Pay Act collective
action and authorizing the mailing of notice and consent to join
forms to members of the proposed collective action.

Jones Day is an international law firm based in the United
States.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Classes, and the
Proposed Collective, are:

          Kate Mueting, Esq.
          Paul Blankenstein, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          700 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20003
          Telephone: (202) 499-5206
          E-mail: kmueting@sanfordheisler.com
                 pblankenstein@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 S. Calvert Street, Ste. 1950
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 834-7415
          Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
          E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          Russell L. Kornblith, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
          E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com

KNIGHTEN MACHINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KNIGHTEN MACHINE & SERVICE, INC., Case No.
7:20-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff says he worked over forty hours per week. He asserts
that the Defendant willfully committed violations of the FLSA by
failing to pay overtime premiums to hourly employees, including
him, for hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week. The
Defendant's actions were willful and in blatant disregard for the
federally protected rights of the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Henry Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a shop
hand.

Knighten Machine & Service, Inc. is a full service industrial pump
distributor offering parts, sales and service of industrial pumps
in and around Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


KROGER COMPANY: Class Action Certification Sought in Hawkins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY,
Case No. 3:15-02320-JM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), moves the Court to order
that:

   1. Plaintiff's claims be maintained as a class action;

   2. Plaintiff be named Class Representative; and

   3. Plaintiff's counsel, the Weston Firm, be appointed Class
      Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 24, 2020, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Cruz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LA NUEVA SABROSURA RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a QUE SABROSURA
RESTAURANT AND BAR and EDDY MORONTA, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-00609 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks redress for the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and to
provide proper statements with each payment of wages, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked an approximate total of 51
hours per week. He was paid a flat weekly salary irrespective of
the number of hours he worked per week and at no time was he paid
the required minimum wage or overtime wages.

The Defendants regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages
of one and one-half times his regular hourly work rate for any
hours that he worked in excess of forty 40 per workweek, in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a cook's assistant and food runner for the
Defendants at their restaurant.

Que Sabrosura is a restaurant and bar located at Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Luke, Jr., Esq.
          SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 420-9300


LEADS2RESULTS INC: Abante Rooter Sues Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LEADS2RESULTS, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 4:20-cv-00461-KAW
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading its privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone.

The Plaintiff says it requested for the Defendants to stop calling
Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from the Defendants,
thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and
terminating any established business relationship that had existed.
Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the Plaintiff in an
attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National
Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California.

LEADS2RESULTS, INC. is a marketing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


LENDABIZ CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LENDABIZ CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00650 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22,
2020), accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place a call to the Plaintiff seeking
to solicit services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls that
were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on its cellular telephone.

The Plaintiff says he requested through counsel that the Defendants
stop calling him, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had
existed and terminating any established business relationship that
had existed. Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit services and in violation of the
National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Los
Angeles County, California.

LENDABIZ CAPITAL LLC is a business financing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


LLOYDS BANK: Collas Crill Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Bell, Esq. -- gareth.bell@collascrill.com -- and Jack Crisp,
Esq. --jack.crisp@collascrill.com -- of Collas Crill, in an article
for Mondaq, report that judgment was recently given in the first
shareholder class action claim in England, Sharp v Blank [2019]
EWHC 3078 (Ch).

The claims were brought by 5,803 shareholders in Lloyds Bank
against some of its former directors, and Lloyds itself. They
stemmed from Lloyds' reverse takeover of HBOS PLC during the
financial crisis in 2008.

The judgment concerns the recommendation made by directors to
shareholders, and disclosure of information ahead of a shareholder
vote approving the acquisition. The judgment demonstrates the
difficulty future shareholder class actions of this kind may have
(a) establishing a valid claim against directors; and (b) showing
loss on the part of the shareholders.

Background

The actions of the directors which formed the basis for the claim
took place in 2008, during the financial crisis. HBOS was suffering
the effects of the crisis and faced serious liquidity problems.
Lloyds had been looking for potential acquisition targets and had
previously considered HBOS. However, there were significant
competition issues: after the acquisition it was estimated Lloyds
would have c. 28 per cent of the UK mortgage market.

The crisis deepened in early September 2008 and, on September 15,
Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. That evening at a function,
Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister, implied to Sir Victor Blank
(Lloyds' chairman) that the government would step in to handle any
competition issues in the interest of certainty regarding the
future care of HBOS, but Lloyds would have to move quickly.

Lloyds' acquisition of HBOS was announced three days later, on 18
September.

On September 25 and October 2, 2008, Lloyds made two collateralised
interbank facilities available to HBOS with a combined value of
GBP9.9 billion (Lloyds Repo). The purpose of these facilities was
to help HBOS with its immediate funding requirements in the face of
the credit crunch which followed Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy.

On October 1, 2008, the Bank of England gave what later became
known as emergency liquidity assistance to HBOS in the form of a
collateralised emergency facility (ELA).

The Listing Rules required the approval of Lloyds' shareholders for
the acquisition. An extraordinary general meeting was called and a
shareholder circular was prepared explaining the benefits and risks
of the transaction (Circular). The Circular recommended that the
shareholders approve the acquisition. The Circular did not mention
either the Lloyds Repo or the ELA.

The shareholders approved the acquisition on November 19, 2008 and
the acquisition was completed on January 16, 2009 by way of a
scheme of arrangement. HBOS shareholders received 0.605 Lloyds
shares for each HBOS share they held.

The Claim

The judgment summarises the Claimants' case in two parts:

1. 'The Lloyds directors should not have recommended the
    acquisition because it represented a dangerous and
    value-destroying strategy which involved unacceptably
    risky decisions' (Recommendation Case).

2. 'The Lloyds directors should have provided further
    information about Lloyds and about HBOS, in particular
    about a funding crisis faced by HBOS and the related
    vulnerability of HBOS' assets' (Disclosure Case).

It was the Claimants' case that the acquisition would have
collapsed or would never have been approved by the shareholders,
but for the actions described at 1 and 2 above. The acquisition
then caused the Claimants loss because Lloyds had overpaid for the
HBOS shares, causing loss of value to the Lloyds shares they held.

The Judgment

The Recommendation Case

To establish the negligence alleged in the Recommendation Case, the
shareholders would have had to show that no reasonably competent
director would have made the recommendation. It was not sufficient
to merely establish that others might have taken a different view.

Advice from investment banker advisors had contributed to the
recommendation. The judge concluded that the directors were not
expected to replicate the work undertaken by those advisors unless
there was some obvious error of analysis or mistake in its factual
basis. Further, if the board failed to seriously consider advice
given by investment bankers they would almost certainly be
negligent.

The judge made clear that claimants could not rely on the benefit
of hindsight, and restricted himself to examining the state of
affairs at the time the recommendation was made up until the
shareholders' vote.

The judge concluded that 'a reasonably competent director of a
large bank could reasonably have reached the view at the end of
October 2008 that the acquisition was beneficial to Lloyds
shareholders and could reasonably have maintained that view until
the shareholders' vote', therefore the Recommendation Case was
dismissed.

The Disclosure Case

The judgment stated that the duty on directors to disclose
sufficient information was to provide shareholders with a fair,
candid and reasonable account of the circumstances, so the
shareholders could make an informed decision. Directors do not need
to provide all the information upon which their recommendation was
based; they could select the key points to put across to the
shareholders.

The directors were required to assess both positives and negatives,
but did not need to emphasise the weaknesses.

The judgment considered whether the directors' direct duties
extended to announcements of mergers, statements made during
presentations or calls with analysts during the offer period.

It was concluded that directors' duties to disclose sufficient
information would not generally apply to announcements of mergers
made to the market; to put such a duty on directors would undermine
the distinct legal personality of the company. The purpose of these
announcements was to fulfil regulatory obligations, not to inform
the shareholders in relation to the vote.

The directors were not adjudged to owe duties to the shareholders
in this case when they were making statements at presentations to
journalists and analysts. The judge commented that personal
liability for statements made on behalf of the company required
more than merely to be a director and to make a statement. The
judge's decision on this point was based on the particular facts of
this case but included:

   -- the statements were not being made directly to the
      shareholders;

   -- Lloyds made it clear that shareholders should only rely on
      the Circular itself;

   -- the statements could not be taken to be qualifying or adding
      to the Circular;

   -- the Claimants had failed to demonstrate that the statements
      had affected journalists' or analysts' commentary on the
      acquisition; and

   -- the Claimants had not shown that any shareholder's decision
      was influenced by the statements made at that presentation.

Seven aspects of the Circular itself were alleged by the Claimants
to constitute negligent misstatements or to fall short of the
directors' duty to make sufficient disclosure of information
material to the shareholders' decision.

The judge concluded that the directors' duties of sufficient
disclosure had been breached by not noting the existence of the ELA
on the basis that: 'it showed the funding position of HBOS and
presented a funding risk that would have to be absorbed by, and
managed by, the Enlarged Group'.

The judge also concluded that the Lloyds Repo should have been
disclosed to provide a fair, candid and reasonable account of the
proposed acquisition. The directors treated the Lloyds Repo as just
another example of inter-bank lending which Lloyds regularly made
in the ordinary course of business and which normally would not
constitute a material contract for the purposes of the Circular.
However, the directors should have considered the Lloyds Repo
differently on the basis that it was much larger (twice as large as
any before), it was made during the credit crunch when the market
for interbank lending was heavily curtailed, and it was bilateral
between the buyer and the target.

To meet the directors' duties of disclosure the Circular should at
least have disclosed 'that HBOS was to a degree dependant on
bilateral funding'.

In relation to the ELA, the evidence did not show how the decision
not to include the ELA was made, and it was not clear that the
directors had considered the issue; further, they had not informed
their lawyers about the ELA and they had not sought advice on
whether it should be included in the Circular. Likewise with the
decision about disclosing the Lloyds Repo, the directors had
assumed, without asking, that their lawyers had considered the
question of whether it should be disclosed in the course of
drafting the Circular. This led the judge to conclude that there
had been misstatements in the Circular and that the directors had
failed to exercise the requisite level of care in relation to how
the Circular dealt with the ELA and Lloyds Repo.

However, the judge felt that sufficient wording to meet the
directors' duties would nonetheless have been in 'carefully framed
terms' and, had that wording been included, it would not have
caused the transaction to collapse or the majority of the
shareholders to vote against the transaction. Therefore, the
directors' breaches had not caused any loss to the Claimants, and
the Disclosure Case was also dismissed.

Loss

The judge went on to observe that the claimants would have
struggled to establish that they had suffered loss, even if either
claim had been made out. This is because any loss to the value of
shareholders' shares in Lloyds merely reflected the loss suffered
by Lloyds itself for paying an inflated price for HBOS. The loss
had been properly suffered by Lloyds itself and it would have been
for Lloyds to bring any claim it might have in that situation.

This principle is known as 'reflective loss' and it should be noted
that there has historically been some doubt expressed by the
judiciary in Guernsey over whether this principle forms part of
Guernsey law, and it has yet to be tested.

Conclusion

As well as being an interesting part of the history of the 2008
financial crisis, Sharp v Blank clarifies some important issues
relevant for any future actions against directors. Confirmation of
directors' ability to rely on their professional advisors without
replicating their work is to be welcomed. The breaches which were
found to have been committed by the directors came back to key
considerations such as how directors' decisions are recorded and
how they engage with legal advisors.

The case also re-emphasised that the 'bar' to establishing
negligence by directors is a high one – a claimant must establish
that no reasonably competent director would have acted as the
director in question did; it is not sufficient to establish that a
hypothetical, reasonable director would have acted differently.
This is the same test that was confirmed by the Royal Court in
Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) v Conway and
others [38/2017]. [GN]


MAURICE AND PAUL: Moffitt Sues Over Sudden Closing of Museum
------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MOFFITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MAURICE AND PAUL MARCIANO ART FOUNDATION; BEVERLY
PACIFIC, LLC; MAURICE MARCIANO; PAUL MARCIANO; and DOES 1-25, Case
No. 19STCV45800 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' alleged flagrant violations of the
California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

On the evening of November 5, 2019, the Defendants suddenly
abandoned their supposed commitment to serving the public and
announced without any advance notice that they were closing their
Museum on the very next day and laying off the vast majority of
their employees two days later, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants failed to
provide sufficient notice under the California WARN Act before
ceasing operations and conducting mass layoffs, they are liable
under the Act to him and all others similarly situated for up to 60
days of back pay and the value of the cost of any benefits; civil
penalties; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Mr. Moffitt was employed at the Museum as a Visitor Services
Associate from July 2017 to November 7, 2019.

MAF is a non-profit arts foundation located on Wilshire Boulevard
in the Mid-Wilshire neighborhood of Los Angeles, California.
Beverly Pacific is a Beverly Hills based holding company that
invests across multiple asset classes with a particular focus on
real estate and private equity investments. The Individual
Defendants are owners and directors, and officers of both MAF and
Beverly Pacific.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn Rothner, Esq.
          Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rojas, Esq.
          Juhyung Harold Lee, Esq.
          ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE
          510 South Marengo Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 796-7555
          Facsimile: (626) 577-0124
          E-mail: grothner@rsglabor.com
                  enaduris-weissman@rsglabor.com
                  droj as@rsglabor.com
                  hlee@rsglabor.com


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Metzler Seeks to Certify Practice Mngrs. Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MEREDITH METZLER, DIANA BELICH, BLEAN
TAYE, and STEVEN BRUNO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a
BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL, Case No. 8:19-cv-02289-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.),
move for the entry of an Order conditionally certifying a
collective of, and permitting Court-supervised notice to:

     all similarly situated salaried, exempt-classified Practice
     Managers ("PMs") who worked for Defendant Medical Management
     International, Inc., and/or any of its subsidiaries doing
     business as Banfield Pet Hospital (collectively "Banfield"
     or "Defendants"), at any location in the United States from
     June 12, 2015 to November 2016 (the "FLSA Collective"),
     including during the 4 to 8 week PM training period,
     pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
     Sections 201, et seq.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order (a) requiring
the Defendant to produce in an electronic or computer-readable
format the full name, address(es), work and personal telephone
number(s), and email address(es) (including personal e-mail
addresses to the extent they are available) for each member of the
FLSA Collective; (b) authorizing notice, with a form of Consent to
Join to the members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S.
Mail, e-mail and via Web site (returnable via mail, e-mail, fax, or
via website); and (c) authorizing reminder notices halfway through
the 60-day notice period.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Alan Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adriana Paris, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 512-3210
          Facsimile: (813) 512-3221
          E-mail: Adriana.paris@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Stephanie L. Alder-Paindiris, Esq.
          Amanda A. Simpson, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285
          Post Office Box 3389
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 246-3389
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: paindiris@jacksonlewis.com
                  Amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: E-Z Pass Surcharge Illegal, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniellon, writing for New York Post, reports that the
E-Z Pass fee is taking an unneccessary toll on drivers.

A Brooklyn man claims the $6 annual surcharge E-Z Pass adds to
monthly paper statements is against New York law.

Forcing customers to pay for wanting to get their bills in the mail
while providing digital options for free is unfair to those without
internet, the state Legislature decided in 2011, according to
Michael Rosenberg's Nov. 12 class-action lawsuit filed in
Manhattan.

Rosenberg, who is suing the MTA and the Port Authority, claims
thousands of E-Z Pass customers still get mailed statements -- and
are getting gouged for the privilege.

The MTA and the Port Authority offer emailed statements, along with
a bimonthly paper option, for free.  The MTA declined to say how
many customers get monthly statements in the mail and pay the fee.

"This practice has been in place since 2001 for customers who want
monthly paper statements to cover the cost of postage and
processing," spokeswoman Abbey Collins said.

As a rule we don't comment on pending litigation."

The Port Authority also declined comment.

A state source claimed the 2011 law which bars charging customers
for paper statements doesn't apply to the government.

"No person, partnership, corporation, association or other business
entity shall charge a consumer an additional rate or fee . . . when
the consumer chooses to pay by United States mail or receive a
paper billing statement," the law reads.

Rosenberg wants unspecified damages, restitution for himself and
other customers, and a court order barring the annual fee. [GN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Debiase Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Debiase, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-00738-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought to secure
redress for the debt collection practices utilized by the Defendant
in connection with its attempts to collect alleged debts from the
Plaintiff that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Sometime prior to May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a
debt to Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. related to a personal credit
card account in her name. The Debt arose out of a credit card
account which the Plaintiff opened for her personal use. After the
alleged Debt went into default, the Debt was allegedly sold by
Capital One Bank to MCM.

On June 13, 2019, MCM mailed or caused to be mailed a letter to the
Plaintiff. The Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a letter in
an envelope, which stated "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" on it--a
language that is not allowed by the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Ms. Debiase is an individual natural person, who resided in the
City of Montclair, New Jersey.

MCM is a purchaser of defaulted debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Phone:  201-873-7675


MOVING SOLUTIONS: Wins Prelim. OK of $10K Settlement in Arellano
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh grants the Plaintiffs' third motion for
preliminary approval of the $10,000 settlement in the lawsuit
entitled ALBERT ARELLANO, ROBERT GARZA, DANIEL CORONADO, JOSE DON
CORONADO v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, a California Corporation MANAGED
FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company
and CHARTWELL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a new York Corporation
licensed to do business in California, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK
(N.D. Cal.).

The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated
applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California
Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the
California Industrial Welfare Commission's (the "IWC") Wage Orders
with respect to California non-exempt employees, who engaged in
office moving duties with respect to these: (1) Failure to Pay all
Wages Under the FLSA; (2) Failure to Pay All Wages Including
California Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Pay All Wages at the End
of Employment; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (5) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks; (6)
Violation of California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (7)
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

Judge Koh rules that the case is preliminarily certified as a class
action, for purposes of settlement only, on behalf of this class:

    "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees, except
     for administrative office staff, who are employed or have
     been employed by Defendants in the State of California from
     July 17, 2013 through the date the Preliminary Approval
     Order is entered by the Court."

The class does not include Chartwell's employees, who were not
placed to work for Defendant Moving Solutions, Inc. or Defendant
Managed Facilities Solutions, LLC.

The Court approves the Class Notice and the Claim Form.  The Court
also approves the Parties' proposed plan for distributing the Class
Notice and the Claim Form as set forth in the Amended Settlement
Agreement.

The Court grants approval of the PAGA Settlement, including the
settlement and release of the PAGA Claims, as defined in the
Amended Settlement Agreement, and the payment of $10,000 from the
Maximum Settlement Fund to resolve the PAGA Claims ("PAGA
Payment").  The Settlement Administrator shall pay 75% of the PAGA
Payment, or $7,500, to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency no later than ten (10) calendar days after the
Funding Date. Twenty-five percent (25%), or $2,500, shall be
distributed pro rata to all PAGA Releasees, based on the number of
weeks worked by a PAGA Releasee, as a fraction of the total weeks
worked by all PAGA Releasees.  PAGA Releasees will not have the
opportunity to opt out of, or object to the PAGA Payment and
settlement and release of the PAGA Claims. The payment to each PAGA
Releasee shall be made in the form of a check to be mailed to each
of them no later than ten (10) calendar days after the Funding
Date.

Judge Koh appoints, for purposes of this settlement only, James Dal
Bon, Esq., of Law Offices of James Dal Bon and Victoria L.H. Booke,
Esq., of Law Offices of Booke & Ajlouny, LLP, as counsel for the
Settlement Class.  The Court appoints CPT Group as the Settlement
Administrator.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on April 30,
2020.

The Court reserves the right to continue the Final Approval Hearing
without further notice to Settlement Class members.[CC]


MY PILLOW INC: Deutsch Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MY PILLOW, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-00318-SRN-ECW (D.
Minn., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
pay arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant regularly employed the Plaintiff to work full-time,
scheduling the Plaintiff and other similarly situated for 40 hours
per week. However, the Plaintiff was subject to the Defendant's
policy and practice of employing Customer Service Agents to work
pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock time without compensation,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the policy resulted in the Plaintiff
and other employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked,
in violation of the FLSA, MFLSA, and MPWA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Agent from December 2017 until October 2019.

The Defendant most notably sells pillows. The Company also sells
bed sheets, mattress toppers, dog beds, and towels in its retail
stores throughout Minnesota as well as on its Web site,
http://www.mypillow.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: 612-436-1800
          Fax: 612-436-1801
          Email: jshannon@johnsonbecker.com
                 tbecker@johnsonbecker.com


NAVISTAR INC: District Court Gives Final Approval to $135MM Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3rd, 2020, Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval
to the proposed settlement of multidistrict litigation brought on
behalf of plaintiff truck owners and lessees alleging that
Navistar, Inc. and Navistar International, Inc. sold or leased
2011-2014 model year vehicles equipped with certain MaxxForce 11-
or 13-liter diesel engines that had a defective EGR emissions
system. Judge Gottschall concluded that the parties' class action
settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of
plaintiffs' claims.

Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D. Selbin, one of three co-lead
counsel appointed by the Court to represent the plaintiffs, stated,
"I am happy that after so many years, the many small business
trucking companies affected can look forward to receiving
compensation."

The plaintiffs alleged that the trucks' defect caused breakdowns
and engine damage. After nearly four years of discovery and more
than a year of negotiations with the assistance of a mediator, the
parties reached the class-wide $135 million settlement now approved
by the Court. Further details and information on the claims process
can be found on the settlement website at
https://www.maxxforce11and13.com/. All owners and lessees of
affected vehicles must file their claims by May 11, 2020.

Adam J. Levitt of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, who also serves as
co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the litigation, noted, "I am
pleased the court recognized the value of the settlement and result
we obtained for the plaintiffs."

The Settlement Class is defined as: All entities and natural
persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped
with a MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010
emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction
technology, provided that vehicle was purchased or leased in any of
the fifty (50) States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or
any other United States territory or possession.

The Settlement provides that Class Members can choose from three
forms of relief for each Class Vehicle they own(ed) or lease(d): up
to $2,500 cash or up to $10,000 rebate on a new Navistar truck with
mere proof of ownership/lease, or up to $15,000 for documented
costs relating to the alleged defect. The Court noted that if the
settlement had not been reached, the defendants planned to
"vigorously contest" class certification, and that plaintiffs'
chances at trial "would have been uncertain, as evidenced by the
mixed record of prior jury verdicts regarding this same alleged
defect."

The Court also noted that the nationwide settlement would be
superior to an alternative of many individual lawsuits, in part
because class members who owned a small number of affected vehicles
might not have suffered sufficient damages to justify the costs of
expensive, expert-heavy litigation. The Court further wrote that if
the smaller number of members of the proposed Class with higher
potential damages won significant verdicts, they might deprive
remaining Class Members of compensation. "The nationwide Settlement
ensures that all Class Members will have the opportunity to be
compensated," it concluded.

Contact:

         Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Website: www.lieffcabraser.com
         Tel: 415 956-1000
         Email: jselbin@lchb.com
[GN]

NET 1 UEPS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Net 1 UEPS
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:UEPS) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
12, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. UEPS failed to maintain effective
controls on financial reporting. The Company misclassified its
investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited. The Company's financial
statements for fiscal year 2018 overstated its income. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about UEPS, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



NEW JERSEY: Court Seeks More Briefing on Greco's Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian R. Martinotti directs the parties in the lawsuit
titled DAVID M. GRECO v. GURBIR S. GREWAL, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), to submit additional briefing
relating to concerns on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction and Motion for Class Certification.

Defendants New Jersey Attorney General Gubir S. Grewal, Jared M.
Maples, and the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and
Preparedness (collectively, the "State Defendants"), and the Camden
County Prosecutor's Office, Jill S. Mayer, and Nevan Soumails
(collectively, the "County Defendants") opposed the Plaintiff's
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction arguing, inter alia, that the
Plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claims.

On January 15, 2020, the Defendants filed a Letter Request asking
the Court to stay the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.  The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants'
Letter Request on January 16, 2020.

Defendants Gloucester Township Police Department, Bernard John
Dougherty, Nicholas C. Aumendo, Donald B. Gansky, William Daniel
Rapp, and Brian Anthony Turchi (collectively, the "Township
Defendants") filed correspondence joining and adopting the legal
arguments advanced by the State and County Defendants in opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, but declining
to provide any briefing of their own.  The Township Defendants did
not make any filings relating to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

In his Order, Judge Martinotti rules that the parties are to submit
additional briefing, limited to 8 pages each, on the Plaintiff's
standing to bring a facial challenge to the ERPO Act.  The
Plaintiff will submit his initial brief by no later than January
24, 2020.  The Defendants will submit their responsive brief by no
later than January 31, 2020.  The Plaintiff, if he so chooses, will
submit his reply brief by no later than February 3, 2020.

The Court notes that the term "ERPO Act" is well known to the
parties and refers to the New Jersey Extreme Risk Protective Order
Act of 2018, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 2C:58-20, et seq.

To the extent the Plaintiff contends he is bringing an as-applied
challenge to the ERPO Act, Judge Martinotti states that the
Plaintiff shall address standing with respect to the as-applied
challenge, and the parties are permitted an additional 8 pages to
address this argument.

Judge Martinotti grants the Defendants' Letter Request, and rules
that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
administratively terminated without prejudice and may be refiled,
if appropriate, following the Court's decision on the Plaintiff's
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.[CC]


NUTRIBULLET: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NutriBullet, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. NutriBullet, LLC, Capital Brands, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00366 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020).

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

Capital Brands is a business that sells the NutriBullet,
accessories and related health products through direct sales and
through retail stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          Shaked Law Group, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



NUVANCE HEALTH: Wallace Files Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuvance Health. The
case is styled as Leah Wallace, individually on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nuvance Health and
Health Quest Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00545
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020).

The case type of the suit is stated as other.

Nuvance Health is a not-for-profit health system in New York
State's Mid-Hudson Valley region and western Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


ONE PLANET: Hildre Sues Over Unwanted Calls That Invade Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hildre, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ONE PLANET OPS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00149-WQH-BLM
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020), accuses the Defendant of negligently
and illegally contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading his privacy.

At no time did the Plaintiff ever enter into a business
relationship with the Defendant nor did he provide his current
cellular telephone number to the Defendant through any medium, the
Plaintiff contends. He says he had never heard of One Planet or its
subsidiary "HomeGain" prior to receiving the calls from them. The
calls were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system."

Despite his many attempts to ignore and avoid One Planet's calls,
they continued to call him several more times on his cellular
telephone, the Plaintiff avers. Through the Defendant's conduct, he
alleges that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected
by the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of
California.

One Planet, through its various subsidiaries such as "HomeGain,"
attempts to solicit real property marketing services to real estate
agents through the use of electronic communication and telephone
calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia, #1404
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Phone: (858) 299-5879
          Fax: (619) 354-7281
          Email: alex@madarlaw.net


ONSTAR LLC: Court Won't Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KATHRYN M. ROBINSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. ONSTAR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1731 JLS (MSB) (S.D. Cal., Filed July 2,
2015), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order on Jan.
22, 2020:

   1. denying as moot Plaintiff's request to exclude evidence;
      and

   2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification of:

      Nationwide EFTA Class:

      "all persons in the U.S. who (a) activated a free trial of
      OnStar Telematics Service (OTS) during the Compliance
      Period; and (b) whose debit card and/or bank account was
      charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014";

      California EFTA Subclass:

      "all persons in California who (a) activated a free trial
      of OTS during the Compliance Period; and (b) whose debit
      card and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after
      July 2, 2014";

      Nationwide EFTA Subclass:

      "all persons in the U.S. whose debit card and/or bank
      account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014 and
      who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in connection
      with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance Period;
      or (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a
      new vehicle during the Compliance Period, but was not the
      buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to OnStar's
      Customer Service Record for the vehicle";

      California EFTA Sub-subclass:

      "all persons in California whose debit card and/or bank
      account was charged for OTS on or after July 2, 2014 and
      who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in connection
      with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance Period; or
      (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection with a new
      vehicle during the Compliance Period , but was not the
      buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to OnStar's
      Customer Service Record for the vehicle";

      California Class:

      "all persons in California who (a) activated a free trial
      of OTS during the Compliance Period; and (b) whose debit
      card, credit card and/or bank account was charged for OTS
      on or after July 2, 2011"; and

      California Subclass:

      "all persons in California whose debit card, credit card
      and/or bank account was charged for OTS on or after July 2,
      2011 and who either (a) activated an OTS free trial in
      connection with a pre-owned vehicle during the Compliance
      Period; or (b) activated an OTS free trial in connection
      with a new vehicle during the Compliance Period, but was
      not the buyer or lessee of the vehicle according to
      OnStar's Customer Service Record for the vehicle."

The Court says "In this case, it is undisputed that between 70 and
80% of the putative members of the Nationwide EFTA, California
EFTA, and California Classes signed the Acknowledgment Form before
subscribing to OTS, whereas Plaintiff did not. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff is not typical of those putative
members of the Nationwide EFTA Class, the California EFTA Class,
and the California Class, who -- unlike Plaintiff -- may be bound
to arbitrate their claims."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act, the Automatic Renewal Law, the California Business
and Professions Code, and the Unfair Competition Law.

Defendant provides telematics services, including emergency and
safety services and additional services for customers'
convenience.[CC]

PETER THOMAS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MILLER, et al., the
Plaintiffs v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00698-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order Jan. 21, 2020, denying as moot without prejudice
the motion to certify these classes:

   Water Drench Class:

   "all purchasers of the Water Drench Products in California
   since December 28, 2014"; and

   Rose Stem Cell Class:

   "all purchasers of the Rose Stem Cell Products California
   since December 28, 2014."

The Court says the Plaintiffs' false advertising claims will
proceed individually against PTR Labs because they can obtain their
requested liability determination and statewide injunction against
PTR Labs' challenged ads without certifying a class. The
Court adds that the need for a class to distribute restitution will
be addressed if the Plaintiffs succeed individually on the merits.
Class certification does not advance Plaintiffs' claims for
relief.

Kari Miller reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Water Drench product
after hearing an ad proclaiming the hyaluronic acid's exceptional
water retention, believing the product a superior skin hydrator.
Samantha Paulson reportedly purchased a PTR Labs Rose Stem Cell Gel
Mask after seeing words like "bio repair," "rejuvenates," and
"regenerates," concluding the product might help the appearance of
a facial scar. The Plaintiffs contend both ads are false or
misleading and filed suit under, among others, California's Unfair
Competition Law.[CC]

PFIZER INC: Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Zantac, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Maia Anderson, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit was filed Jan. 2, 2020, accusing
Pfizer of hiding the fact that Zantac, which it made from 2000 to
2006, contains a carcinogen, according to the New York Law Journal.


Pfizer never listed N-nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA, a human
carcinogen, as an ingredient in Zantac, the lawsuit alleges.

Since September, numerous recalls have been issued for ranitidine
products, the generic name for Zantac, after the FDA found
unacceptable levels of NDMA in some ranitidine products.

"While defendant represented that its Zantac formulation was safe
for use, Zantac contains dangerously high levels of NDMA, rendering
the product dangerous and unfit for human consumption," the lawsuit
says, according to the New York Law Journal.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dana Viola, a New Jersey
resident who took Zantac from 2000 to 2016 and stopped when several
drugmakers began recalling the drug, according to the New York Law
Journal.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud,
fraudulent concealment and violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act. It seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
as well as restitution and attorney fees, according to the New York
Law Journal.

"Plaintiff is further entitled to statutory damages, damages for
the injury sustained in consuming high levels of acutely-toxic
NDMA, and for damages related to defendant's conduct," the lawsuit
reportedly said.

In a statement to the New York Law Journal, Pfizer said it has not
sold Zantac in 13 years.

"We believe this proposed class-action complaint is without merit
and will respond to it in due course," the company stated. [GN]

PRESSLER FELT: Nieto Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP. The case is styled as Claudia Nieto and Laura Traver,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00410 (S.D., N.Y., Jan. 15,
2020).

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

Pressler, Felt & Warshaw offers a unique debt collection approach
that balances the need to protect the rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
   591 Broadway, Suite 3a
   New York, NY 10012
   Tel: (212) 966-5253
   Fax: (212) 941-8566
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


PRO TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case titled FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. PRO TREE
SERVICE, INC., and JOHN ANDREW BAIO, individually, Case No.
1:18-cv-04503 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff filed with the Court an
unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' stipulation of
settlement.

On July 30, 2019, the Court granted Preliminary Approval to the
Parties' settlement of the Plaintiff's claims on behalf of himself
and a class of thirty-five other similarly situated employees of
Defendant Pro Tree Service, Inc. and John Andrew Baio, for claims
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


PROLOGIS INC: Garfield Agrees to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated January 17, 2020, that the plaintiff
in Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky, et al., CA No.
1:20-CV-27, has agreed to dismiss the class action.

On April 29, 2018, the company entered into a definitive agreement
with DCT Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating
Partnership LP ("DCT OP"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms
and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) DCT will
merge with and into Prologis, with Prologis surviving the merger
(the "Company Merger") and (ii) immediately prior to the effective
time of the Company Merger, DCT OP will merge with and into the OP,
with the OP surviving the merger.

Several lawsuits were filed in federal court related to the
Mergers: Shiva Stein v. Liberty Property Trust Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-03428, an individual action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland; John Thompson v.
Liberty Property Trust, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02230, a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware; and Berlinger v. Liberty Property Trust et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-03562, an individual action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally allege that Prologis and
LPT violated federal securities laws by omitting from the Form S-4,
and/or misrepresenting in the Form S-4, material information,
rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient.

Following the filing of the proxy statement/prospectus, three
additional lawsuits were filed in federal court, in which the
plaintiffs asserted claims generally similar to those asserted in
the prior federal cases: McDonough v. Liberty Property Trust et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-21582, an individual action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
Hagerty v. Liberty Property Trust et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11679,
an individual action filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York; and Yonchuk v. Liberty Property
Trust, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00033, an individual action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

In addition on December 16, 2019, a putative class action captioned
Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky et al., No. 2019-cv-9529-cv
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania.

Defendants removed that action to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on January 6, 2020, and
plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the action without
prejudice.

On January 7, 2020, the same plaintiff filed a second putative
class action captioned Robert Garfield v. William P. Hankowsky, et
al., No. 2020-cv-123-cv, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania. Defendants again removed that action to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, where it was captioned Robert Garfield v. William P.
Hankowsky, et al., CA No. 1:20-CV-27 (the "Garfield Action").

The complaint in the Garfield Action alleges that the LPT board
violated its fiduciary duties to LPT shareholders in connection
with the proposed Mergers, and that Prologis aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.

As a result of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein, the
plaintiff in the Garfield Action has agreed to dismiss his action
with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice as to the
remainder of the purported class.

The defendants believe that the lawsuits described above are
without merit, and that no further disclosure is required under
applicable law.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2TZxylx.

Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with a
focus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.


PROVIDENT CREDIT: Morris Sues in California Over Warranty Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Provident Credit
Union, et al. The case is captioned as TYROME MORRIS, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PROVIDENT CREDIT UNION
AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC19581616 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Dec. 18, 2019).

The case involves warranty related issues. A case management
conference is set on May 20, 2020.

Provident Credit is headquartered in Redwood City and is the 21st
largest credit union in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave, NW, 10th floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          E-mail: admin@kalielpllc.com


R & B CORP: Gregory Files Suit under FDCPA in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & B Corporation of
Virginia. The case is styled as Heather Gregory, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R & B
Corporation of Virginia doing business as: Credit Control
Corporation and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00013-SEB-DML (S.D., Ind., Jan. 15, 2020).

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

R & B Corporation of Virginia is a Credit reporting agency in
Newport News, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passiac St.
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
   Fax: (201) 282-6501


R&B WEALTH: Hobbs Sues Over Unsolicited Texts That Violate TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hobbs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R&B WEALTH STRATEGY NETWORK, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00618 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of negligently contacting the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

In September 2018, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited text
message from the Defendant on his cellular telephone. This text
message placed to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone was placed via
an "automatic telephone dialing system." The Plaintiff was never a
customer of the Defendant's and never provided his cellular
telephone number the Defendant for any reason whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Defendant and their agent never received the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen and resident of the
State of Georgia.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants'
telephone calls violated the TCPA.

The Defendant is a business financing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Certification of Class Sought in Lohrke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Lohrke moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled CLARENCE LOHRKE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00099-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD SOTELO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. RAWLINGS SPORTING
GOODS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.),
moves for certification of this class:

     All consumers who purchased in California, either in a
     retail store, on Rawlings' website, or through a third-party
     website, any model of Rawlings non-wood adult or youth
     baseball bat during the applicable limitations period.

     Excluded from the Class are Defendant, including its
     corporate affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries; Defendant's
     employees, including officers and directors; and the Judge
     to which this case is assigned.

Mr. Sotelo also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint The Sultzer Law Group P.C. and
McLaughlin & Stern LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and Shoop, A
Professional Corporation and C. Mario Jaramillo, PLLC (D/B/A Access
Lawyers Group) as Local Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 6, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Shoop, Esq.
          SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          350 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 330
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 277-1700
          Facsimile: (310) 277-8500
          E-mail: david.shoop@shooplaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
          SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 620-9533
          Facsimile: (310) 620-6330
          E-mail: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 969-7810
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

               - and -

          C. Mario Jaramillo, Esq.
          C. MARIO JARAMILLO, PLLC (D/B/A ACCESS LAWYERS GROUP)
          527 South Lake Avenue, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (877) 360-3383
          Facsimile: (866) 686-5590
          E-mail: cmj@access.law


RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Montes Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Montes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RICMARO HOSPITALITY, INC., a California Corporation;
RLH CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation; RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION,
a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV02651 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2020),
seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid minimum wages, and
unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover damages for illegal meal and
rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged
and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their
duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and
failure to maintain required records.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required, permitted or
otherwise suffered the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to
take less than the 30-minute meal period, or to work through them,
and have failed to otherwise provide the required meal periods to
the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees pursuant to California
Labor Code. The Defendants further violated the California Labor
Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees,
who were not provided with a rest period, in accordance with the
applicable wage order--one additional hour of compensation at each
employee's regular rate of pay for each workday that a rest period
was not provided.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of
California as a non-exempt employee.

The Defendant is a California corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Roy Suh, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                 Daniel@kicklawfirm.com
                 Roy@kicklawfirm.com


ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Wins Final Class Certification in Foster Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree issued a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit entitled ASHLEY FOSTER, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons v. ROBERT BROGDEN'S OLATHE BUICK GMC,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02095-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), granting the
parties' Joint Supplemental Motion for Final Class Certification
Approval.

On December 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the parties'
Settlement Agreement as fair and equitable to all parties.  The
Court preliminarily approved the parties' request for $4,000 in
attorneys' fees for the Plaintiffs' counsel, and a $520 service
award to the Named Plaintiff.  But, the Court says the parties'
motion failed to provide sufficient information for it to make a
final class certification finding.  In its December 10, 2019 Order,
the Court directed the parties to submit the information necessary
for it to make this finding.

The Court already has preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement, the proposed attorneys' fees of $4,000 for the
Plaintiff's counsel, and a $520 service award for the Named
Plaintiff.  The Court now grants the final missing piece: final
collective action certification.  The Court approves the parties'
collective action settlement.

Judge Crabtree directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close
the case, and the parties are directed to submit dismissal papers
within 15 days of the Order.[CC]


SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Moves to Certify Class & Disability Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying their lawsuit
styled MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY,
PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH,
GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK, and DAVID WILSON, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:17-cv-02324-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs want the Court to determine that a class action is
proper as to their causes of action under their constitutional and
statutory claims detailed in the First Amended Complaint, including
the Fourteenth Amendment rights and protections, the Eighth
Amendment prohibitions on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and
Excessive Fines, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
Unreasonable Seizure of Property, California Constitutional
protections, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and related state law, as well as the
Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief in the action.

The main class is defined as:

     All homeless persons who have been cited and/or subject to
     citation and/or arrest or are at risk of citation and/or
     arrest by the City of San Diego pursuant to the VHO and/or
     new VHO, San Diego Muni. Code Sections 86.0137(f); and the
     nighttime RV parking ordinance San Diego Muni. Code Section
     86.0139(a) and/or who have had or are at risk of having a
     vehicle used as shelter towed and impounded by the City.

The disability subclass is defined as:

     All Class members who have a "disability" as defined under
     the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12102.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the main class and disability subclass, and to
appoint the law firms of Fish & Richardson P.C.; National Law
Center on Homelessness and Poverty; Disability Rights California;
Disability Rights Advocates; Dreher Law Firm; and Bonett,
Fairrbourn, Friedman & Balint PC, as class counsel for the main
class and disability subclass.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 18, 2020, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Amon, Esq.
          Madelyn S. McCormick, Esq.
          FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
          12390 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 678-5070
          Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
          E-mail: Amon@fr.com
                  MMcCormick@fr.com

               - and -

          Maria Foscarinis, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
          2000 M Street, NW, Suite 210
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 638-2835
          Facsimile: (202) 628-2737
          E-mail: mfoscarinis@nlchp.org

               - and -

          Ann E. Menasche, Esq.
          Nichole Marie Mendoza, Esq.
          Lili Graham, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          530 B Street, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 814-8524
          Facsimile: (619) 239-7906
          E-mail: Ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org
                  Nichole.Mendoza@disabilityrightsca.org
                  Lili.Graham@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Benjamin Conway, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          350 S. Bixel St., Suite 290
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 213-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
          E-mail: ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, 4th Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Robert Scott Dreher, Esq.
          DREHER LAW FIRM
          350 W. Ash, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-8828
          E-mail: scott@dreherlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Patricia Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIED MAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, #900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4292
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com


SANOFI SA: Faces Dobson Suit Over Unsafe Levels of NDMA in Zantac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Dodson, Tabatha Lafferty, Ronnie Lawrence, Carrie Lupien,
Darlene Maphis, Anthony Miliner, Thelma Myles, Chris Troyan, Connie
McCartney, Sammy Bryson, Johnny Duyn, Ronald Ragan, Joletta Jordan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SANOFI S.A., SANOFI-AVENTIS US LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC,
CHATTEM, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00356-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
Jan. 22, 2020), is brought for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the Defendants' design,
development, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, advertising,
promoting, labeling, distribution and/or sale of the drug Zantac,
which contain unsafe levels of N-nitrosodimethlyamine.

Zantac was developed by Glaxo--now known as GlaxoSmithKline,
post-merger--and approved for prescription use by the FDA in 1983.
The drug belongs to a class of medications called histamine
H2-receptor antagonists (or H2 blockers), which decrease the amount
of acid produced by the stomach and are used to treat gastric
ulcers, heartburn, acid indigestion, sour stomach, and other
gastrointestinal conditions. Zantac was the world's best-selling
drug in 1988 and in the fiscal year that ended in June 1989, Zantac
accounted for over half of Glaxo's sales of $3.98 billion. Even as
late as 2016, Zantac was the 50th most prescribed drug in the
United States with over 15 million prescriptions.

During the time that the Defendants manufactured and sold
over-the-counter Zantac in the United States, the weight of
scientific evidence showed that Zantac exposed users to unsafe
levels of N-nitrosodimethlyamine, commonly known as NDMA. Neither
Sanofi nor Boehringer disclosed this risk to consumers on the
drug's label—or through any other means--nor did the Defendants
report these risks to the FDA, despite being on notice of the
risk.

N-nitrosodimethlyamine, commonly known as NDMA, is an odorless,
yellow liquid. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "NDMA is a semivolatile chemical that forms in both
industrial and natural processes." NDMA can be unintentionally
produced in, and released from, industrial sources through chemical
reactions involving other chemicals called alkylamines. NDMA is
unequivocally a harmful carcinogen. It has been known to be a
byproduct of making rocket fuel in the early 1900s. Today it is
used to induce tumors in animals for scientific testing purposes.

The Plaintiffs took Zantac consistently as an anti-acid. The
Plaintiffs represent individuals who have yet to be diagnosed with
cancer as a result of taking Zantac, and seek medical monitoring
and other related remedies in order to manage the consequences of
their exposure.

The Defendants concealed the Zantac–NDMA link from consumers in
part by not reporting it to the FDA, which relies on drug
manufacturers (or others, such as those who submit citizen
petitions) to bring new information about an approved drug like
Zantac to the agency's attention, the Plaintiffs allege. The
Plaintiffs add that the Defendants ignored these regulations and,
disregarding the scientific evidence available to them, did not
report to the FDA significant new information affecting the safety
or labeling of Zantac.

Sanofi S.A. is a French multinational pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Paris, France. The Defendants collectively
manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed Zantac. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam William Krause, Esq.
          KRAUSE AND KINSMAN, LLC
          4717 Grand Ave., Suite 250
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-760-2700
          Facsimile: 816-760-2800
          Email: adam@krauseandkinsman.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          BABIN LAW, LLC
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          Email: steven.babin@babinlaws.com


SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Class Certification Sought in Lewis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SENTRY ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00178-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the parties jointly move the
Court to conditionally certify the case as a class action and
approve their collective action notice.

The Plaintiff filed his initial Motion for Class Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice and Memorandum in Support on June 5, 2019.
He subsequently filed an Amended Motion on June 10, 2019.  The
Defendant filed its Response in Opposition on June 26, 2019, to
which the Plaintiff issued a Reply in Support of his Amended Motion
on July 10, 2019.

On January 6, 2020, the Court issued an Order denying the
Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment submitted at the
onset of the lawsuit.  In light of the denial, counsel for the
Plaintiff and the Defendant conferred on January 8, 2020, to take
part in a Rule 26(f) Planning Conference.

During the conference, the Parties discussed conditional
certification of the action and the terms of a collective action
notice.  The Parties came to an agreement that the lawsuit should
proceed as a conditional collective action and have prepared a
notice for the Court's approval.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nick A. Nykulak, Esq.
          ROSS, BRITTAIN & SCHONBERG CO., L.P.A
          6480 Rockside Woods Blvd. South, Suite 350
          Cleveland, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 447-1551
          E-mail: nnykulak@rbslaw.com

               - and -

          Brent Wilson, Esq.
          Douglas H. Duerr, Esq.
          ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP
          800 International Tower
          229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 659-6700
          Facsimile: (404) 222-9718
          E-mail: bwilson@elarbeethompson.com
                  duerr@elarbeethompson.com


SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond.

On April 8, 2019, Splond filed a class action lawsuit, naming
ShiftPixy, Inc. and its client as defendants, claiming that he was
scheduled to work for more than eight hours during 24-hour periods
without being paid overtime, to which he was entitled.  

In addition, claimant is seeking waiting time penalties for the
delay in payment.

This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the
Company, if any, cannot be estimated.  No liability has been
recorded for this matter at this time.  

ShiftPixy said, "In the event of an unfavorable outcome the
Company's client is contractually obligated to indemnify the
Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be
covered under the Company's employment practices liability
insurance.

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

ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Infill and Pollution in Lake Cooper
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Cooper Maintenance Fund, Inc. and Elliott Locklear, John Roe,
and Jane Roe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. South Carolina Department of Transportation; County of
Charleston; Coleman-Snow Consultants d/b/a Infrastructure
Consulting and Engineering; HDR Engineering, Inc.; HDR Construction
Control Corporation; HDR Infrastructure, Inc.; Contech Construction
Products, Inc.; Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC, a QUICKCRETE
Company; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control; Banks Construction Company; Davis & Floyd, Inc.; and John
Doe 1-25, Case No. 2020-CP-10 (S.C. Com. Pleas., Charleston Cty.,
Jan. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendants' acts and omissions that
result in the Plaintiffs being harmed by the improper flow of storm
water through Lake Cooper because the Defendants' drainage
improvements project thwarts the Lake's ability to function.

Lake Cooper is suffering from infill and pollution that have
resulted from the Defendants' failures to adequately engineer,
design, permit, construct, and maintain changes in the course and
volume of water affecting Lake Cooper that have impeded, and will
continue to impede, the Lake's function and aesthetics, the
Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs argue that due to the Defendants'
acts and omissions related to these "drainage improvements," Lake
Cooper's aquatic ecosystem and properties surrounding the Lake have
been and are being harmed.

The Defendants had a duty to design, permit, construct, repair, and
maintain the Project in a workmanlike manner, with suitable
materials, and in compliance with all industry standards,
applicable statutes, and codes, and a duty to warn of known issues,
which they have failed to do, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lake Cooper Maintenance Fund, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of South
Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Transportation is a government agency
and authorized regulatory department of the State of South
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin O. Lucey, Esq.
          Joshua F. Evans, Esq.
          Stephanie D. Drawdy, Esq.
          JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A.
          P.O. Box 806
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 849-8400
          Fax: (843) 849-8406
          Email: jlucey@lucey-law.com
                 jevans@lucey-law.com
                 sdrawdy@lucey-law.com


STARTEK USA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Epley Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Epley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STARTEK USA, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-06006-RTD (W.D.
Ark., Jan. 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours
that the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty 40 per workweek.

The Defendant also frequently and illegally deducted portions of
Plaintiff's paycheck to pay for gift cards and other amenities for
other employees, which the Defendant failed to reimburse, according
to the complaint. As a direct result of the Defendant's policies,
even though the Plaintiff and other customer service agents worked
more than 40 hours in many weeks that they worked for the Defendant
during time period relevant to this Complaint, they were not
compensated for all of their overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's call center in Hot Springs
as a customer service agent.

The Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas,
providing its clients with customer contact management services and
operating, among other places, a customer service call center
located in Hot Springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in Fondren Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Fondren and Cheryl Kobleski move the Court to certify the
class described in their complaint captioned TROY FONDREN and
CHERYL KOBLESKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00100
(E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs assert that they are obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

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

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com


STATE COLLECTION: Proceedings on Class Certification Bid Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY FONDREN, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00100-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E.
Duffin entered an order on Jan. 22, 2020, granting Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification.

On January 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint .
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

By this motion, the plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

State Collection provides account recovery services. The company
offers services to healthcare, financial, utilities, commercial and
retail, and government sectors.[CC]


STRANGE HONEY: Raw Honey Products Not 100% Pure, Greer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GREER and JAMES REIMER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC, a domestic
limited liability company, GARY STRANGE and FONDA STRANGE, owners
and members, Case No. 3:19-cv-00518-PLR-DCP (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 17,
2019), is a consumer class action arising from Strange Honey's
false and deceptive marketing and sale of certain honey products.

Honey is a natural product produced by honeybees that is composed
of water, various sugars, and a variety of desirable compounds,
including antioxidants as well as minerals, proteins, enzymes,
amino acids, and organic acids.

According to the complaint, Strange Honey markets and sells its
honey as being 100% raw honey from Tennessee. In fact, the honey
that Strange Honey sells is not from Tennessee, is not raw, and is
not 100% honey. The complaint adds that Strange Honey is not raw
because it heats its products in order to make it easier to package
and bottle.

When it heats or cooks its honey, Strange Honey destroys the
enzymes found in raw honey and for which raw honey is prized, the
Plaintiffs contend. They add that Strange Honey purchases honey
from a variety of sources outside Tennessee, including Vietnam, and
that Strange Honey or one of its suppliers adds syrup to the honey
as syrup is much cheaper than honey.

Strange Honey's products are not as advertised and Plaintiffs bring
this action both to recover the amounts they and the Class overpaid
for Strange Honey's products and for an injunction requiring
Strange Honey to stop cooking its honey, to truthfully disclose the
source of its honey and to stop adding syrup to its honey
products.

Strange Honey operates a honey farm located in Del Rio, Tennessee.
The Individual Defendants are owners and officers of the company
also a member of the LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Al Holifield, Esq.
          HOLIFIELD JANICH & FERRERA, PLLC
          11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 566-0115
          E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq.
          KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES
          1056 Gage St., No. 200
          Winnetka, IL 60093
          Telephone: (847) 446-2430
          E-mail: heitzinger.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 371-4385
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com


SYMANTEC CORP: SEB Moves to Certify Class of Common Stock Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYMANTEC
CORPORATION and GREGORY S. CLARK, Case No. 3:18-cv-02902-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff SEB moves the Court for an
entry of an order:

     (i) certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a Class of all persons
         or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
         publicly-traded common stock of Defendant Symantec
         Corporation ("Symantec" or the "Corporation") during the
         period from May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018, inclusive,
         and who were damaged thereby;

    (ii) appointing SEB as Class Representative; and

   (iii) appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel Bernstein
         Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") as Class
         Counsel.

As detailed in the Complaint, SEB contends that the Defendants'
scheme was straightforward--they misstated Symantec's financial
results by artificially inflating revenues and misclassifying
expenses.  The Defendants' misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the price of Symantec's stock, and caused the
stock price to plummet when the truth was eventually revealed.
Indeed, during the Class Period, Symantec's stock lost over $7
billion in shareholder value due to the Defendants' fraud. SEB
asserts that investors suffered enormous damages.  Based on the
Defendants' misconduct, SEB asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants Symantec and Symantec's
former Chief Executive Officer Gregory S. Clark.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 9, 2020, at 8:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

Plaintiff SEB Investment Management AB is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3472
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
          Julia K. Tebor, Esq.
          R. Ryan Dykhouse, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
                  jeroen@blbglaw.com
                  jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com
                  julia.tebor@blbglaw.com
                  ryan.dykhouse@blbglaw.com


SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPHEN POSSI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-01599 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 30, 2019), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of:

      "all persons who are or have been employed as hourly
      employees by Synergy at any time since October 30, 2016."

   2. directing Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's order,
      to identify and produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the first
      name, last name, last known street address, city, state,
      zip code, phone number (to the extent maintained), and
      dates of employment of all persons who have been employed
      by Defendant who fit the definition of the class; and

   3. permitting the Plaintiff to send the agreed-upon Notice of
      Right to Join Lawsuit to all individuals on the Class List
      via regular United States Mail, and that consent forms
      postmarked within 30 days after the first mailing of the
      Notice will be considered timely.

The Defendant is an hard drive supplier.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Sean M. Scullen, Esq.
          Steven M. Kruzel, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426
          Telephone: (414) 277-5000
          Facsimile: (414) 271-3552
          E-mail: sean.scullen@quarles.com
                  steven.kruzel@quarles.com

TOP SURGEONS: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Faitro Counsel Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN FAITRO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. TOP
SURGEONS, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B294666
(Cal. App.), Judge Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. of the Court of Appeals
of California for the Second District, Division Four, affirmed the
trial court's order denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify
class counsel and disgorge individual settlement payments.

Since the inception of the action in February 2011, class counsel
Alexander Robertson and John Walker have represented the putative
Plaintiffs in the class action for false advertising and unfair
competition arising from the Defendants' advertising campaign for
"lap band" weight loss surgery.  The class counsel concurrently
represented the Individual Plaintiffs, several of whom are named
class representatives, in eight individual cases against defendants
alleging wrongful death and medical malpractice, among other
claims.

In March 2013, after insisting on a global settlement of the
instant class action and all eight individual cases, the Defendants
paid $2,173,001 to settle the eight individual cases.  The payment
of the class settlement was delayed pending preliminary approval by
the trial court, which the parties jointly sought for
two-and-one-half years and obtained in October 2015.  Over this
period, the Defendants made multiple representations to the trial
court and class counsel that a $12 million litigation fund was set
aside to fund settlement of all the individual cases and the class
action.

In 2018, five years after having agreed to (indeed insisted on) the
global settlement and having supported the class counsel's requests
for preliminary approval of the class settlement, the Defendants
pivoted and twice moved to disqualify the class counsel and
disgorge the individual settlement payments.  The Defendants
asserted that disqualification of the class counsel was required
because the class counsel (1) had conflicts of interest and had
failed to disclose their adverse representation to the putative
class members seven years earlier, and (2) depleted a designated
settlement fund which, it was finally revealed, never actually
existed.  The trial found that the Defendants failed to establish a
basis for disqualification and denied both motions.

Relying principally on Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v.
Newton, the Defendants assert that the trial court committed a
clear abuse of discretion by not disqualifying the Class Counsel
and disgorging prior settlements, because all of the Class
Counsel's clients in the nine cases against them settled
simultaneously in 2013, were vying for the same $12 million
litigation fund.

Judge Willhite concludes that the trial court committed no error.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
there was no conflict of interest in the class counsel's
representation of the Plaintiffs in both the individual and the
class actions.  

First, as Oxman conceded and notwithstanding the Defendants'
contrary representations, the Defendants never created a
"settlement fund."  The money in the Shepard Mullin "litigation
fund" was not deposited for the purpose of settling the class
action.   Moreover, the trial court's review of Oxman's accounting
demonstrated that the Defendants paid the settlements for the eight
individual cases two-and-one-half years before the October 2015
order granting preliminary approval.  In sum, the money paid to
settle the individual actions in 2013 did not deplete a nonexistent
"settlement fund.

There is also no indication that, at any point prior to Oxman's
January 2017 deposition, the class counsel was or should have been
aware that the Defendants had not created and sequestered the
litigation settlement fund, let alone that the Defendants
responsible for paying that settlement lacked ownership or control
of the funds in the Sheppard Mullin account.  Rather, the trial
court and the class counsel relied on multiple representations by
the Defendants' counsel that sufficient funds were set aside to pay
a class settlement.  Only after years of intensive litigation and
discovery disputes did the class counsel or the court learn those
representations were false: no settlement funds for this action
actually had been set aside. These facts are quite different from
the circumstances in Bridgepoint where the attorney's former and
subsequent clients competed against one another for the same,
existing $2 million pool.

For these reasons, Judge Willhite affirmed the judgment.  The
Respondents will recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4OwhED from Leagle.com.

Top Surgeons, Inc., et al. are represented by Dmitriy Aristov,
Esq. -- dima@aristovlaw.com -- ARISTOV LAW -- Mark Jubelt, Esq. --
mjubelt@msn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF MARK JUBELT.

John Faitro, et al. are represented by John M. Walker, Esq. --
fugue@well.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. WALKER -- Alexander
Robertson, IV, Esq. -- arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com -- ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES.


TOTAL CARD: Faces Beltre Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BELTRE A/K/A JESSICA PAULINO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TOTAL CARD, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:19-cv-21485-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Dec. 17, 2019), is a
state-wide class action filed on behalf of New Jersey consumers,
who were sent by the Defendant debt collection letters and/or
notices, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

At some time prior to November 3, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly
incurred a financial obligation on a TEMPOE, LLC account. The
Defendants caused to be delivered to the Plaintiff a letter dated
November 3, 2019, which was addressed to her and sought a balance
of $2,108.00, says the complaint.

The November 3, 2019 letter falsely implied that TEMPOE obligation
would continue to be reported to one or more of the credit
reporting agencies beyond the 7 year reporting period, unless a
payment was made, the Plaintiff asserts. Total Card knew or should
have known that its actions violated the FDCPA, the Plaintiff
contends.

Total Card is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
          280 Prospect Ave., 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (877) 827-3395
          Cell Phone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


TRIFECTA INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Trifecta, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trifecta, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00323 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020).

Trifecta offers organic, fully cooked meal options at an affordable
price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170-1830
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


URBAN AIR PARK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elijah Lane, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. URBAN AIR PARK NORTH, LLC, and UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00086 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees routinely worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek, according to the complaint. The
Defendants had a practice of not paying Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees one and one-half times their regular rate for
any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather than
pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one and one-half
times their regular rate for their hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, the Defendants simply paid its hourly employees
their regular rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' indoor amusement center in
San Antonio.

UATP is a franchisor of indoor amusement parks throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VCI CONSTRUCTION: Olivas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Juan Olivas and Tanner Young, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. VCI CONSTRUCTION, LLC
an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS1800174, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 23, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00171-RGK-KK to
the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges these causes of action: (1) Unpaid Overtime;
(2)  Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums;
(4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6)
Non-Compliant Wage Statements; and (7) Violation of California
Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com

              - and -

          Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.442.4810
          Facsimile: 415.442.4870
          Email: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com


VOCUS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $35 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Brendon Foye, writing for CRN, reports that Vocus has coughed up
$35 million to settle a nagging class action from disgruntled
shareholders over the company's earnings collapse in 2017.

The saga stemmed from a profit downgrade in May 2017, when the
telco slashed its earning guidance from an anticipated $430 – 450
million in EBITDA down to $357 – 365 million. Vocus said at the
time that the downgrade was necessary due to a handful of factors
such as lower-than-anticipated billings, higher service delivery
headcount and higher expenses in group services.

In response, Slater & Gordon commenced class action proceedings in
the Federal Court of Australia in April 2019, claiming there was a
reasonable basis to believe that Vocus engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct.

Vocus will fork out $3.5 million to the settlement, while the
remaining balance is fully insured. The company pointed out that it
made no admission of liability.

"Vocus' board determined that the agreement to settle the class
action was a commercial decision made in the best interests of the
company and its shareholders," the company said in a statement
issued on December 23, 2019.

Vocus's shares were trading at $2.86 at the time of writing, down
10.3 percent compared to the same date 12 months prior. [GN]


VOLVO CARS: El Aker Sues Over Missing Feature in XC90 R-Design
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diyaeldeen El Aker, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a
California Class v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; DOES 1
through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of current
and former owners and lessees of vehicles purchased in California
from 2015 to 2019 distributed by the Defendants and having the
model designation XC90 R-Design.

The action arises from Volvo's alleged failure to provide a feature
in its vehicles despite the feature being listed on the Monroney
labels affixed to the vehicles at the time of sale. The 2014 to
2019 XC90 R Design vehicles were sold at a premium of several
thousand dollars due to special features, including the missing
feature at issue here. The missing feature is described by Volvo as
"Power-Side Support Front Seats."

The Plaintiff contends that Volvo is aware of the omissions and
concealments; yet Volvo has failed to repurchase vehicles
deceptively advertised as having this feature or to, otherwise,
take corrective measures.

Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known of the omissions and
concealments at purchase or lease, they would have not bought or
leased the Class Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and
the Class Members have suffered injury-in-fact, have incurred
damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Volvo's conduct.

The Plaintiff is a California resident. On May 26, 2018, he leased
from TKAT, Inc., d/b/a Volvo of Santa Monica, a new 2018 Volvo XC90
R-Design vehicle bearing VIN YV4A22PM9J1367832.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company headquartered in New Jersey, is the distributor of
Volvo-branded passenger vehicles in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq.
          David Alan Cooper, Esq.
          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, PC
          1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2140
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 282-2000
          Fax: (213) 282-3000
          Email: robertm@mobasserilaw.com
                 DCooper@MobasseriLaw.com
                 BRohr@MobasseriLaw.com


W.M. FARES: Redacted Crane Report Cause for Concern, Lawyer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anjuli Patil, writing for CBC News, reports that the law firm
representing one of the businesses in a proposed class-action
lawsuit stemming from a crane collapse in Halifax last fall has
concerns over a heavily redacted engineer's report.

"Fundamentally, this is about public safety," said Kate Boyle, Esq.
-- kboyle@wagners.co -- a lawyer with Wagners Law Firm.

Wagners is representing Thornblooms, one of the businesses affected
by the crane collapse.

"Right now, there are approximately two dozen cranes erected all
over Halifax and the public wants to know why this happened and if
this can be prevented in the future," Boyle said.

On January 3, Global News released an engineer's report obtained
under access-to-information legislation stating the crane that
toppled in downtown Halifax during post-tropical storm Dorian
malfunctioned months prior to the incident.

Report confirmed rumour
Boyle said prior to the report the law firm had only heard rumours
about a past issue with the crane. She said the engineer's report
confirmed it.

Some of the data blacked out in the report included information on
wind speed, the history of the crane and the history of
inspections.

The redactions in the report, Boyle noted, relate to law
enforcement. She said that suggests there are likely other
investigations into the cause of the collapse.

An official cause for the collapse has yet to be made public.

The defendants in the proposed class action suit include W.M. Fares
Group, the developer of the building where the crane toppled, Lead
Structural Formwork Ltd., and the Manitowoc Company, Inc.

Lead Structural Formwork of Moncton owns the crane and Manitowoc,
based in the U.S., is the crane's manufacturer.

Boyle said all the parties have been served. She said a date has
been set in February to meet with a judge and the defendants'
counsel.

Effect on case unclear

Gavin Giles, Esq. the McInnes Cooper lawyer representing W.M. Fares
Group, said January 4 he had been unaware of the report prior to
media coverage.

He said there isn't enough information in the redacted version of
the report to make a full assessment of how those details might
affect a class-action lawsuit, but he suspects it will have little
impact..

"It deals with something which happened in May, prior to the crane
being modified and a substantial component removed and a new top
piece component installed," Giles said.

"It also makes the point, accurately as I've indicated, that WM
Fares didn't own the crane, it didn't operate the crane." [GN]

WAWA INC: Faces Hans-Arroyo Suit over Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
TABITHA HANS-ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06127 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 26, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant for security breach of Wawa's payment processing servers
and payment card environment that was publicly disclosed on
December 19, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Wawa's failure to
implement adequate data security measures to protect its customers'
sensitive Card Information directly and proximately caused injuries
to the Plaintiff and class members.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Wawa's inadequate data
security measures and cavalier approach to data security. Despite
the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of security breaches
involving payment card networks and systems, and even though these
types of data breaches were and are occurring frequently throughout
the restaurant and retail industries, Wawa failed to ensure that it
maintained adequate data security measures to protect customer Card
Information from criminals.

As a direct and proximate result of Wawa's conduct and data
security failures, a massive amount of customer information was
stolen from Wawa and exposed to criminals. While Wawa has not
confirmed the exact number of cards that were compromised, there
are more than 850 locations on the East Coast which were all
potentially affected. Victims of the Data Breach have had their
sensitive Card Information compromised, had their privacy rights
violated, been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identify
theft, lost control over their personal and financial information,
and otherwise have been injured.

Wawa, Inc. operates a chain of convenience stores. The Company
retails food, beverages, gasoline, and convenience products. Wawa
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  seh@chimicles.com
                  mbd@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley King, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com


WELLS FARGO: Dore Sues Over Error in Mortgage Loan Modification
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY DORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-01601-DSC
(W.D. Pa., Dec. 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant miscalculated
the Plaintiff's and Class members' net present values resulting in
failure to offer a mortgage loan modification.

Despite the Defendant's knowledge of the incorrect Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP) modification calculations and the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) consent decree, the Defendant did
not attempt to fix its software, says the complaint. The Defendant,
rather than face further scrutiny from the OCC, concealed the
software error and continued to erroneously deny hundreds of
homeowners HAMP modifications.

The HAMP was created by Congress as part of the Troubled Asset
Relief Program in response to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis.
HAMP was meant to help homeowners facing financial hardship by
modifying the terms of the mortgage and providing subsidies to
lower their mortgage payments to 31% of their monthly gross income.
A homeowner can apply or be considered for a HAMP mortgage
modification through their mortgage lender. It has certain
requirements, including documented financial hardship and an
ability to make monthly mortgage payments after a modification.

The Plaintiff acquired her home in 2008 and subsequently entered
into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant subject to a lien on
the home of approximately $50,000. Her mortgage payments were
approximately $500 a month.

As a HAMP servicer, the Defendant was required to consider all
eligible mortgage loans for a HAMP modification. HAMP uses a net
present value (NPV) model to evaluate whether it is beneficial to
modify a mortgage under the program (an "NPV positive" result), or
whether it would be better to maintain the current terms of the
mortgage (an "NPV negative" result).

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant concealed from her and
Class members that the NPV calculations were incorrect and that
they were eligible for a mortgage loan modification. Instead,
Defendant informed them that they were ineligible for a mortgage
loan modification.

As a result of the Defendant's fraudulent concealment, the
Plaintiff and Class members were unable to modify their mortgage
loans, which caused them to experience damages in the form of
financial hardship, loss of equity in their homes, damaged credit,
loss of time and money, and foreclosure, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Plaintiff asserts that she and Class members are entitled to
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of Defendant's unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and
unconscionable practices, including actual, statutory, punitive,
and/or trebled damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs
to the extent permitted by law.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national bank with a main office in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is wholly owned
by Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware corporation and bank holding
company with a principal place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  nelia@lfsblaw.com


WILLIAM LYON: Stockholders Drop Suits over Taylor Morrison Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Lyon Homes said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 23, 2020, that the
plaintiffs in the class action suits related to the company's
merger with Taylor Morrison Home Corporation have agreed to dismiss
their suits.

On January 23, 2020, William Lyon Homes, a Delaware corporation,
reached an agreement to resolve two purported stockholder class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of Company stockholders in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
and one purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of Company stockholders in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. Each of these lawsuits was filed following
the announcement of the proposed combination of the Company and
Taylor Morrison.

The lawsuits, captioned Stein v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case
No. 8:19-cv-02380 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 10, 2019), Kent v. William
Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02276 (D. Del. filed Dec. 13,
2019), and McBride v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No.
8:20-cv-00056 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 10, 2020), challenge the
adequacy of the disclosure contained in the Company's Definitive
Proxy Statement/Prospectus, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Merger on December 26, 2019.

In order to resolve the Actions, the Company has agreed to make the
following amended and supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental
Disclosures") to the Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The
plaintiffs in each of the Actions have agreed that, following the
filing of the Current Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss the
Actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs and without prejudice to all other members of the
putative class.

The resolution of the Actions will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of the Company's or Taylor Morrison's stockholders,
which are each scheduled to be held on January 30, 2020, or the
amount of the consideration to be paid to the Company's
stockholders in connection with the Merger.

The resolution of the Actions is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any
defendant in any such Action.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/30Yivdf.

William Lyon Homes provides construction services. The Company
designs and constructs residential properties. William Lyon Homes
serves customers throughout the United States. The company is based
in Newport Beach, California.


WOOD GROUP: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Garza Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Garza, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WOOD GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00253
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly paying overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly disguised wage
payments to the Plaintiff as reimbursed expenses. As a result, the
improperly classified expense payments were excluded from the
regular rate of pay of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff was not
paid overtime at the rate of time and one half his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welder from September
2018 to January 2019.

The Defendant is an engineering company that provides services to
the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Appeal Ongoing in New Jersey Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
New Jersey class action suit filed an appeal with United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a
class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful
scheme to promote its stock.  

The Company has been served with the Class Action Complaint. The
Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on that
analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and otherwise
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

Also during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned
that two derivative complaints on behalf of the Company have been
filed against the Company's Directors and Chief Executive Officer,
President, Corporate Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and
nominally against the Company, in Nevada state and federal court.


The state court action subsequently was removed to federal court.


The Derivative Complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company's
officers and directors directed the Company to undertake an
unlawful scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served
with the Derivative Complaints.  

The Company has analyzed them and, based on its analysis, has
concluded that the Derivative Complaints are legally deficient and
otherwise without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint.
Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the
Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the
District of New Jersey.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on September 18, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.  

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order
on February 7, 2019.  On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider was denied.

On June 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New
Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Paymobile Inc.


[*] CCPA Class Action Leaves Consumers with Fewer Rights
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Raschby, writing for Security Boulevard, reports that one of
the most significant aspects of the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA) is the fact that consumers in California now have the right
to sue companies for their losses resulting from data breaches.
While this seems significant, in reality, it's not much of a change
from existing law, and in fact, may ultimately leave consumers with
fewer rights.

The statute, California Civil Code Section 1798.150 (a)(1)
provides:

(a) (1) Any consumer whose . . . personal information . . . is
subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or
disclosure as a result of the business's violation of the duty to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures . . . may
institute a civil action [t]o recover damages in an amount not less
than one hundred dollars ($100) and not greater than seven hundred
and fifty ($750) per consumer per incident or actual damages,
whichever is greater [or] Injunctive or declaratory relief.

The CCPA is overall a fairly comprehensive data privacy statute,
which requires companies that collect personal information about
California residents to provide both opt-in and opt-out
requirements for the use, disclosure and sale of that information;
to provide certain rights of access to the data collected and to
have the data collected to be deleted; and to be able to track how
the data was accessed and used.

However, for violations of the privacy requirements of CCPA,
consumers cannot sue; in lawyer terms, the statute does not create
a "private right of action" for violation of privacy. A consumer
can complain to the California Attorney General, who can decide
whether to sue, but they cannot (at least under the statute) sue
for breach of privacy, even if the violation of privacy is knowing
and deliberate.

The CCPA also extends the obligation of companies that collect
personal information to use reasonable security to protect that
data from a data breach. If the company fails to implement or
maintain such security, and this results in a data breach, then the
consumer can sue -- for either $750 or actual damages (per
incident), whichever is higher.

Neat.

But not really. First, the idea that if a company deliberately
exposes your personal information you can't receive damages but if
the company is the victim of a crime in which some criminal
"steals" the data you can receive damages frankly rewards the wrong
kind of behavior. So if you are merely negligent and someone steals
personal data you can be sued, but if you are deliberate you can't
-- at least not in a private right of action.

OK, fine. But it's good that you can recover damages in a lawsuit
at least, right? Not so fast, Kemosabe. Ask yourself whether, if
you learned that your personal data was breached, you would be
willing to file a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of
Los Angeles in the hope that you might win the whopping amount of
$750? I think not.

The true power of the private right of action, both as a deterrent
to negligent behavior and as a method of (slightly) compensating
those damages, is in the class action lawsuit. When there's a data
breach, lawyers swoop in and sue on behalf of all of the persons
impacted. Since the CCPA provides for statutory damages, the class
action lawyers are spared having to prove actual damages by each
individual plaintiff. A breach with 100,000 subjects? Let's see . .
. my math is not great, but 100,000 times $100 is $10 million,
minimum.

No Lack of Class (Action)

So the CCPA seems to encourage the filing of class action lawsuits
for violation of security provisions. However, companies trying to
comply with CCPA inevitably will be rewriting their privacy
policies to add CCPA language. While they are at it, their
high-priced privacy lawyers are likely adding to the privacy
policies a mandatory arbitration policy with a class action
waiver.

You see, a privacy policy, such as terms of service, can be a
contract. If executed correctly, it can bind the consumer. What
many companies are doing is requiring consumers who suffer damages
or injuries as a result of the misbehavior of the company to forgo
their god-given right to haul the offender into court, and instead
to arbitrate their claims. While arbitration has some advantages to
both consumers and companies (it's cheaper and faster) when it
comes to consumer complaints, companies tend to prefer arbitration
because there are fewer obligations of discovery (forcing the
company to provide evidence), adverse decisions are not
"precedential" (they don't bind other arbitrators) and, most
importantly, companies force consumers to waive the right to pursue
a class action. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal law
supersedes state law with respect to the enforceability of these
mandatory arbitration provisions and that an arbitration agreement
can force consumers to waive their ability to pursue class action
lawsuits.

So if you have a privacy policy with a class action arbitration
waiver and you suffer a data breach, consumers can each sue for
$100. Well, technically, they can each demand an arbitration for
$100. Individually. Not as a class -- if the privacy policy and
arbitration agreement are written well and executed properly. If
not, you're in trouble.

Huuuge Mistake

Recently, online gaming app developer Huuge attempted to get
consumers to agree to both an arbitration agreement and a class
action waiver through an online app. If you looked at the app
description and clicked "more," you would see the notice, "Read our
terms of use." This would include a URL the consumer could type
into a browser.  In the mobile app, the three-dot "kebab" in the
upper right corner led to a drop-down menu that included an item,
"Terms and Conditions" which then included the language that
purported to be the arbitration agreement and waiver of class
action. While courts have frequently enforced such "browsewrap"
agreements, the federal appeals court in the Huuge case noted that
users were not required to click "I agree" to assent to the waiver
and had no actual or constructive notice that the site even had
terms of use or a waiver of the right to sue. The court noted:
"Only curiosity or dumb luck might bring a user to discover the
Terms." This, the court found, was not sufficient to compel a
waiver of the right to file a class action. So the better approach
is to make the user actually read the waiver and actually click an
"I agree" button, waiving their rights. (Maybe with language from
Dante's Divine Comedy, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here?")

So the Huuge court found that merely having some terms of service
was not enough to mandate assent, but that a click "I agree" button
would probably work.

Big deal. Huuge?

Nope. Not at all. 'Cause, let's face it: Consumers don't read
privacy policies. Consumers don't read arbitration agreements.
Consumers don't read class action waivers. They don't read them
partly because they are boring. Partly because they are unreadable.
Partly because they are not subject to negotiation. But mostly, in
the words of Ellen Barkin in "Diner,"  "It's too complicated
Schreevie . . .I just want to hear music, that's all." So consumers
will click anything you put in front of them, 'cause "it's too
complicated, Shreevie . . ."

So CCPA provides for certain rights that will quickly and easily be
removed by hordes of lawyers. Meanwhile, companies will continue to
send updated privacy policies to consumers, some of which will
invariably contain the poison pill of class action waivers. Advice:
Read these things. Even though I know you won't. [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


                            *********

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 ***